Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 124

Tuesday, July 13 1999

• Allegorical interpretations
• Re: Flood
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• Re: Allegorical interpretations
• Re: Flood
• Science
• Re: Flood
• Re: R.S.R.Hirsch - Myth & Truth

With regard to Rav Bechhofer's article on allegorical interpretation, without
being polemical, I have the following questions.

1)  He argues that allegorical interpretations are only legitimate if they have
a source, preferably in hazal, perhaps in a rishon.
    While I understand the sevara, is there any textual source for this issur? 
The rishonim he brings with deal with the specific issue of whether a particular
allegorical interpretation is acceptable. Do any deal with the general issur of
banniing new allegorical interpretation that Rav Bechhofer suggests?  I don't
think that most believe that there is an issur of interpreting Torah against,
say, the Ramban, even though this is not done lightly.  Rav Bechhofer in
previous postings has suggested that he disagrees with the Ramban's
interpretation of seven days of creation as 7 24 hour days.    Why is this
qualitatively different?   
    
2)  The sevara seems ultimately is dependent on (although I don't think that it
necessarily follows from) on the belief that  the mesora from hazal is
normative.  While no one on this list will cavalierly dismiss hazal, Rav
Bechhofer is well aware of the position, taken by various gdolim from  Hai Gaon
to Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch, that in matters of aggadta there is no binding
mesora, and that if one can not understand an aggadta, one is allowed to dismiss
it, as the aggadta is not based on torah misinai.  This position is
controversial, so much so that rav Hirsch's position has now been denied. 
However, is Rav Bechhofer's position dependent on the assumption that hazal's
tradition in aggadta has binding value, or can he reformulate it even according
to Hai Gaon and RSRH?

3) In one of his letters (either 134 or 135) Rav Kook seems to explicitly reject 
Rav Bechhofer's position, even though Rav Kook clearly does believe in the
binding value of aggadta. He argues that Torah and hazal were not interested in 
the narrative portion, only in the lessons to be derived.  He then goes on to
say that the way to resolve conflicts arising between science and Torah is to
extend the allegorical approach started by rishonim and especially the Rambam. 
He then specifically applies this to the Gan Eden story.  While one may disagree
with Rav Kook, this would seem an explicit sanction from a gadol for this
approach.  Given such sanction, why is this approach so problematic and not to
be considered one of the shivim panim of the torah?

4)  Rav Bechhofer worries that there seems to be no barrier to the allegorical
interpretation of everything, even yetziat mitzraim.  The truth of the
allegorical interpretation is a different issue,  although I am not sure of the
basis that someone who accepts torah misinai and ol malchut shamaim, but
allegorically interpretes much of tanach, should to be excluded from the fold. 
However, Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook has argued that there is a tradition that precise
history starts with Avraham, while the parts before are "parahistory", and
considered to be part of ein dorshin bemaase breshit (based on zchor yemot olam
- pre avraham, but binu shnot dor vador), suggesting that there is a basis for
differentiating the nature of the history from Avraham on to that of the flood
and Gan Eden.



Meir Shinnar

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Stokar, Saul (MED) wrote:

> Regarding Rav Bechhofer's post of the mail-jewish correspondence on the
> allegorical interpretation of the Biblical account of the Flood (the
> original m-j posting is in V16 no 36), I'd like to ask one question
> which didn't seem to be addressed therein. Granting Rav Bechhofers's
> claim that the overwhelming majority of ancient and medieval
> commentators understood the Biblical accounts of the Flood and Gan Eden
> literally, why is that relevant? 

Because Judaism rises and falls on the concept of Mesorah.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Sholem Berger wrote:

> Even if one grants the truth of this philosophy, one questions its
> relevance to the Mabul. While the doctrine of catastrophism had its ups
> and downs in popularity during the 18th and 19th century, with the rise
> of the modern science of geology in the late 19th century the notion of
> a worldwide flood fell out of favor with scientific practiioners -- I
> believe for good, but if there is currently controversy with regard to
> the matter I apologize for my ignorance. In other words: science does
> not recognize the Flood as a geologic or climatological event. If this
> means you must reject science, gezunterhayt, but do not tar the practice
> of science itself with your philosophical brush. 
> 

I guess that means we must, form your perspective, reject science. That
is, however, not mine. I believe science is just not yet up to fully
grasping and confirming the truth revealed inthe Torah. Science is,
however, progressing towards that result.

> Ad kan my scientific thoughts, motivated by at least some modicum of
> training.  Now a comment lefi aniyus dati on the difference between
> allegory and vision as employed in the interpretations of the Rishonim:
> could you explain it?  If a vision is seen in the mind's eye of the
> prophet and does not play itself out in the sensory world to which we
> are privy, how is it different from an allegory? The visions of the
> prophets are indeed truth, but to call them "literal truth" seems a bit
> of a misclassification, like calling Matan Torah an "accurate
> description." These are transcendentals we're talking about! 
>

Allegory is parable or fable.

Visions are real. They take place in the spiritual realm. The Rambam
enumerates belief in their realness as an ikkar.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:

> 1)  He argues that allegorical interpretations are only legitimate if
> they have a source, preferably in hazal, perhaps in a rishon.
>     While I understand the sevara, is there any textual source for this
> issur? The rishonim he brings with deal with the specific issue of
> whether a particular allegorical interpretation is acceptable. Do any
> deal with the general issur of banniing new allegorical interpretation
> that Rav Bechhofer suggests?  I don't think that most believe that there

There probably are mekoros to be mustered, but I do not think it is
necessary. Lama li kra, sevara hu.

> is an issur of interpreting Torah against, say, the Ramban, even though
> this is not done lightly.  Rav Bechhofer in previous postings has
> suggested that he disagrees with the Ramban's interpretation of seven
> days of creation as 7 24 hour days.  Why is this qualitatively
> different?
> 

1. I do not disagree with the Ramban.

2. The Ramban is a Rishon, not Chazal.
    
> 2)  The sevara seems ultimately is dependent on (although I don't think
> that it necessarily follows from) on the belief that the mesora from
> hazal is normative.  While no one on this list will cavalierly dismiss
> hazal, Rav Bechhofer is well aware of the position, taken by various
> gdolim from Hai Gaon to Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch, that in matters of
> aggadta there is no binding mesora, and that if one can not understand
> an aggadta, one is allowed to dismiss it, as the aggadta is not based on
> torah misinai.  This position is controversial, so much so that rav
> Hirsch's position has now been denied. However, is Rav Bechhofer's
> position dependent on the assumption that hazal's tradition in aggadta
> has binding value, or can he reformulate it even according to Hai Gaon
> and RSRH? 
>

I have no problem with RSRH and RSG's position. The issue we are
discussing here is not one of Aggada. Firstly, we are actually
discussing Chumash, not Aggadat. But, beyond that, Mesorah is not Aggada,
nor is it precisely Halacha. It transcends both realms and underlies them.

 
> 3) In one of his letters (either 134 or 135) Rav Kook seems to
> explicitly reject Rav Bechhofer's position, even though Rav Kook clearly
> does believe in the binding value of aggadta. He argues that Torah and
> hazal were not interested in the narrative portion, only in the lessons
> to be derived.  He then goes on to say that the way to resolve conflicts
> arising between science and Torah is to extend the allegorical approach
> started by rishonim and especially the Rambam.  He then specifically
> applies this to the Gan Eden story.  While one may disagree with Rav
> Kook, this would seem an explicit sanction from a gadol for this
> approach.  Given such sanction, why is this approach so problematic and
> not to be considered one of the shivim panim of the torah? 
> 

Hmm. Interesting. Could we have the exact reference and quote?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I place my vote with Saul Stokar on this issue.

Some additional points with regard to RYGB's presentation:

I am surprised at the chiluk drawn between allegory and dream. 
Either the events occurred--as per pashut pshat of the text--or they
didn't.  Obviously, if it is possible to make something into a dream
(e.g. Bilaam and the ass), that is preferable.  But it is far from
pashut pshat to say that the talking ass was just a dream.

I also found troubling RYGB "rejection" of the Sforno dealing with
the serpent in Gan Eden.  Is the Sforno outside the shiv'im panim
la'torah?  If the Sforno had written the Tradition article about the
Flood, would RYGB be clamoring for a denunciation of the article?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

--- "Stokar, Saul (MED)" <STOKASA@euromsx.gemse.fr> wrote:
> It should not be surprising that in the absence of any
> obvious
> contradictions with science, the Biblical story was understood
> literally.
> However, nowadays, the situation is quite different, as the
> original poster
> stated, viz.
>  
> 	"However, the entire received body of knowledge in just about
> every
> field of human 
> 	study is dependant on the fact that the world is not 5000 years
> old
> and that there was 	not a flood. These facts are the fundamentals
> of
> biology, physics, astronomy, history, 
> 	anthropology, geology, palentology, zoology, linguistics etc." 
> 
> Thus we inexorably arrive at the question, "what would sage X have
> thought
> today, given our current state of knowledge?". Though I am
> generally quite
> skeptical about such speculations, perhaps in this case we can shed
> some
> light by examining Chazal's response to other such "paradigm"
> changes in the
> past. Before continuing, I would like to emphasize that examples
> from before
> the rise of modern science (i.e. before the 15-th-16-th century)
> shed no
> light on Chazal's response to such contradictions. In, say, the
> Rambam's
> time, science was qualitatively different from modern science,
> inseparably
> bound up with philosophy (just like in Rambam's Sefer Madda) and
> scientific
> theories were much less compelling, even in contemporary eyes. 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

While I do not need science to confirm the Torah, as I am sure none here
do, I present this as evidence of the tides of change in rhe scientific
world, the ebb and flow of flood theories. My thanks to the individual who
forwarded this to me. Hope it will provoke some sea changes in thinking.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------

X-URL:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5354/1132?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=279&firstpage=1132

ARCHAEOLOGY:  Black Sea Deluge May Have Helped Spread Farming

   Richard A. Kerr

   Imagine 50 cubic kilometers of Mediterranean seawater, a torrent
   equivalent to 200 Niagara Falls, pouring through a narrow strait and
   cascading 150 meters into the Black Sea every day. Audible for 500
   kilometers, such a deluge would have raised the level of the Black Sea
   15 centimeters a day, swallowing a kilometer or two of shoreline--as
   well as any slow-footed inhabitants. But the flood, possibly the most
   catastrophic that humans have witnessed, was apparently not imaginary.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Illustration
   The big gush. Water pouring through the Bosporus may have suddenly
   created a larger Black Sea (light blue).
     _________________________________________________________________

   Based on analyses of Black Sea sediments, oceanographers William Ryan
   and Walter Pitman of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in
   Palisades, New York, have put together evidence that about 7500 years
   ago, this great deluge really happened, suddenly filling the Black Sea
   to its present level. "People would have been terrified," notes
   Pitman. He and Ryan go on to suggest that the disaster helped spread
   farming into central Europe, and perhaps even inspired the biblical
   account of Noah and the flood.

   This catastrophic tale, which Pitman and Ryan presented at a recent
   American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, is winning
   support among oceanographers and gaining some serious attention from
   initially incredulous archaeologists. The case for a flood is
   "persuasive, although more work needs to be done," says oceanographer
   David Ross of Massachusetts' Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who
   has worked extensively in the Black Sea. But when it comes to the
   flood's impact on human prehistory, archaeologists are cautious. Such
   a flood may have driven farmers on the Black Sea coast into other
   parts of Europe, says archaeologist Douglas Bailey of the University
   of Wales at Cardiff, "but I don't think it was that dramatic. There's
   no one explanation that covers the emergence of agriculture across
   Europe."

   Today, the Black Sea is a brackish inland sea, fed by fresh water from
   European rivers and saltier, Mediterranean seawater flowing in through
   the Bosporus strait. In the 1970s and '80s, cores through
   now-submerged sediments off the northern and western coasts revealed
   the remains of a coastal plain that was exposed late in the last ice
   age and into the interglacial warmth of the past 10,000 years. Long
   after glacial meltwaters began raising world sea levels, it seems, the
   Black Sea was a freshwater lake, much smaller and lower than today's
   sea; it was cut off from the Mediterranean because the level of that
   sea was even lower than the Bosporus.

   Evidence that a rising Mediterranean suddenly refilled this lowered
   Black Sea emerged from a joint Russian-U.S. expedition in 1993, during
   which researchers used seismic waves to image the layers of sediment
   at the bottom of the Black Sea. If rising waters had crept slowly
   across the coastal plain, they would have deposited a wedge of
   sediment as they went. But as Ryan, Pitman, and colleagues reported in
   Marine Geology last year, they saw no sign of that. Instead, they
   found a thin, uniform dusting of sediment, consistent with a
   geologically instantaneous refilling of the Black Sea.

   In addition, radiocarbon dating of the shells of the first
   salt-tolerant molluscan invaders from the Mediterranean yielded the
   same age--7550 years before present, plus or minus 100
   years--regardless of whether the shells came from deep, permanently
   flooded sediments or from the shallow shelf. If the refilling had been
   gradual, the team reasoned, the shells in deeper water would have been
   laid down first.

   Finally, seismic probing has shown that the hard-rock basement beneath
   the sediments filling the Bosporus channel lies at a depth of nearly
   100 meters, rather than 35 meters, as had been thought. So the
   floodwaters could have cut a very deep channel through the sediments
   and down to bedrock, letting the water spill through far faster.

   Oceanographers are slowly accepting the notion of a catastrophic
   refilling. "I think they're probably right about the flood," says
   oceanographer Michael Arthur of Pennsylvania State University in
   University Park. But Ryan and Pitman go far beyond that, proposing
   that the flood also fostered the spread of agriculture across
   Neolithic Europe. By 9000 years ago, farming--both cultivating grains
   and raising livestock--had originated in southwestern Asia; by 8000
   years ago, it had spread to Greece and into the Balkans, including
   Romania and Bulgaria. Farming stayed in this region for some
   centuries, then surged across eastern Europe and into central Europe
   east of the Rhine River at about the same time as the flood, Bailey
   notes. Archaeologists debate whether the migration of people or the
   passing of seeds and animals from neighbor to neighbor drove the
   dispersion of farming. Pitman and Ryan argue for mass migration.

   "We would say this flood caused a diaspora," says Pitman. The timing
   is right, he says, to have driven Neolithic farmers up the rich river
   valleys into central Europe, as well as Egypt and southern
   Mesopotamia, where a new and distinctive farming culture appears at
   about that time. In the Mesopotamian kingdoms, the shaken immigrants'
   tales might have grown into the Sumerian flood myth and eventually
   evolved into the biblical flood, he suggests.

   Others aren't so sure that the Black Sea flood was behind
   agriculture's spread. Arthur, for one, argues that the timing may be
   off. He notes that Pitman and Ryan date the flood to the same
   radiocarbon age as the first sediments laid down after the flooding,
   which were black and organic rich and therefore formed in conditions
   lacking oxygen. But Arthur thinks that the flooding may in fact have
   occurred 2000 years earlier. According to his geochemical model,
   that's how long it would take to remove all the oxygen from the dense,
   salty water that flowed into the deep Black Sea. If so, the flood
   would have been too early to account for the arrival of new farmers in
   Europe.

   Archaeologists also remain reluctant to link the flood to major
   upheavals in human history. One of them, Peter Bogucki of Princeton
   University, says he is "fascinated" by what Pitman and Ryan are doing,
   but without any direct evidence that its effects cascaded throughout
   Europe, he is "not ready to see the flood as the trigger for massive,
   continental-scale change. ... The spread of agriculture [was] a very
   complicated event."

   As for the flood myths, no one will ever be certain of their origins,
   concedes Pitman. But researchers can hope to refine the crucial timing
   of the flood and its putative effects. More data on just when and
   where the practice of farming spread may help prove--or disprove--this
   flood story.

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> I place my vote with Saul Stokar on this issue.
>

I was not aware that we were voting on something. What is the proposal? I
did not see Dr. Stokar make one.
 
> I am surprised at the chiluk drawn between allegory and dream.  Either
> the events occurred--as per pashut pshat of the text--or they didn't. 
> Obviously, if it is possible to make something into a dream (e.g. Bilaam
> and the ass), that is preferable.  But it is far from pashut pshat to
> say that the talking ass was just a dream. 
> 

A prophetic dream or vision is not, according to the Rambam, your or my
experience of a dream. It does not originate in the subconscious but in
divine flow.

> I also found troubling RYGB "rejection" of the Sforno dealing with the
> serpent in Gan Eden.  Is the Sforno outside the shiv'im panim la'torah? 

I think so, yes.

> If the Sforno had written the Tradition article about the Flood, would
> RYGB be clamoring for a denunciation of the article? 
> 

Clamor is a a strong verb. I do not see myself clamoring here either. I
think we are discussing an issue. If the Sforno wrote the essay it would
be causee for such discussion as well. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Here's the attachment R' YGB spoke of, an excerpt of Prof. Levi's book,
defending his position.

-mi

From: Yehudah Levi, Facing Current Challenges, Hemed Books, Brooklyn (1998)

2. Zionism: A Torah Perspective
   """""""" " """"" """""""""""

In Israel, Zionism has become a somewhat paradoxical term. For some it is
synonymous with hypocrisy; for others an ideal that has become obsolete.
For both groups Zionism expresses an old-fashioned concept.

At the same time, there are still many fine people who identify with it.
Even among those who privately mock it, some become incensed if others do
the same. In other words, even today Zionism is a term that carries great
emotional weight for a sizable portion of Israel's population.

What Is Zionism?
"""" "" """"""""

Some define Zionism as love of Zion -- on first sight quite a reasonable
definition. It does not, however, fit the normal use of the word. If love
of Zion made one a Zionist, the extreme anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, who
loved Zion to the point that they refused to leave Jerusalem even during the
War of Independence, would be the greatest Zionists of all. Few, however,
would classify them as such. It follows that this is not the accepted use
of the word.

As Torah-true Jews, we turn to the Torah to find a definition of the term;
but here we search in vain, for Zionism is not a Torah term. This leaves us
no choice but to accept the definition given by those who coined the term:
"devotion to the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Land of
Israel as a primary ideal."

In the preceding essay we suggested that Judaism is essentially nationalistic.
We discovered that there are two types of nationalism -- primary nationalism,
which views the welfare of the nation as a supreme value; and secondary
nationalism, which places the nation's mission at the top of its values
hierarchy, and views the nation itself as a tool.

Leaving religious Zionism aside for now, which of these characterizes general
Zionism? Its purpose, as stated, is only the establishment and advancement
of a national home for the Jewish people. Hence Zionism sees the nation
as a supreme value, whereas regarding the Torah it explicitly declares,
"Zionism has nothing to do with religion."[1] Thus, in accordance with the
conclusion of the preceding essay, it is nationalism for its own sake and
should not be viewed as inherently positive.

True, from the inception of the state, its Zionist founders have repeatedly
declared that they wish to propagate humanist values in the world. But since
they share these values with most of humanity, this declaration amounts
to not much more than stating, "We are going to be a good nation" -- and
this is neither unique to Zionism, nor would it seem to affect its status of
primary nationalism. After all, it was never the intent of these founders to
subordinate their concept of nationhood to the Torah. In fact, they were tired
of being special and wanted a nation that would be just like all other nations.

While the idea of a "Jewish national home" certainly sounds attractive, as
a supreme ideal it has various opponents. For example, the leftists among
us will claim that if Zionism consists solely of the desire to establish
a national home, it constitutes a terrible injustice to the Arabs living
here, no matter how much we refer to a three-thousand-year-old history.
Historical claims, they say, make no impression on anyone; even those of the
American Indian are ignored. The bottom line is this: as long as we reject
the position of secondary nationalism demanded by the Torah, and, instead,
assume the role of primary nationalists, we are really nothing but thieves.

Religious Zionism
""""""""" """""""

What about religious Zionism? There are many views as to what it signifies.
Based on the simple meaning of the words, it is Zionism -- hence primary
nationalism -- that favors religion and sees in it an important supplement to
Zionism. It follows that the religious Zionist will wish to strengthen religion
in the nation, because he sees this as being of benefit, even great benefit,
to the nation. Even so, as long as he is a Zionist according to the meaning
of the term as analyzed above, he will still view the nation as the supreme
value. In the words of the first Chief Rabbi of the State, Rabbi A.Y. Kook:

    Zionism... will never be a stronghold for the whole nation, because it
    intrinsically fails to grasp the holy eternal light of the nation's soul,
    the spirit of the true God in its midst. Thus, it will do well in the
    secular area of building up the nation, but will never be able to deal
    with its spiritual side. That task stands ready for other workers of
    an entirely different type. These will develop, from all places, out of
    the "wilderness" of the Chareidim, those who faithfully and truthfully
    opposed Zionism.[2]

It is revealing that even Achad Ha'am felt this when he wrote:

    I could bring proof from the Torah [of its compatibility with Zionism], as
    indeed many of the Rabbis have done; but I do not like to deceive people.
    ... There is occasionally an inconsistency, hidden deep within the soul,
    which eventually leads to the rejection of the demands of faith. So it
    is with Zionism, when it is taken as encompassing all of Judaism as a
    complete ideology and not simply as supporting settling Eretz Yisrael.

This letter to one of the chassidic Rabbeyim is quoted by Rabbi M.A. Amiel,
late Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, another spiritual leader of the Mizrachi,
with the following comment:

    The "Admur" did not find any contradiction between Zionism and emunah;
    Achad Ha'Am davka did. Halakhah holds that the admission of the accused
    carries weight like a hundred witnesses. Even if all the Rabbis and
    "Admurim" would claim that there is no contradiction between emunah and
    Zionism, his opinion is more creditable than all of theirs.[3]

"Zionists" Who Are Not Zionists
"""""""""" """ """ """ """"""""

In the religious Zionist camp there are also many who view the Torah,
rather than the nation, as the supreme value. When they see themselves as
Zionists, they use Zionism to mean something entirely different from the
accepted meaning. Such usage turns the term into an obstruction to effective
communication; beyond this, it may compromise the clarity of thought of
those who use it.

The source of the problem lies in the fact that the term Zionism was coined
by a non-observant Jew,[4] and as noted, it is impossible to clarify
its meaning using Torah sources. It is therefore appropriate to assign
the term the meaning attributed to it by most of the people who use it,
and to formulate a new term for those who do not use it to refer to primary
nationalism. Presumably Rabbi Y.D. Soloveitchik, the late spiritual leader of
the Mizrachi movement in the United States, had this in mind when he wrote,
"We do not believe in 'Zionism plus religion' or 'religious Zionism.' For
us there is only one special noun -- Torah."[5]

Indicators of Zionism
"""""""""" "" """""""

Semantics aside, since Torah nationalism itself requires involvement in
Israel's political, economic, and military life, it is hard to find clear
indicators to differentiate between the true religious Zionist and the
Torah nationalist. Such indicators do, however, exist. One of these is the
attitude to Zionism's secular heroes. One for whom secular Zionism is bereft
of spiritual value will not admire or honor its leaders as long as they deny
Torah, his own supreme value. He will probably be grateful to them the way he
is to Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, who saves him precious
time, or Alexander Fleming, inventor of antibiotics, who has saved so many
lives. These personages, like those who created Zionism, are only tools of
Divine Providence for bringing the world to ultimate perfection. Although the
role of Zionism's creators is closer and more special to us, and we therefore
naturally feel toward them a more personal attachment, we should not let
this closeness warp our emotions. Gratitude -- yes; esteem -- certainly not.[6]

A second mark of Zionism is membership in the World Zionist Organization,
which has emblazoned on its banner the motto "Zionism has nothing to do with
religion." With this motto it casts off the rule of God, and attempts to
remove the Jewish people from Judaism. Such an act transforms the organization
into a heretical institution, requiring us to distance ourselves from it
even more than from idolatry. This apparently is the reason Rav Kook himself
never joined Mizrachi, which was a member of the World Zionist Organization.[7]

It is important to stress here that the issue does not involve distancing
oneself from the members of the organization as private individuals. In the
view of many of the greatest halakhic authorities, almost all of these are
not considered heretics, but rather persons who were forcefully removed from
Torah -- "infants captured by gentiles and raised in their ways." Therefore,
our responsibility toward them does not cease; in fact it is our holy duty
to draw them close to their heritage.

Our relationship to their organizations is different, however. Toward these
there is no obligation to love, nor do extenuating circumstances apply to
them. A heretical organization cannot be classified as a "child captured by
gentiles." Rather, it remains a heretical organization, regarding which we
are taught, "Even if someone is being pursued by a murderer or chased by
a poisonous snake, he may enter a house of idolatry but not the houses of
these."[8] Hence we are obligated to distance ourselves from organizations
built on heretical principles, even while we draw close the individuals that
form them.

Furthermore, before joining such an organization in order to influence
its members, we should consider the lack of prospects for success. As Rav
Kook said, "Although Mizrachi longs to introduce some holy sentiment into
Zionism, that is not enough. After all, Zionism was founded on secularism,
and secularism will always be primary to it, and holiness secondary."[9]

Finally, the most worrisome indicator of all is the instinctive hatred toward
those to whom the establishment of the secular state is not a desirable event.
In discussions with many religious Zionists, even some who are learned,
one finds greater identification with the secular Zionist than with the
religious anti-Zionist. Thus, for example, a survey of members of Ariel (a
Torah-oriented religious-nationalist youth organization) showed that two-thirds
of respondents preferred the secular Zionist to the religious anti-Zionist.[10]

It is clear that in surveys of this sort there are bound to surface certain
prejudices as regarding garb and deportment, fed by a smattering of negative
behavior patterns in the religious anti-Zionist sector. At the same time, we
have to take this phenomenon seriously. Ostensibly it involves just a slight
warping of the Torah perspective. In fact, it constitutes a serious distortion.

Even if we agree that the anti-Zionist charedi is really in error, his error
lies only in the way he interprets contemporary events, and according to
the Torah perspective such an error is not so grave. After all, R. 'Akiva
"was a follower of Bar Kokhba,"[11] i.e., he regarded him as the Messiah;
but we do not find the Talmud condemning him for this.

On the other hand, rejection of the Jewish tradition is a grave transgression:
"Those who deny the Oral Law are excluded from the Jewish people."[12]
Even though most, and perhaps all, Torah-authorities say these laws do
not generally apply to today's secular Jews, it is still hard to justify
preferring them over observant believers who are anti-Zionists.

I believe every Torah-true Jew must take pains to free himself of these
errors. Then, he will no longer be a Zionist-not a general Zionist, not even
a religious Zionist. He will be a lover of Israel, of the Land of Israel,
even an excellent citizen of the State of Israel. He will be engaged in the
state's advancement and in straightening its path, involved in its economy
and politics, and will take pains to awaken it to its purpose. A "Zionist,"
however, he will not be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES
"""""

Abbreviations used:
""""""""""""" """""
    BT/JT - Babylonian/ Jerusalem Talmud.
	M - Mishnah
       MR - Midrash Rabbah: I,II, etc. - Genesis, Exodus, etc.
      MRT - Midrash Rabbi Tanchuma
       MT - Mishneh Torah, RaMBaM
       TM - Minor tractates (Mesekhtoth Ketanoth)
       SA - Shulchan Arukh
    OC, YD, etc.- Orach Chayim, Yoreh Dei'ah etc.

Essay 2 Zionism: A Torah Perspective
""""" " """""""" " """"" """""""""""

1. Resolution adopted at tenth Zionist Congress (Basle, 1911).

2. Igroth RAYaH #871.

3. R. Mosheh A. Amiel, LiNevukhey HaTekufah, p. 281.

4. The term "Zionism" was coined by R. Nathan Birnbaum, who was, at the
   time, a total secularist. Later, he left Zionism, became a ba'al teshuvah
   and eventually Secretary General of Agudath Israel.

5. R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Chamesh Derashoth, p. 25.

6. While such a personage fills a presidential office, it might be argued
   that the laws of "royal honor" apply to him; however even this possibility
   evaporates after he left office.

7. Cf. Igroth RAYaH #571, where R. Kook writes: "This soul [that emanates
   from the Torah] cannot possibly animate the movement [Zionism], as long
   as on its forhead is engraved the sign of Cain, that 'Zionism is not
   concerned with religion.' " Ibid. #497: "The resolution proclaiming that
   'Zionism is not concerned with religion' ... truly gives the lie to all
   the Mizrachi propaganda."

	Concerning the halakhic aspects of joining the Zionist Organization,
	cf. at length below Essay 16, sec. "Association With Atheistic
	Organizations."

8. BT Shabbath 116a. For Rabbi Hirsch's letters (in English), see his Collected
   Writings 6:198-317 (Feldheim, 1990). For a summary of the major points of
   R. Hirsch's decision, see Tradition 93 (Fall 1967); pp. 95-102. Parts are
   cited also in Responsa Yad HaLevi (YD #129, par. 4) and in Mitzvoth HaShalom
   pp. 379-380. A more detailed discussion cf. below at the end of Essay 16.

9. Igroth RAYaH, Pt. 4, #1000.

10. Tafnith, No. 1, p. 17.

11. MT Melakhim 11:3.

12. MT Mamrim 3:2.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]