Hyehudi.org

קונטרס שוקיו עמודי שש

ובו יתבאר בעזה”י להלכה דין שוק באשה ערוה, מקום השוק, ואופן הכיסוי הראוי לשוק, על פי דברי הגמרא והפוסקים ראשונים ואחרונים

Download (PDF, 517KB)

Reprinted with permission.

Why the Mizrachi/Mafdal/Bayit Yehudi/ Religious Zionists never got anywhere politically.

Excerpt from a recent brilliant article by Moshe Feiglin:

Both Religious Zionism and Haredism are a reaction to Zionism.  An attempt to reconcile the inherent contradiction between the Torah of Israel and Zionism. After all, Zionism has “nothing to do with religion” (as the First Zionist Congress determined). Zionism had made it its goal to nationalize the Jewish people and turn it into a modern and sovereign nation, a nation that has no God but only a parliament.

In response, Haredism developed an ideology that views Zionism as a new type of non-Jewish government, sophisticated, and in a sense even more dangerous. Their conclusion was to put up walls and have separate and segregated communities. This is how Haredism was born.

In contrast to Haredism, Religious Zionism identified a spot of holiness in Zionism and tried to join arms with it. Rav Kook went so far as to formulate the necessary synergy within the framework of a very broad and complex coherent ideology.

In practice, however, Religious Zionism failed to bring the Kookian ideology to the ground level of reality and create that synthesis.  Zionism, which had nothing to do with religion, and religion (unlike the Torah), that had nothing to do with national sovereignty, remained in contradiction, and Religious Zionism is, therefore, an oxymoron.

Generations of “knitted kippah wearers” grew up within this contradiction between their Zionism and their religiosity. This created an ideological split personality: “Be religious at home and Zionist when you go outside”… Instead of settling the contradiction by developing the ideological foundations formulated by Rav Kook and assuming responsibility for leading Zionism, the knitted kippah wearers developed a naive belief that the process of redemption is deterministic. Secular Zionism is the “donkey of the Messiah” that unwittingly leads us to salvation. Since no ideology had been developed that connected the Torah of Israel to modern sovereign national existence, it was inconceivable to try to challenge Israeli reality with that kind of leadership. Issues such as the proper economic regime, the level of state involvement in the life of the citizen, liberty versus equality, etc. – were of no interest, and weren’t ironed out.

The Six-Day War and its miracles “proved” that there was no need for such leadership. The Creator took the reins, and in total contradiction to the will of the Zionist leaders – including the leaders of Religious Zionism – threw the biblical districts into their arms.  The “donkey of the Messiah” found itself stuck, against its will, with the stones of the Kotel…

It was only natural that Religious Zionism was devoid of the relevant ideology. It wouldn’t try to take national responsibility and challenge the Israeli reality with an alternative leadership at this point but instead would make do with safeguarding the existing situation so that there would be no “malfunction” in the process of redemption. That’s how the settlement enterprise began (without which, it’s doubtful if the State of Israel could have continued to exist).

The knitted kippah “split personality” was proven to be effective. It was enough to make do with the settlements, and leave the responsibility for leading the modern return to Zion to the (blind) leaders of Zionism, and rely on the God of history, who would lead them in the right direction. In the end, somehow, everyone would repent and everything would work out according to our dreams…

The Yom Kippur War exposed the loss of Zionist momentum. The frailty of Israeli existence created a deep crisis and once more raised questions of substance. What’s the mission that makes it worth living here under constant existential danger?

Zionist writers and poets (Moshe Shamir, Ephraim Kishon, Naomi Shemer) identified the religious enthusiasm of the new settler generation and saw Sebastia as the continuation of the success of Degania. For them, it was natural that along with the enthusiastic Zionist activity, the responsibility for filling the ranks of national leadership that had lost its vision would also come. Just as graduates of kibbutzim had taken over most national leadership positions at the time, it was only natural that along with the Zionist enthusiasm for settling the liberated parts of the country, the responsibility and aspiration to lead the country would come as well.

When this didn’t happen, when the settlers ran to the hills but left the responsibility for the results and daily existence to the old leadership (which would clean up after them…), the expectation turned into disappointment. The settlers became a nuisance, and to the left, even the object of hatred.

When the “donkey of the Messiah” refused to march in line with the “process of redemption”, the settlers became disgruntled. The image of the angry settler with the Uzi and the winter coat became a stereotype. The processes fed on each other and the polarization deepened.

The Oslo accords brought by the left, and the disengagement brought by the right, threw Religious Zionism’s irrelevance in its face.  It hadn’t succeeded in ensuring, through settlement alone, the deterministic existence of the process of redemption. The grip on the lands of the Bible had become fragile and bulldozers destroying neighborhoods and whole communities have become a daily reality.

Continue reading on Zehut International…

When I once noted Hyehudi is allied with, but not fully agreed to Kedushas Tzion, I was swamped at once with queries to explain why and wherefore.

I think the following Open Letter from Kedushas Tzion to Knesset Member B. Smotrich, makes this clear.

Download (PDF, 2.42MB)

Sic.

There is very good reason almost no one has ever or will ever claim the “Halachic State” mantle; the term is an oxymoron!

We explained this many times (but always have new readers!). The goals of the modern State, let alone the means, are most all illegitimate. You can have national autonomy without a parliament. All that required in this country was allowing the British Mandate to expire, and not putting anything in its place.

“Medinat Halacha” is “lip service” for the so-called radical Right (Source: Yeshayahu Leibowitz), and as a fundraising vehicle for Meretz (which only pretends to support the separation of religion and state — unlike Zehut. What they really support is using the State to bash religious Jews even harder).

The idea uttered by Smotrich, and supported by the above Open Letter, namely the pig-lipstick of introducing some (some!) Torah law into the goyishe Israeli courts, is discredited every day anew – and it doesn’t fool religious Jews any better than Mohammed’s attempts to give Mohammedanism a Jewish veneer, either (I hope).

Some of the things the regime does are already the exclusive responsibility of Beis Din it inexcusably shirks, so the addition of a state entity is superfluous, while it would be the responsibility of Beis Din to actively stop other things, such as central banking, prisons, the army draft, centralized water supply, etc.

Yes, let’s get serious about applying Halacha to every walk of life (but not like this). This entails, as a very first measure, abolishing the state. Legislative “reforms” are always and everywhere a sad joke. Is Kedushas Tzion endorsing the coercive methods of Brit Hakanna’im“?!

And it’s easier to secede in a million ways little and large and then lead the seculars our way by shining example (not war!) than to get the Knesset to vote on its dissolution, like the USSR (Heh!). At least they aren’t into political activism yet…

In this connection, see this past article, too.

And speaking of vital disagreement with Kedushas Tzion, I see current Judaism’s ailment as far deeper than “missing kosher Zionism”, so my general strategy is, too, accordingly different.

To quote myself:

… I notice the Kedushas Tzion writers take care not to name their opponents. This is probably due to the Gra on בנפל אויביך אל תשמח.

Myself, I have a different strategy. See, if these topics were merely about ABCD, then surely we should guard the dignity of the mistaken (for many reasons). But in this case, “The issue is never the issue”. The specific issues are supposed to be a hook to get the reader to re-examine everything else he learned from his rabbis.

I want him to think: If they could be wrong on so basic and obvious a matter as ABC, what else could they be wrong about?