Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 6

It is a fact that there are societal fads in terms of the place of religion in various cultures. In the 1920s and '30s, religion in the U.S., and in most Western countries, was seen as essentially irrelevant by most people. In the 1940s, '50s and '60s, there was general respect and recognition of "moderate" religious views. This can be seen in movies and television; religious faith was a major part of the characters' lives, for the most part. The '70s, '80s and early '90s saw a huge upswing (especially in the U.S.) of fundamentalist religious beliefs and even cults of various kinds. From the '90s until the present, secularism and even atheism are everywhere, and religions have been put on the defensive in all Western societies.
In the 1930s, the question arose if it was possible to reconcile a strong Jewish identity with...atheism. As weird as this question sounds, the "cause' was taken up by a man named Mordecai Kaplan (1881-1983).
Kaplan began his life as an Orthodox Jew and rabbi. He was even a founder of the Young Israel movement; a network of Orthodox synagogues that exists to this day. He eventually came to JTS, the Conservative Seminary, where he became Professor of Homiletics (making sermons), a position he held for more than fifty years. He developed a very controversial theory. He saw G-d not as a being, but rather the sum of all existence; that which gives Man purpose and vision. (I am reminded of Yoda, in Star Wars, who tells Luke that the Force is the combined energy of all living things). Judaism is not a religion, but a civilization, built around the idea of shared experiences, commitment, and aspirations. He published two books in the 1930s based on this idea: "Judaism as a Civilization" and "Judaism Without the Supernatural". He was not, strictly speaking, an atheist. But he did not believe in the G-d of the Torah either. He preached for being a "Reconstructionist". That is, build a new Judaism where tradition has "a vote not a veto", but maintains the framework of traditional Jewish life as a backdrop to what later generations will build. Art, literature, all kinds of creativity were the cornerstones of Judaism for Kaplan. He was brutally critical of both Orthodoxy and Reform. The former for being too rigid, and holding beliefs which he thought made no sense in the modern world; the latter for betraying the foundations of our civilization. In JTS, he had many devoted and loving followers, but was bitterly opposed by much of the faculty for his abandonment of the Jewish concept of G-d. He kept strictly kosher. A colleague asked him why, since there was, in his opinion, no conscious G-d? He responded emotionally: "Because I'm a Jew. A Jew keeps kosher!".
He was denounced strongly by Orthodoxy as "the worst heretic of our times", with one rabbinic group actually issuing a formal ban of excommunication. A movement grew out of his ideas, which is known as the Reconstructionist Movement. It eventually formed its own seminary, and has synagogues in many locations around the world. Its membership is primarily an intellectual elite, and the movement is tiny compared with the others. It is characterized by acceptance of all expressions of Judaism, from Orthodox to atheist (it has been quipped by critics that they pray "to whom it may concern"). Its seminary has been a haven for advocates of many forms of Jewish religious and cultural variations. Its influence goes far beyond its own ranks, as numerous Jewish "cultural" foundations and institutions have been inspired by Reconstructionism. Many Conservative colleagues expressed to me their opinion that he was the most significant Jewish figure of the Twentieth Century, as he paved the way for purely cultural expressions of Judaism. Is it Judaism? I'll let you decide.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism part 5

Throughout most of the twentieth century, most Conservative rabbis were, for all intents and purposes, Orthodox. The decisions issued by the Committee on Law and Standards were mostly in accordance with Halachah (Jewish Law), and those that weren't were, at first, issued as emergency measures only. Little by little, emergency measures became standard policy, although a significant percentage of Conservative rabbis chose to ignore these policies in favor of traditional observances. The more right-wing Orthodox leaders were, nevertheless, scandalized by a movement that could embrace policies that were contrary even to the Torah, such as regulations regarding Kohanim (the Biblical priesthood). Even if many rejected these rulings, they were, nevertheless, part of a movement that endorsed these changes. Leading rabbinic figures ruled that a Conservative rabbi, even if personally observant, was, by definition, in violation of Torah.(One can only speculate whether the rabbis who relentlessly pursued even halachically observant rabbis in Conservative pulpits, didn't thereby drive the Conservative movement to the Left. I am convinced that this is the case.).  In the more "modern" Orthodox circles, there was condemnation of changes embraced by Conservatism, but contact with individual rabbis who maintained traditional standards were maintained. The main Orthodox rabbinical organization had, at that time, members who were affiliated with the Conservative movement. In fact, the main Modern Orthodox rabbinical organization was placing Orthodox rabbis in Conservative pulpits. National Orthodox Kashrut agencies had Conservative rabbis who were known to be "reliable" working as local supervisors in outlying areas where Orthodox rabbis could not be found. Even the Israeli Chief Rabbinate accepted Conservative conversions on a case-by-case basis. But all this was about to change.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the women's movement became a major factor in American society. Some men felt threatened by these challenges to long-held societal customs. Others saw as quite reasonable the demands for equal pay for equal work, and a host of other feminist demands. However, some issues of the Women's Movement in the early days were too much for men to handle, and even most women were put in difficult positions. Some radical feminists challenged the institution of marriage altogether as a form of slavery. Women who bore children were subject to taunts of "breeder". Although these trends subsided in the movement before long, nevertheless, there was much anxiety and unease between the sexes.
In the right-wing Orthodox world, the women's movement was met with suspicion. The demands of women were seen as a challenge to authority, rabbinic and otherwise. In Modern Orthodox circles, some rabbis embraced the changes as necessary, as long as they were kept within the bounds of halachah. Some organized separate women's only minyanim (prayer groups) where women's desire for participation in services could be met without doing violence to traditional roles. A few allowed women to wear tefillin. A few allowed women to lead non-essential parts of the service even where men were present. The problem was that some of the restrictions were Biblical, some rabbinic, and some by custom only. Those that were only custom, reasoned some Modern Orthodox rabbis, could be changed to meet the new demands. Others, even in Modern Orthodox circles, feared the "slippery slope". Where would this lead? What other traditions would be jettisoned? Some questioned the very motivation. Was it really a religious desire on the part of the feminists; or a political desire to undo what had always been done? Many of these issues remain to this day.
In the Conservative movement, there were three types of response. Those who took the view that even Biblical laws could be changed if not in line with current values, embraced full equality of women in all areas, irrespective of limitations of halachah. The more traditional elements were opposed, based on halalchic standards, as well as fears of the slippery slope. There was a large "middle ground" that welcomed a reexamination of sources, with a view of changing what was non-essential, while maintaining halachah. The newly retired long-time chancellor of JTS, Rabbi Dr, Shaul Lieberman, highly respected even by many Orthodox leaders, issued an impassioned plea against any change in this area. He feared that it would not stop with feminist issues, but result in a questioning of traditional Judaism altogether. But many of his students disagreed. Perhaps it WAS time for a new look at women's roles. They said let's write papers, let's have them peer-reviewed. Where changes were warranted, we'll change. Where contrary to halachic norms, we won't. One of the main advocates for this view, a man whom I greatly respect and admire, was Rabbi Alan Yuter. He is a brilliant scholar, and a man of incredible passion for truth. (I have met him a few times, but have corresponded with him much). But soon he, and many of his colleagues, felt that they had been slapped in the face. The lay leadership of the movement informed the rabbis that there was no time for papers. Full equality for women was a grassroots demand, and it had to be approved yesterday. Some of the left-wing issued hastily drawn up papers justifying this, with "halachic" reasoning that was, to say the least, strained. Seeing that they had no majority for these changes among their rabbis, the lay branch set up a different method of voting that would ensure the passage of these measures. Rabbi Yuter and his friends felt betrayed. Their openness was "rewarded" with a flagrant bypass of even Conservative norms. Although many chose to remain in the movement, forming a vocal protest group, others, including Rabbi Yuter, left. He joined the Orthodox rabbinical group, and took a position at a Baltimore Orthodox synagogue (at a $40,000 cut from his previous salary), which he held for several decades until his retirement. It must be emphasized that it wasn't the feminist, or Egalitarian issue that bothered these men,.It was the abandonment of halachah as the deciding factor in rendering decisions. A common quip which I hear from friends who are Conservative rabbis, satirizing the classical Zionist slogan "If you will it, it is no fable", now became "if you will it, it is not the halachah".
To be sure, there are Conservative rabbis who maintain a large degree of commitment to traditional Jewish values and practices. But the movement had taken a huge left turn. It still issues "halachic pronouncements", but sources no longer have a veto. After 1980, more and more issues were dealt with in this way; many details of Shabbat observance, homosexuality, definition of who is a Jew; even intermarriage were accepted, or are at least  "on the table" for discussion. Often, they will openly declare a Biblical or Talmudic law to be abolished.
(One caveat to all this: In outlying areas, where there are generally no Orthodox synagogues, the Conservative synagogues often accommodate Orthodox individuals by making sure that traditional ways are kept; maintaining a non-threatening atmosphere. I have friends who live in such communities, and I have seen many like this)
The response of Orthodox leadership was to cut all ties with the movement. Orthodox rabbis were no longer to be placed in Conservative synagogues; those already there were urged to leave. A huge gulf now existed, with little room for discussion. Are they Jews? of course. Both sides still work together on many issues that face the Jewish community. But halachah was no longer a shared legacy, albeit with differences. Each movement has, sadly, gone its own way. The Jewish people are definitely the poorer for it. The Conservative movement lost membership, going, in just a few short years, from being the largest of the movements to the smallest. May G-d enlighten us with His Torah, and bring unity to our People!
In my next installment, I will discuss the Reconstructionist movement.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 4

At the end of my last post, I alluded to the fact that an element of German Jewish tradition took on a new meaning in the Conservative movement that put, over time, a considerable distance between it and Orthodoxy.
The method of studying, especially Talmud, of the European yeshivot, was, and is, to analyze, compare texts, and determine the meaning and implication of passages. This method goes back to the Medieval scholars of France and Germany, perfected in the great yeshivot of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Lithuania. Particularly after the Shabbetai Tzvi debacle, the goal of study became study itself, without emotionalism or spiritual speculation. I have previously discussed the fact that the Sepharadic method was different; placing the emphasis on coming to practical conclusions. In Germany, a new and controversial method of study developed. Texts were analyzed from a "scientific" perspective. Who made the statement? Why did he make it? Were there political or social motives behind statements? Did the fact that a particular Talmudic sage was the son/brother/brother-in-law/cousin of another sage influence his thinking? From a method of study, this turned into a movement in nineteenth-century Germany called Wissenschaft des Judentums (Jewish Knowledge). The Wissensschaft people turned away from Orthodoxy, even seeing traditional Judaism as a relic that needed to be studied. Being a "Jewish Scholar", for them, took on the meaning of the scientific study of what was. Spirituality or observance now took on a very secondary, or even negative, image. I am reminded of Woody Allen's sarcastic analysis of musicology; that one can't appreciate a great piece of music unless one knows the date and place of birth of the composer. Orthodox scholars pointed out that this method was draining Judaism of its "sacral power". My late friend, "Pet" of the Reform movement once told me "When things were good in Judaism, people studied Judaism. When things were bad, they wrote Jewish history".
Many of the faculty at the (Conservative)  Jewish Theological Seminary were influenced by the Wissenscaft movement. Unlike their German counterparts, they remained committed, at first, to Jewish law and tradition. But the methodology changed from looking for what the sacred texts were telling us, to sources for analysis from a scientific, literary and social standpoint. It was a form of Orthodoxy to be sure, but one concentrating on what happened and why, rather than what is its enduring message. There was actually a serious consideration to merge JTS with (the Orthodox)Yeshiva University in the late 1920s, which failed not over the issue of theology or practice, but over the method of study.
Eventually, a portion of the faculty of JTS came up with the following reasoning: If we are seeing Judaism as the result of a historical process, can we not further that process? In other words, if our current values conflict with Talmudic, or even Biblical values, our own values should be seen as no less valid, trumping the ancient ones.
Most of the faculty of JTS recoiled at this idea. Analyze, see where things came from, study the implications of this analysis, sure. But reject Bible and Talmud in favor of societal trends? Absurd! From the 1930s onward, this became a divisive issue in the Conservative movement. The seminary had two factions in uneasy cohabitation. Students often felt compelled to choose sides. There were many areas of disagreement, but one issue in particular brought the movement to crisis in the late 1970s.That will be the topic of my next post.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 3

America in the nineteenth century was, Jewishly a wasteland. There had been a small Jewish community since the seventeenth century, mostly Spanish and Portuguese Jews, who had fled to Brazil, with some eventually coming to North America. They were joined in the eighteenth century by large numbers of German and Austrian Jews. The great migration of Eastern European, especially Russian Jews, didn't begin until 1885, reaching its climax in the first decades of the twentieth century. (Actually, Jews of the Russian empire, as Jews were not permitted to live in Russia proper.) However, well into the twentieth century, rabbinic scholarship was exceedingly rare. Most Orthodox rabbis were opposed to Jews braving the temptations of the New World. Assimilation and intermarriage, were the norm, taking a heavy toll already in the seventeenth century. Those who came with basic Jewish knowledge became rabbis in America. The same was, unfortunately, true of those who had little knowledge, but fraudulently passed themselves off as rabbis. This was true both in Reform and Orthodox circles.
A major factor in ameliorating this situation was a Reform rabbi, Isaac Meir Wise (not to be confused with the twentieth-century Reform leader, Stephen Wise).
Wise came to the United States in 1846, becoming the rabbi of the Reform Congregation in Albany, New York. He soon moved to Cincinnati, Ohio. He began campaigning for unity between factions in the Jewish community, and eliminating charlatans. Although Reform, he opposed the far more radical David  Einhorn, who had moved to a Sunday Sabbath. Wise sought drastic changes to Judaism as well, but sought to maintain a framework of Jewish tradition. He organized national conferences, at which problems facing the Jewish community were discussed, and solutions sought. His thrust was that Reform should develop on its own, but not cut ties with Orthodox Jews. He came up with a grand plan for a united seminary, where American rabbis could be trained; those wishing to be Reform would be Reform, and those wishing to be Orthodox would be Orthodox. The plan took shape in 1855, but didn't come to fruition until 1875, due largely to the American Civil War. He had the best scholars in America as faculty, from both factions. Jewish unity seemed an achievable goal. But then it happened. Exactly how is still a subject of debate. Non-kosher food was served at the first ordination dinner, including shrimp and lobster. Wise insisted that this was a mistake on the part of the caterer. But the Orthodox participants saw it as an affront, and a plot to push the Orthodox out. Did Wise have a change of heart on the subject of unity, or was it a real mistake? We'll never know. The result was clear. Battle lines were drawn, and the Orthodox faction decided to make its own seminary. The leader of the Orthodox faction, Sabato Morais (an Italian Jew), had been a professor of Bible at Wise's Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. He now proposed the founding of a rival institution in New York, called the Orthodox Theological Seminary. There was, however, a problem. There was in America only one first-class expert in Talmud. His name was Marcus Jastrow, and he was Reform. (Jastrow wrote an amazing dictionary of Talmudic Aramaic, which is a standard reference work to this day, even in Orthodox circles. I myself refer to it several times a week.) Morais asked Jastrow to teach at his new seminary. Jastrow agreed, on condition it not be called the "Orthodox Theological Seminary", but the "Jewish Theological Seminary", and that non-Orthodox ideas should be taught as well. From this seminary came forth Conservative Judaism, which did not become a separate movement for another fifty years. In the meantime, it was a uniquely American brand of Orthodoxy, mixing Old World principles with New World ideas and values. For the first several decades, the Seminary did not bestow the title "rabbi" on its graduates. The ordination read "Teacher/Preacher". It was felt that the European-style rabbi, an ivory tower figure who presided over a network of Jewish communal structures, was not what was needed. The rapidly assimilating community needed knowledgeable professionals who would bring them back to the Jewish path; not necessarily erudite scholars. Real questions of Jewish law could be directed to the Seminary, which eventually formed a "Committee of Jewish Law and Standards", which would rule on law, and decided which compromises to Jewish law were acceptable, and which simply were not. A later chancellor of the seminary would sum it up as follows: "Judaism is flexible, but not invertebrate". A uniquely German Jewish method of study was, however, eventually to be modified, making a new form of Judaism. Unlike the case with Reform, the brake was subtle; hardly noticeable at first. That story will be my next installment.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 2

One of the areas in which the Reform movement differs from the others is in the question of independence of rabbis and congregations. In both Orthodox and Conservative, although there is some leeway in both action and doctrine, there are still red lines. Reform allows its rabbis and congregations to set their own standards and styles. Therefore, there are many "flavors" of Reform, and it is difficult to generalize on anything.
In the mid and late twentieth century, two very different thinkers and leaders arose in American Reform. Both pulled Reform away from the "churchy" style that had characterized the movement for 200 years;.Most present-day Reform rabbis have been highly influenced by one or both.
One was Alvin J. Reines (1926–2004). He developed the idea called "Polydoxy". This was intended to be the opposite of "Orthodoxy". Orthodoxy is a Greek word, meaning "Straight Belief". Reines felt that, on the contrary, Jews should have different beliefs, while accepting each other's ideas as valid. For him, Judaism could, but didn't have to, follow any classical texts or traditions. Each community, or person, could make his or her own Judaism. I twice attended a Reinesian service (in the early 1970s). Each had a theme. The first one I attended was "Yiddish Literature". The second one was "The American Indian". Poetry was read, the Cantor, in the first case, sang some Yiddish songs, and in the second, folk songs about the American Indian. The rabbi read passages about each culture. A woman did interpretive dance, in the first instance dressed in East European "shtetel" clothing, in the second dressed as an Indian woman. At the end, the mourner's kaddish was recited, and the Friday night kiddush was made. The rabbi (himself a distinguished professor of Jewish history at a major Midwestern University) said to me "You are probably wondering how this is a Jewish service. Jews put it together, therefore it is Jewish". Reines was a professor of Philosophy at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, the main Reform seminary. His students formed, in 1972, the Polydox Institute, which still exists. However, it now embraces not only all Jewish expressions, but all other Liberal religious ideas and non-Jewish practices as well.
The second one was J.J. Petuchowski (1925 – 1991), known affectionately by his students as "Pet". I was privileged to get to know him well, as I was, in the mid-1970s, the assistant rabbi of the German Orthodox congregation in Cincinnati, of which he was a member and active participant. Although there was a 24 year difference in our ages, he befriended me, and we spent many hours in deep discussion every Sunday morning. He was himself traditionally observant; Shabbat, Kashrut, the whole nine yards. He felt that Reform offered a freedom of inquiry and expression that the other movements, in his opinion, lacked. He was strongly opposed to the deviations from Jewish tradition that Reform had adopted. He advocated "Catholic Israel", that is a universal respect and acceptance, being careful not to deviate from practices that would endanger ties with other Jews, such as in the areas of marriage and divorce. While some of his students became observant as he was, others, while not becoming observant in the Orthodox sense, nevertheless incorporated traditional Jewish practices into their life and work. Once, I was to lecture at a Reform temple for their Sunday school, where the assistant rabbi was a student of "Pet". I came early and prayed the morning service in a side room, naturally wearing my Tallit and Tefillin. The assistant rabbi saw me, and brought the entire Hebrew School to look. When I finished, he asked me to explain to the students what I was doing. I gave a fairly thorough explanation, after which the rabbi said to the children "Reform Judaism agrees with what Rabbi Siegel has said". That's it. No "buts". This scene would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. Those Reform rabbis who studied under "Pet", and many who only read some of his books, now have an openness to Orthodoxy that was unknown for many generations. While there are still many things that divide us, there is, at least in some segments of Reform, a willingness to rethink. About ten years ago, when I gave a lecture on Orthodox belief, a "classical" Reform rabbi who was present, stood up and remarked that my beliefs were "silly". A student of "Pet" objected strongly to his words, and reported him to the Reform movement's ethics committee.
A huge gulf exists between Orthodoxy and Reform. But the willingness of many Reform rabbis to rethink, and even re-form, gives me a great deal of hope. May G-d lead us all to His Torah.
In my next installment, I will discuss the Conservative movement.

Orthodox and Non-Orthodox Judaism Part 1

As there is a lot of confusion about the meanings of Jewish "denominations", I feel some explanation is in order.
First we need to define Orthodoxy. Although there may be vast differences in practice and philosophy between groups, nevertheless, all who recognize the existence of G-d and his Unity,the special relationship which G-d maintains with the Children of Israel, the Divine origin of the Written and Oral Torah, the obligation to observe the Mitzvot (commandments) and accept the Eternal Truth of these ideas, is an Orthodox Jew. Although there may be differences in specific customs, or even in the interpretation of certain laws, all are "on the same page" with basics, and recognize the validity of each other's identity as Orthodox Jews, even if we have a different practice, or even consider the other's legal rulings hopelessly mistaken. We can disagree on details, but agree on the essential identity of all who share the same basic ideology and legal framework. Despite this, political differences often make rifts where there should be none. In these essays, I am speaking about substantive, rather than political definitions. Among the classical Orthodox thinkers of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there were legalists, philosophers, humanists, mystics, philologists, and a host of others. With some notable exceptions, there was a great deal of tolerance for all these views.
In the eighteenth century, Western Europe was undergoing some basic soul-searching. For a century and a half, Protestantism had challenged the most basic assumptions of the Church. New sects and sub-sects arose, each with its own take on the meaning and application of Christianity. Similar undercurrents were occurring in the Jewish community, especially in Germany. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1781) was a German Jew who was, on the one hand, sought to have the Jews learn modern languages, literature and Western philosophy, in order to be welcomed into the general community. He fought for the acceptance of Jews as having the potential for "noble character", an idea that shocked German society at the time. At the same time, he argued for the strict maintenance of all Jewish laws, Biblical as well as Talmudic law, IN PRIVATE. "Be a Jew in your home, a man on the street" was his motto. There gathered around him many German thinkers and philosophers. He also developed a Jewish following. However, we now know that his Jewish followers were mostly from Sabbatean backgrounds, the heresy that I discussed in a past series, which believed in sacred sin, and the freeing of G-d's sparks from Evil by diving into it. His students mostly broke with traditional Jewish beliefs and practices, creating a new Judaism based on the idea of "Ethical Monotheism". This idea meant that the point of the Torah was an ethical life. All the commandments, the theory went, originally had an ethical meaning, which has mostly been forgotten. In these cases, they can, and should, be abandoned. Only those that had a clear ethical message need be adhered to. The synagogue, too, needed changing. First the sermon, later the service, switched to the vernacular. The services, in most cases, began to take on the style of Christian services; clerical vestments, an organ, a choir, everything to make it more "German". The idea was born that we are NOT a people, but Germans, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Englishmen of "Mosaic faith". In the following century, the term was coined "Reform Jews". As the idea spread to America in the 19th century, it became still more radical. In the Northeast, a Sunday Sabbath was introduced. (Although this was opposed by the Western part of the movement). Now, there was no obligation to keep the mitzvot, no special covenant relationship. At the dedication of an early reform synagogue in Charleston, South Carolina, the rabbi said "We neither expect nor hope for a return to Zion. This land is our Holy Land, this city our Jerusalem, this building our Temple". The word Temple has been used ever since for non-Orthodox synagogues. Rather than increasing Judaism's adherents, assimilation became rampant. At the centennial celebration for the Charleston Temple, descendants of the original founders were sought. Not one was still Jewish. In 1937, a convention of Reform rabbis met in Columbus, Ohio. It was discovered that fully thirty percent of Reform congregations had, since the mid 1800s, become Unitarian Churches. After all, what was the difference, other than one more prophet? A decision was made to reintroduce some traditional Jewish practices; not as obligations from G-d, but as ways of maintaining and strengthening Jewish identity. This trend continued throughout the twentieth and into the twenty-first century. Each new reform prayer book became closer to the Traditional one, in language, structure, and content. Reform Temples began to look more like synagogues, and less like Churches. However, the basic philosophy is unchanged. The Torah is not binding, except in terms of ethics. We are Americans of Mosaic faith. Some voices within Reform have arisen, urging a return to a more "Jewish" approach. Many Reform congregations welcome Orthodox rabbis to speak to their members, even encouraging Orthodox outreach groups to conduct classes or programs. It must be noted that this was not so much a change of heart, but was born of a realization that they had cut away their roots. Several late twentieth-century reform leaders have left an indelible mark on Reform worldwide. I will discuss more in my next installment.

The Dispute of 1538, and its Ongoing Repercussions part 6

The founding of the State of Israel needed to be interpreted theologically by religious Jews. Like in the case of the 16th century Safed community, different approaches sprang up. Each had sincerely held views; often seeing the opposing views as nothing short of dangerous, or even heretical.
One view was that the founding of the State was actually a rebellion against G-d. It is a secular State in the Holy Land. Could there be a greater insult to G-d and Torah?To rebel against the King is bad enough, but to do so right in the King's palace? This group saw the attempt to end our exile by our own efforts as nothing less than an affront to G-d and His judgments. The militant "Neturei Karta" (guardians of the city), are a prime example of this approach.
A second, much larger group, were not anti-Zionist, but highly skeptical non-Zionists. They chose to live in the Land, abide by its laws, but not to see the State as having any theological basis. This group included the heads and members of the Charedi (Ultra Orthodox) Yeshivot and most Hasidic groups.
The third group is known as "National Religious". The first Chief Rabbis of Israel declared the founding of the State to be "Itchalta d'geulah" (the beginning of Redemption). A prayer was composed by the writer and Nobel Laureate S.Y. Agnon, which begins "Our Father in Heaven, Rock of Israel and its Redeemer, .bless the State of Israel, the first sprouting of our Redemption". This prayer is recited weekly in most Israeli synagogues, and many in the diaspora as well.. Israel independence day was declared a religious holiday. Religious Jews were to partake fully in all the responsibilities of citizenship. Further stages of redemption would take place in G-d's time, in accordance with His will. In the mean time, celebrate what we have and realize that something far greater is in the offing. Just be an Israeli, study Torah, keep the mitzvot (commandments) and judge the secular majority in the "Scale of Merit", they will soon come to G-d. This is the view of the majority of non-Charedi Orthodox in Israel.
A fourth group, by far the most controversial, believes (as Rabbi Berav did) that this is the historical moment to act. The Temple Mount must be liberated, the Temple built. An organization was founded, with international support from both Jews and non-Jews, to study all that is relevant to the Temple. Many of the vessels for a Third temple have already been reconstructed, with more being prepared all the time. Consciousness-raising events are frequently held, in order to popularize the idea of a Temple and all that goes with it. Like with Rabbi Berav, a Sanhedrin has been formed (which has gained little support or recognition beyond this group). This was accomplished by sending a registered letter to every (government authorized) rabbi in Israel, asking to re-start the chain of Smichah, by ordaining a famous Jerusalem rabbi (who was actually a Charedi rabbi, one of the leaders of the first group mentioned above, who nevertheless was sympathetic to this idea).. Any who did not reply, would be considered as abstentions. The majority of those who did reply, voted in favor. They saw smichah as having been re-introduced. Others were ordained; some important scholars, others more activists than scholars, but still possessing considerable learning.Many of the members consider this THE Sanhedrin. Others consider it more of a consciousness raising exercise. All members have signed a document that they will step down if a more suitable candidate were to  come forward. (One of the heads offered me a place in it, but I declined). This group sees the establishment of "facts on the ground" as essential to the full Redemption, and the appearance of Mashiach.
Tensions between these views exist, and often result in open controversy. The parallels with 1538 are unmistakable. Is this "dochek et haketz", the premature push for Redemption, or a natural response to not only the call of history, but the call of G-d? Each view has major rabbis supporting it. Each view has major rabbis opposing it, seeing it as paving the way to disaster. There can be no doubt that each view is sincerely held "L'shem Shamayim" (for the sake of Heaven). We can only hope and pray that G-d will lead is in the right way, in accordance with His will.