The Messiah part 11

One of the most amazing phenomena of modern Judaism is Chabad. It has gone from an obscure, rather elitist, White Russian movement of the turn of the nineteenth century, to a worldwide force. There is no place in the world with a significant Jewish population that doesn't have a Chabad emissary. Although quite rigid within their own community in terms of their own version of Jewish law and custom (which differs widely in many cases from the standard), they maintain an open-door policy, without pressure to accept their ways, until one makes the decision to join them. Each person who comes is offered everything, but may pick and choose what they are comfortable with. They spearheaded the Baal Teshuvah movement at a time when most rabbis thought it unwise to so dilute the community with "outsiders". They essentially founded the Noachide movement. Although there are no membership records, it is believed that they have already surpassed Orthodox, Conservative and Reform in terms of participation. I have been told by Reform rabbis that Chabad has "stolen" their membership!
However, the issue of Messianism has divided their own community, and has, in many ways, set up a wedge between themselves and other Jewish groups. As we have seen, the idea that there is a potential Messiah in every generation has been with us since the sixteenth century, and has become widely accepted. Chabad believes that Hassdism represents a leap forward over pre-Hassidic Judaism, and Chabad, in turn, represents a leap forward over other forms of Hassidism. It follows, therefore, that the leader, the Rebbe, of Chabad must be the potential Messiah. The feeling of an imminent Redemption has been a characteristic of Chabad for the last hundred years, at least (although it is absent in the early movement). The last Chabad/Lubavitcher Rebbe was seen as the obvious choice for the role. Under his leadership, the incredible spread of Chabad, and the strengthening of Judaism in general, had occurred. Plus, he had no children; no heirs. He would be the last Rebbe, and therefore MUST be Mashiach. Also, as the seventh Rebbe of Chabad, he fit into the idea of Malchut (Kingship). The spiritual battle for the souls of lost Jews was viewed by the followers of Chabad as making him the "Presumed Mashiach" of RAMBAM, a "king" fighting the Wars of the L-rd. Already in the 1960s, an unofficial split came among Chabad Chassidim. One group, while accepting the potential Messiahship of the Rebbe, did not make that the emphasis. Rather, the main effort is to keep, and spread, Torah and Mitzvot, thereby paving the way for the ultimate redemption. The other group felt that this is it, Mashiach had arrived, and only awaited the right time to reveal himself. Two separate outreach structures were formed by these two divisions. Animosities sprang up. There were two ideologies, each one seeing the other as missing the point. To my knowledge, the Rebbe never took a stand on this issue (Although each side points to quotes of the Rebbe that would seem to favor one side or the other). Someone whom I know very well (OK, it was I), was sent by the Rebbe in 1973 to work at the first Chabad House in a major Midwestern city. The first day he arrived, he was told by the rabbi in charge "you're on tonight. We're speaking at a college. I want to see how you do". After the lecture, the young man said "Well, how was I?" The older rabbi said "you were terrible. You used a word we never use; G-d. We are here to win "sacrifices" for the Rebbe. All else is worthless". Eventually, these two factions got names. "Meshichistim" (messianics) and "Non-Meshichistim". It's not that the Non-Meshichistim didn't believe in the Messiahship of the Rebbe, but rather that this was not the focus of their mission. In the U.S., the Meshichistim are the minority of the movement. In Israel, they are the vast majority. The crisis came, however, in 1994, with the passing of the Rebbe. At his funeral, many people were shouting "Long live our master, teacher, and rebbe, King Messiah for ever and ever". One leader of the non-Meshichist group was asked by a reporter what this meant. "I don't know. I don't think they know". The "long live.." mantra is still to be heard at the end of every prayer service in the Meshichist community. The non-Meshichists were, of course, devastated at the Rebbe's death. What did it mean? Their response was "we don't know. We'll continue the things he taught, and await developments that will come from G-d". The Meshichistim were in denial. "He is the Mashiach even now, working from wherever he is!" One group even denies that he died at all. Rather, he is in hiding! That group will not visit his grave, so as not to lend credence to the idea that he may be dead. The rest of the Jewish world stood with their mouths agape. Was this Judaism? Had a line been crossed? Books were written defending and denouncing the Meshichists. Other Jewish groups struggled with the question if Chabad, and especially the Meshichists, could still be considered Orthodox Jews. Lines were drawn in the sand. That will be my next post.

The Messiah part 10

There are numerous legends, theories, and interpretations of the rise and meaning of Hasidism. I have already gone into many of these in earlier posts. One approach, however, is that of the noted historian of Kabbalah, Gershom Scholem. Scholem saw Hasidism as a redirecting of Messianism inward. (Sort of a parallel to the Christian "the Kingdom is within you"). He posited that the Hasidic form of Messianism is more of a personal, rather than a Cosmic, transformation. I think that there is much merit in this view, but it does not tell the entire story. It is well known that Hasidic Kabbalah transfers the emphasis from the macrocosm to the microcosm. But, just as it doesn't deny the importance of the macrocosm, neither does it deny a personal Mashiach. But, for the most part, the focus on a transformed and rectified world is dulled. Yes, we are to hope for and believe that deliverance is coming; but, in the meanwhile, let's get our lives in order. Let's learn how to be happy in the midst of adversity. Let's find G-d in prayer and every experience. A famous letter from the Baal Shem Tov, Hasidism's founder, tells of a vision, in which he encountered the Mashiach. "When are you coming?" asked the Baal Shem Tov. "When your wellsprings overflow" was the answer. That is, a joyous awareness of the presence of G-d must precede Mashiach. (More recent research casts doubt upon this letter.In any case, it is at a minimum  indicative of the ideology of early Hasodosm). Early Hasidic literature gives little indication of a speedy redemption. Even the Tanya, the cornerstone of Chabad Hasidism, only mentions the Mashiach a couple of times. Yes, several Hasidic leaders swore before their deaths, that they would give G-d no rest until He had sent the Mashiach. Many Hasidic stories explain the failure of these efforts by saying that when they got to Heaven, they were distracted by the many wonderful things they saw, and simply forgot. Yes, there was a collective effort in 1814 of several Hasidic greats to bring Mashiach with their meditations during the Simchat Torah celebration. But all those involved met with personal calamities; including death in some of the cases. The time had not yet come. What we do find, is the idea that one who is spiritually "together", is already living in the Messainic era. Many Hasidic leaders were seen as pre-Messiahs. They were worthy to be Mashiach if the world was ready, but it wasn't. But that didn't stop them from making great "rectifications" even now, which will pave the way for THE Mashiach. One telling story has it that the Baal Shem Tov actually promised a man that he would live to see Mashiach. Time passed, and the man grew old. His friends and family were all dead. He was well over a hundred years old, and tired of living.He visited many Tzaddikim, who expressed respect for the assurance he had received, but told him they could do nothing. He finally came to Rabbi Nachman, who simply smiled at the man. The man walked out, and told the people gathered around that he believed that the Baal Shem Tov had meant this young rabbi. He passed away peacefully a few hours later. Did Rabbi Nachman consider himself Mashiach? There is no indication of that. He said that he had paved the way for Mashiach. When an infant son was born to him, he named the baby Shlomo Ephraim. Shlomo (Solomon) was the son of David. Ephraim was the son of Joseph. A hint of both stages of Mashiach! He said that if the generation was worthy, the boy would live and become Mashiach. But the boy died in infancy one year later. Rabbi Nachman said "Now, Mashiach is delayed at least for a hundred years". That was in 1806. Rabbi Nachman predicted that before Mashiach came, there would be machines that fly in the air! (Some of the Breslov Hasidim danced for joy when they heard about the Wright Brothers.) One of the leaders of Breslov in the early twentieth century was asked if we could now expect Mashiach. He answered" "It looks to me like his grandfather has not yet been born". So Hasidim wait for Mashiach, but they do not put everything on hold while waiting. It is true that the Chabad Hasidim have, in the last century, put a great deal of emphasis on "bringing Mashiach". I have heard Chabad rabbis say that this is our main purpose in life. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe was asked why, if this is the case, there is no indication of this in early Hasidic, or even Chabad literature, he responded that when a craftsman first begins fashioning a project, no one looking on can have a clue what that project is to become. But the craftsman knows from the beginning. Most other Hasidim do not share this view, They wait until the time that G-d will choose for deliverance. But, in the meanwhile, pursue their lives in constructive and holy ways. When I lived in Israel, I had a friend who was a member of the Gur Hasidic community. He once said to me "I don't need Mashiach. I study Torah all day, every day. The unlearned need Mashiach". While that is a rather extreme expression, it is a fair representation of a general feeling. We must make our lives holy, even magical. We seek people whose lives are already that way and look to them for guidance. Together, we await the person and time that will put everything together. "Pushing the envelope" will only lead to disaster, as has already happened too many times.

The Messiah part 9

I "became" Sepharadic in the Spring of 1991. Two months later, I was in a Sepharadic synagogue for the Shavu'ot holiday. Special prayers were said at the opening of the Ark. I was reciting them, when I suddenly stopped in my tracks. One line of the prayer contained the words "Ateret Tzvi Meshichecha". That could mean two things. It could mean "the beautiful crown of your Messiah". Or, it could mean "the crown of Tzvi your Messiah". I asked the rabbi of the synagogue. He replied "yes, that is a Shabbatean prayer. Many of our customs come from there. Any that are obviously heretical we eliminate, but those that appear harmless, we keep". (It can also be understood as "the beautiful cown of Your anointed", but the context did not fit that). After the holiday, I asked the eminent rabbinic scholar, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for an explanation. He said "How did you know?!?! We are trying to keep this quiet, and remove those things gradually, so as not to open up old wounds". At that point, I began to realize that 1666 was not yet over. Like in the aftermath of a hurricane, the landscape is never the same. Jewish communal life, in fact, Judaism as a whole, looked very different after Shabbetai Tzvi. History was rewritten. The annals of some Jewish communities had the pages for 1663 to 1666 simply ripped out. But bigger things were also ripped out. The Jews of Western Europe discarded Kabbalah, as that was seen as the cause of the problem. Central Europe didn't go that far,. but restricted Kabbalah to scholars who would only study it in private or in small groups. Anything smacking of Messianism was seen as a potential threat. Of course, Orthodox Jews clung to the belief in a Messiah... someday. The great rabbis of Central and Eastern Europe remade the course of study in the Yeshivot so as to deemphasize, or even eliminate, a sense of transcendence that might get out of hand. A sterilized Judaism emerged that I would consider...boring. Even study of the Talmud was limited to portions not lending themselves to speculation; marriage, divorce, damages, loans. The open questioning and exchange of ideas that had always characterized Judaism, was suddenly a potential weapon for heretics. Things became carefully defined. RAMBAM's Thirteen Principles of Faith became standard theology, even though they had been attacked by many rabbis as inconsistent with Talmudic principles. But they were better than the potentially explosive alternative. Books of halachah began to be composed for the layman. Rather than the openness of rabbinic discourse that is seen in more scholarly works, these were ultra-conservative. "Here's how we do it folks. Don't listen to anything else". The concept of Daat Torah was formulated, concerning which I have an entire series. (Check files). "Don't think, we will do that for you" became standard. Sepharadic lands handled it much better. The attitude was "OK, we made a mistake. Let's go back to where we were. Shabbatean ideas and practices that have already been adopted, just let them be, so long as they don't violate any essential principles". One finds in many of the writings published in Sepharadic lands such concepts as the suffering of the Messiah, his spiritual prison, as well as other Shabbatean concepts mingling freely together with more classical Kabbalah. The imminence of the Messiah is to be found in these works, but with care taken so as not to identify him with Shabbetai, or any other heretical figure. But the wild card was Eastern Europe. The pleas of rabbis not to get involved in Messianic fervor tended to fall on deaf ears, especially as far as the masses go. The result was Hasidism. Its roots and origins are still being debated. But new directions were formulated. The concept of Mashiach was still very alive and vibrant. But, at the same time, it was channeled in new ways. That will be the next part of our story.

The Messiah part 8

The idea of the suffering Messiah, promulgated by Shlomo Molcho, became a major factor a century and a half later, in the drama of the false Messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi (1626-1676). A Turkish Jew, he suffered from what we now call bipolarism. In his normal "down" state, he was a man of outstanding piety, and considerable scholarship. But, in his "up" state, he would do troubling things, that tormented him when he returned to normal consciousness. He would commit sins. Not the kinds of sins that one might expect. Rather, he would eat forbidden fats, and pronounce the Name of G-d, which the Talmud reckons as one of the greatest possible transgressions. At one point, he married a Torah scroll (!). These actions got him expelled from a number of communities. But more than that, they contradicted his own sense of right and wrong. He sought help for his tribulations. He traveled through the lands of the Mediterranean, eventually arriving in the Holy Land. He went to see the highly respected Kabbalist, Nathan of Gaza. The night before his arrival, Nathan had a mysterious vision. He saw the Divine Chariot (Ezekiel I). But instead of the Glory of G-d sitting on top of it, there was a human figure unknown to him. All night he was unable to move a muscle. When Shabbetai came to him, Nathan recognized him as the man on the Chariot he had seen the night before. He proclaimed Shabbetai Tzvi as the Messiah. As to his strange actions. Nathan developed an entire theology around it, and wrote numerous books. Nathan claimed that Shabbetai fulfilled the descriptions of Shlomo Molcho, whom he declared Shabbetai's forerunner. His theology went as follows: It is a basic concept in the teachings of the ARI that, at creation, the Infinite G-d (Ein Sof) created a void; an "empty space", into which he emanated the "Ten Sefirot", thereby creating the Universe. Nathan put in a variation here. Only the upper regions of the "empty space" had received the creative power of G-d. The lower regions of the Empty Space were devoid of G-d, and were the province of great dragons and monsters. Within this horrible place, dwelt the double layered soul of the Mashiach. The outer layer was evil, and was, in fact, Jesus. The inner layer was the soul of Shabbetai Tzvi, tormented since creation by the absence of the presence of G-d, surrounded by monsters, and stifled by one who Jewish tradition saw as  the most evil of men. Moreover, since G-d was not present in that abyss, the Torah and Mitzvot were not operative. The Torah didn't apply to the Messiah! That was the reason for his sinful behavior. It didn't matter, and was, in fact, an expression of his special reality. He must break out of that prison, rectify the soul of Jesus, and repair the Universe. Shabbetai Tzvi's "mission" lasted briefly. His followers, probably represented the majority of the Jewish world, including most rabbis, (this is often denied vehemently by historical revisionists). In 1666, the predicted year of Deliverance, Shabbetai converted to Islam, albeit under duress. He continued being promoted by Nathan until the latter's death, and conducted himself as outwardly Muslim, but still on a Messianic mission. This was seen as yet another prison from which he must escape. He even began signing his name as "Shabbetai Tzvi, the G-d of Israel". Shabbateanism actually continued far after his death, with evidence of Shabbatean cells in Poland as late as World War I. A sect of his followers and worshipers still exists in Turkey, under the name of the Donmeh. How are we to explain these events? Mental illness? Mass hysteria? Men, women and children were falling into trances and "prophesying". Was he perhaps a potential Messiah, who became ensnared in ego, as was suggested by no less a personage than the Baal ShemTov? It was agreed in the 1670s not to hold these events against those who had been led astray, as most people had been. But what of the rabbis in the next century, who were discovered to still be "believers"? What about the followers, secret and open, of Jacob Frank, who claimed to be Shabbetai's reincarnation in the 18th century, who promulgated orgies in order to hasten the Rectification? A great dispute erupted when one of the greatest rabbis of the mid 18th century accused a colleague of being a "believer". (Most historians, and some rabbis, believe he was right) That dispute divided European Jewry, and caused a general weakening in the acceptance of rabbis in general, paving the way for the spread of Reform. The suspicion continues. In some cases, Some still clash over the issues of who was, or wasn't, Shabbatean.   I think we can now understand why non-orthodox Jews cringe at the very idea of a Messiah. But also most Orthodox Jews are slow to accept Messianic predictions and claims. Chabad is an exception to this, and has garnered much opposition because of that fact. Let us remember the Talmudic warning: "If you are planting a tree, and someone tells you the Messiah has come, finish planting and then check it out". It has been said "More than Israel has kept the Shabbat, the Shabbat has kept Israel". However, in the case of the Messiah, hope has been kept, but often that hope has led to disaster. But, "even though he tarry, I will wait for him". To be continued.

The Messiah part 7

At times of great upheaval, "Mashiach Fever" always breaks out. With the expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula of the late fifteenth century, with its forced conversion and public burnings, Mashiach was expected imminently, to punish the wicked and redeem the exiles. Philosophy had no answers, while Kabbalah did., This was a cosmic drama, that was being acted out on the human plane. Philosophy essentially died out at that time, and Kabbalah reigned supreme for the next two centuries. But two new elements emerged in Kabbalah. One was the apocalyptic; the world was experiencing birth pangs, with a very different world about to be born. "Prophets" sprang up everywhere, with predictions of immediate suffering, but eventual hope and vindication. Another concept emerges at this point. The idea that there is not one Messiah, but several. Perhaps even a process. Isaiah 9:6, taken literally and in context, indicates a Messianic role for King Hezekiah. In the Talmud, there is one view that he WAS the Mashiach, and we wait in vain for another. That view was rejected. But others said that indeed Hezekiah was slated to be Mashiach, but his own flaws made him lose that status. The sixteenth-century saw the birth and acceptance of the idea that there is a potential Mashiach in every generation. Each performs a part of the "rectification" until the ultimate Mashiach will come and complete the task. A very delicate subject arises at this point. That is the issue of the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53. (No, it was never a banned chapter, contrary to the well-known antisemitic YouTube video). In context, the chapter refers not to an individual, but to the suffering of Israel among the Nations. Christianity, however, applied this role to Jesus, since he had not fulfilled any of the tasks of the Mashiach. The idea that he would do this at a "Second Coming" left open the question of what HAD he done. The idea was born that he needed to fulfill the role of the Suffering Servant, or that the Messianic Kingdom was an inner kingdom (Luke 17:21). These ideas are, from the Jewish perspective, very far from either the literal or symbolic sense of Scripture. Nevertheless, there are some Talmudic passages and Midrashim that connected the Mashiach in some way with Isaiah 53. There is an idea that Mashiach is currently alive, and is a beggar, either in Jerusalem or Rome, suffering from leprosy. Late Midrashim even offer a view of an apocalyptic Messiah, full of pain, dying in battle. Some connected this idea not with the Mashiach son of David, but rather Mashiach son of Joseph. However, the latter concept is only mentioned a few times in the Talmud, and is very vague. It is totally absent in the Talmud's main discussion of Mashiach, which I brought in part 2 of this series. Most later authorities, such a RAMBAM, don't even mention such a possibility. In the sixteenth century, the view arose of a Suffering Servant warrior, who would fight the battles of G-d, and would then become the Mashiach ben David, IF he succeeds. If not, he will die in battle and we will go back to waiting. 
At this juncture, a remarkable figure emerges in the form of Shlomo Molcho (1500-1532). He was born Diogo Pires in Portugal, to anusim (marrano) parents. He felt the call of G-d, circumcised himself (!), and set out preaching the return of the Anusim to Judaism, as well as the imminent coming of the Messiah. It is a hotly debated topic among historians if he considered himself to be the Messiah, or merely a "forerunner". He shocked the Christian world by accurately predicting a devastating flood in Rome, as well as a terrible earthquake in Lisbon. Turned over to the Inquisition, he managed to win favor from Pope Clement VII. Subsequently, he attempted to convince the Pope that he should convert to Judaism. This did not make him popular with the Inquisition. He was again arrested, and burned at the stake in Mantua, after refusing an offer to return to Christianity and live. Some of the greatest rabbis of the time had received him. and considered that a great privilege. (In the twentieth century, the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke of him in glowing terms.) He wrote extensively about Job, considering Job's suffering as being the paradigm for the suffering of Israel, and ultimately of the Mashiach. Was this a result of his times, or perhaps influenced by his Christian upbringing? This is still being debated. His writings made clear that he had no positive feelings about Christianity or Jesus, but, ironically, had several major tenets of that religion, presented in a Jewish context. Under his influence, the Suffering Servant Messiah idea became somewhat mainstream, even finding expression in the teachings of the great Kabbalist, Rabbi Hayyim Vital. I am amazed that most present-day rabbis haven't even heard of him. One possible reason is that a little over a century later, his ideas would be twisted, resulting in one of the greatest heresies ever to arise, and bringing about what is, in my opinion, the greatest tragedy ever to come upon us. That will be the next part of our story.

The Messiah part 6

Despite RAMBAM's apparent opposition to the Temple Service expressed in his main philosophical work, and his opposition to visiting graves expressed both in his philosophical and legal works, he nevertheless wrote in glowing terms of his visit to the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs during his visit to the Land of Israel. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to reconcile these things. But I believe I do understand to a degree. Back in 1978, I attended a lecture by a noted Modern Orthodox scholar entitled "Judaism and the Occult". He started off with witches, but quickly got to his thesis that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is a heretic, in that he visits his father in law's grave at least twice a month. (He also declared Rabbi Akiva a heretic, in that he believed in luck). My wife began crying loudly. I tore my jacket (done upon hearing heresy), and we both exited the hall. A Conservative Rabbi who was present ran out to us to see if we were OK. He found us both crying and hyperventilating. He said "What do you think this "scholar" says when he visits his loved one's graves? Certainly not this lecture!". He was, of course, right. There is a difference between life and "on paper". When RAMBAM visited the holiest and second holiest places in the world, speculation went out the window. His heart took over. Similarly, when King Ahashueus told Esther that he would grant anything "up until half the Kingdom", the rabbis comment ""except that which will destroy my Kingdom; the rebuilding of the Temple". Deep down, every Jew knows, and every enemy of the Jewish people senses, that the Temple would be a fundamental game changer. Perhaps this would explain why RAMBAM, who considered the Temple to be merely a concession to primitive religious norms, nevertheless places the rebuilding of the Temple at the center of the tasks of the Messiah. I have discussed in several of my posts the controversies concerning the permissibly of entering the Temple Mount at this time. In my series "The Dispute of 1538", I showed how the attempted reintroduction of the original ordination was meant as a prelude to the ultimate Redemption. So it is today. Those attempting to reconstitute the Sanhedrin and pray on the Temple Mount, are actually trying first and foremost to hasten the Mashiach. The Foundation Stone of the Temple, the one believed to be located in the Dome of the Rock, is, according to Jewish tradition, the first seminal point of Creation, as well as the place of the Akeida (the binding of Isaac). It represents creation, self sacrifice, and a covenantal connection to G-d. According to both Talmud and Kabbalah, energy lines extend from that rock to all areas of the world. It is the very center of existence! Perhaps for this reason, Jews see the Mashiach as so central, although there is so little  about him in Torah. Like the foundation stone, he represents past, present, future; this world and Eternity, all bound up together.But are these attempts productive, or are they like the maapilim; those Israelites who attempted to enter the land immediately, right after G-d decreed that forty years of wandering must first take place? Are these things in our hands, or are they an unfolding process, which we must witness and experience, but is beyond our abilities to intervene or even understand? To be continued.

The Messiah part 5

Views of the Messianic Era vary greatly, both between rabbis of the Talmud and later authorities. While the view of RAMBAM as to the identity of the Mashiach are fairly widely accepted, what he will accomplish is hotly disputed. Not all agree that the rebuilding of the Temple is the task of Mashiach. The view of the Jerusalem Talmud is that the Temple should be rebuilt whenever that is feasible. Independence from the Nations should be accomplished whenever possible. Ingathering of the Exiles is merely waiting for people to pick up and come back. The Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, foresees a miraculous Redemption. Some see that as meaning a changed, rectified, purified world. Others see that as peace and freedom. One view is that "There is no difference between this world and the Messianic Era except in the matter of subjugation to the Nations". But even this awaits Divine Intervention.
"The Gemara in Ketubot (111a) derives from the triple mention of the pasuk, "I have bound you in oath, O daughters of Jerusalem" (Shir Hashirim), that Hashem bound Am Yisrael and the nations of the world with three oaths. The first oath is, "shelo yaalu bachoma," that the Jews should not forcibly and en masse, "break through the wall," and enter Eretz Yisrael. The second is that the Jews should not rebel against the nations. The third is that the nations of the world should not oppress Yisrael too much over the course of the exile. According to R. Zera, there are three additional oaths which relate to the ultimate redemption. The Gemara concludes with the threat that if Israel violates these oaths, their flesh will be made free like wild animals in the field, i.e., Hashem would bring upon them great suffering and physical destruction."
So, according to that, even if we are capable of bringing about our own redemption, we are forbidden to do so. This quote is the basis of those who claim that Zionism brought about the Holocaust. However, this statement is Aggadah. When did this assembly occur? Who was there? Who heard the Divine Voice making us take these oaths? Not one of the legal codifiers bring this as a halachah until the late nineteenth century. Much has been written by way of argument why these oaths might no longer be binding. But, the fact remains, that no one took this literally until fairly recently. It has been understood as a sharp emphasis, consistent with the Babylonian Talmud, that the Redemption must come from G-d.
I have written in a previous series that the early Zionist movement was opposed by nearly all rabbis (the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote that Zionism is worse than Christianity!). It was secular. it was anti-religious.It was an attempt to redefine the meaning of being Jewish. It was the nineteenth century push for every ethnic group to have its very own country. It was the Nationalism of the Europeans which ultimately brought about World War I, placed in a Jewish ethnic perspective. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) largely changed that view in many circles by positing that Zionism, although secular, socialist and anti-Torah, was, in fact, the Atchalta d'Geulah; the beginning of Redemption. He believed that these young men and women were responding to a subconscious religious impulse. RAMBAM had written that most of what was in Scripture about the Messianic Era was parable, nothing of "the way of the world" would change, and the only difference would be independence and security.(MIshneh Torah, Shoftim, Kings and War, chapter 12) Although Rav Kook didn't live to see independence, it was surely on the horizon. He wrote that soon after independence, the people will turn to Torah. He also wrote that if this did not occur, there would be a revolution. The latter statement has been expunged from the second edition of his writings. He quoted a Talmudic aggadah that several rabbis had been travelling through the night, upon seeing the break of dawn, one said "this is how the redemption of Israel will be, little by little, until the Sun rises". So, the new State, was the first glimmer of Redemption. The religious segment of Jews in Israel are quite divided between these two poles. On Israel Independence Day, some celebrate as a religious festival, complete with special holiday prayers, (including "as I have merited now to see the beginning of the Redemption, so may I merit to see its completion") while others fast and recite pleas for forgiveness from G-d. Secular Israelis are largely hostile to both approaches. On the one hand, they resent their fought for independence being put into a theological context, and, on the the other hand, see the approach of it being a sin as a sign of ingratitude for those who fought, as well as seeing Jewish history in terms of G-d and religious concepts of right and wrong. There are also many religious who see the State as theologically irrelevant, but nevertheless a positive development which must be supported. Although these divergent ideas are fairly modern, they represent  approaches going back nearly 2,000 years. In my next post, I shall deal specifically with the place of the Temple and the Temple Mount in this dispute.