* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download *TRADITION, JUDAISM, AND THE JEWISH RELIGIONƒ *IN
Survey
Document related concepts
Self-hating Jew wikipedia , lookup
Conservative Judaism wikipedia , lookup
Independent minyan wikipedia , lookup
The Invention of the Jewish People wikipedia , lookup
Homosexuality and Judaism wikipedia , lookup
Land of Israel wikipedia , lookup
Interfaith marriage in Judaism wikipedia , lookup
Jewish views on evolution wikipedia , lookup
Origins of Rabbinic Judaism wikipedia , lookup
Hamburg Temple disputes wikipedia , lookup
Haredim and Zionism wikipedia , lookup
Jewish religious movements wikipedia , lookup
Index of Jewish history-related articles wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
* TRADITION, JUDAISM, AND THE JEWISH RELIGIONƒ * IN CONTEMPORARY ISRAELI SOCIETYƒ *!Charles S. Liebmanƒ *! Bar©Ilan Universityƒ This paper argues that whereas Tradition, Judaism, and the Jewish religion existed as distinguishable conceptions in the period of the ”yishuv• they no longer do so ©© or if they do, distinctions are less pronounced and exist among a smaller segment of the population than in the past. On the other hand, Tradition no longer carries the authority over the lives of Jews which it once did. * Tradition, Judaism and Jewish Religion Definedƒ I prefer to capitalize the term Tradition because I am referring to a specific tradition. Edward Shils, who has written the most important book on tradition from a social scientific perspective describes tradition as: ...that which has been and is being handed down or transmitted. It is something which was created, was performed or believed in the past, or which is believed to have existed or to have been performed or believed in the past. J Edward Shils, ”Tradition• (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 13. J But in my use of the term Tradition I don't mean everything transmitted from the past or even everything Jewish transmitted from the past, but rather what Robert Redfield has called a great f tradition as distinct from a little tradition. According to Redfield: In a civilization there is a great tradition of the reflective few, and there is a little tradition of the largely unreflective many. The great tradition is cultivated in schools or temples; the little tradition works itself out and keeps itself going in the lives of the unlettered in their village communities. The tradition of the philosopher, theologian, and literary man is a tradition consciously cultivated and handed down; that of the little people is for the most part taken for granted and not submitted to much scrutiny or considered refinement and improvement. J Robert Redfield ”Peasant Society and Culture• (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 41©42. J The fact that Tradition, or what Redfield calls the great tradition is cultivated by an elite does not mean that the masses have no part in it. It does mean that any transformation which the Tradition undergoes in their hands is unselfconscious and that they only play an indirect role in its development. This occurs when the custodians of Tradition integrate folk traditions into the great tradition. J Customs such as reading Kol Nidre on the eve of Yom Kipur or reciting Tashlikh on the New Year are examples of transformation in the little tradition which the elite ultimately incorportaed into the great tradition. For a more dramatic example of the influence of popular behavior and belief, in this case of a very special kind of community, on the custodians of Tradition, see Haym Soloveitchik, "Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example," ”AJS Review•, 12 (Fall, 1987), 205©221. The masses, regardless of how they behave, defer to the custodians, i.e. the religious elite, as authorities in interpreting Tradition. The Jewish Tradition may be but need not be identical to Judaism or even the Jewish religion. It certainly is identical in the minds of the religious elite. They use the terms ”masoret• or ”mesorah• (tradition), and sometimes ”Yisrael saba• (grandfather Israel), synonymously with Torah (a euphemism for the Jewish d religion). They are less likely to refer to Judaism ©© but when they do, they mean Torah and ”masoret•. In other words, all the terms are basically identical although they do evoke somewhat different images. But Tradition, we must recall, is that which is handed down or transmitted from the past or what is believed to have been from the past. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Tradition undergoes change in the process of transmittal and the set of beliefs, or practices, or symbols which we one generation calls Tradition differs from that which a prior generation identified as Tradition. The term Judaism, on the other hand, may refer to some essence, some basic set of ideas, or beliefs, or rituals, or symbols which remains constant and to which Tradition may be more or less faithful. The distinction is an important one for those who are dissatisfied with Tradition but anxious to declare their fidelity to Judaism. An alternate strategy for such individuals is to deny that Judaism is composed of ideas or beliefs, or rituals. Some have argued that Judaism is the label for what Jews or the Jewish community believes and practices. They may acknowledge that there is a Tradition, that is a set of beliefs or practices that were transmitted from the past but deny that this Tradition is the essence of Judaism. Finally, one can conceive of the Jewish religion as distinct from Judaism and/or Tradition. Some claim that the essence of Judaism is something other than religion ©© not a core set of beliefs about God and man, or a set of rituals which God imposes upon man. Instead, they argue, Judaism is concerned with the d nature of the Jewish people and the Jewish community. Hence, Judaism is not the same as the Jewish religion. But one can also argue that Judaism and religion are synonymous, i.e. the essence of Judaism is a set of beliefs about God and man and a set of rituals which God imposes upon man, but deny that they are the same thing as the Tradition. The latter, though it may be religious in its parameters, may also be something other than the religious essence of Judaism. All of these views were represented in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Tradition, Judaism and Religion in the Yishuv Period E The end of the nineteenth and the first few decades of the twentieth century are the critical years in the formation of the Jewish national identity. A variety of thinkers sought to formulate the essence of a Jewish nationalism. Whereas the Zionist settlers in Erez Yisrael often wavered between one formulation and another, I want to identify three important trends of thought which help distinguish between the different poles of Jewish national identity in that period ©© all characterized by various degrees of unwillingness to accept the Jewish tradition (what I call Tradition), as normative. Radical Secular Zionism The stream of thought most antagonistic to Tradition was d forcefully articulated by Micha Joseph Berdyczewski (1865©1921). He felt that Tradition had to be destroyed in the process of creating a new Hebrew. He protested against the "artificial mending of the rift between the old and new." J Ehud Luz, ”Parallels Meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement, 1882©1904• (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988), p. 165. The rabbinic culture "that led us into exile and was built on the ruins of the land cannot live together with the national culture, which wants to break the thread of exile and plant within us new values and a totally new will". J Quoted in Luz, ”Parallels Meet•, p. 166. Berdyczewski did not reject Judaism. But as Dan Ben©Amos points out: A central theme in his scholarship was the romantic quest for ”nefesh ha©umah•, "the national soul," and ”ruakh ha©'am•, "the folk spirit." He wished to explore the psychological, religious and social forces that generated the Jewish national spirit, before the spirit became subjugated by the pressures of normative Judaism and its religious and ethical value system. J Dan Ben©Amos, "Introduction," in Micha Joseph Bin Gorion, ”Mimekor Yisrael: Classical Jewish Folktales• vol. I (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), p. xxxii. J In other words, Berdyczewski distinguished between "the national soul" and the "folk spirit" which he sought to identify and affirm, and Tradition which represented its distortion. But recovering the national spirit did not mean, from Berdyczewski's point of view, or the point of view of his followers, that it would now become normative. He remained anti©traditionalist and highly individualistic in orientation. "The Jews must come first, before Judaism," he said. As Ehud Luz points out, he was the first Jewish thinker to declare that Judaism is a multiplicity of d streams, beliefs and opinions, and not a fixed system of values. "Whatever a Jews does and thinks ©© this constitutes his Jewishness." J Luz, ”op.cit.•, p. 165. Berdyczewski's individualism was poorly suited to the conditions of the new (Zionist) ”yishuv•”• and the need for collective action in the struggle for national autonomy. But his antagonism to Tradition remained a powerful component in the life of the new ”yishuv•. In its most extreme manifestation, it led to what Amnon Rubinstein has called "the mythological sabra" who, as a literary archetype, is without parents. J Amnon Rubinstein, ”To Be A Free People• (Tel©Aviv: Schocken, in Hebrew, 1977), pp. 101©139. This "new Hebrew" however, may have been more ignorant and indifferent than antagonistic to the Jewish past. Conservative Secular Zionism Whereas one major school of secular Zionist thought, that of Berdyczewski and his followers, not only rejected Tradition, but were antagonistic to the very notion of a normative tradition, the other major school, that of Ahad Ha'am and his followers, adopted a different strategy. They ostensibly affirmed Tradition, but attempted to redefine its parameters. They sought to appropriate Tradition from the hands of its former custodians, the rabbis, reinterpret it in national terms, and transfer custody to Judaic scholars and literary leaders. This program is evident in a series of essays by one of Ahad Ha'am's most devoted followers, the "national" poet, Hayyim Nahman Bialik. The most d important of these essays, for our purposes, is "Hasefer Haivri" (On The Hebrew Book), written in 1913. It was Bialik's dream to reproduce a compendium, necessarily selective, of the major texts of the Tradition in order to make them available to the modern Hebrew reader. Increasing numbers of these readers, Bialik felt, were ignorant of Tradition, and unable to penetrate its textual sources, even if they wanted to do so. But the problem implied in the essay is even more serious. For, Bialik observes, there are those who think that: ...all the literary output of the nation in its entirety and its spiritual giants, over the course of thousands of years, has no value in our day. J ”The Collected Work of H.N. Bialik• (Tel©Aviv: Dvir, ninth ed., 1947, in Hebrew), p. 194. J Bialik proposes what he calls a ”kinus• ©© a compilation of the major literary works of the Jewish people or selections from such works. J Rotenstreich translates the term as "ingathering". See Nathan Rotenstreich, ”Tradition and Reality: The Impact of History on Modern Jewish Thought• (New York: Random House, 1972), pp. 97©108. He describes this effort as the creation of a new canon, noting explicitly that, as was true of past canonizations, such an effort would also exclude many texts. The essay invokes terms such as "holy spirit" or "sacred" numerous times but the referent is not God but the Jewish people. Indeed, the enterprise is steeped in an aura of holiness but, as Bialik observes, differs from previous canonizations since the present one would be in accordance with the "national" rather than the "religious" spirit. Bialik deals with the question ©© who would make the decisions; who would decide what was to be included in the ”kinus• and what was to be excluded? His general answer is: d The opinion of the people and its sentiments, or as the ancient phrase puts it: "The holy spirit" of the nation. We have no other criteria at the present time. J ”Ibid•., p. 196, J But this is hardly a practical answer. It turns out that the custodians of the new Tradition, i.e. those who determine what will or will not be included in the canon are to be Judaica scholars ©© and, Bialik later adds, "the best writers". The scholars, he states, "are nothing but the spiritual representatives of the people, and they have no choice but to defer to the demands of life, sometimes in opposition to their own inclinations". J ”Ibid•. Bialik uses the term ”hakhamim• (wise men) for Judaica scholars, and this permits him to juxtapose them with the ”•ancient ”hakhamim•, i.e. the rabbinical sages. Thus, without so much as an apology to the reader, he demonstrates the power of life over the private inclinations of the scholars by quoting texts concerning the desire and subsequent failure of ”hakhamim• to exclude the books of Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes from the canon. Bialik warned against efforts to rewrite or distort the contents of the texts to be selected. But in his own major effort in this direction, his six volume ”Sefer Haagadah•, compiled with Yehoshua Hana Ravnitsky, he and Ravnitsky, according to Dan Ben×Amos: "expurgated the text of offensive statement...[and] omitted those narratives which they found either aesthetically unappealing or educationally inappropriate." J Dan Ben©Amos, ”op.cit.•, p.xl. In summary, and at risk of oversimplification, Berdyczewski, d and his followers were prepared to concede Tradition to the rabbis. Tradition was "rabbinic culture" which was not the same as the spirit of Judaism. Tradition was associated with the old ”•”yishuv•, from which the Zionist settlers were so anxious to disassociate themselves. J Yehoshua Kaniel, "The Terms 'Old Yishuv' and 'New Yishuv' In Contemporaneous Usage (1882©1914) and in Historiographical Usage," ”Cathedra•, no. 6 (December, 1977), pp. 3©19. Ahad Ha'am and his followers looked to the scholars (often themselves), as the custodians of a reformulated Tradition and identified it with Judaism. In practice, however, the Tradition, certainly in symbolic form, in terms of ritual, ceremonial, objects, and language, were less and less evident in Israeli society until the 1960's. Bialik's fears about the ignorance and antagonism of the new Hebrew to the Jewish tradition were increasingly realized. The effort of the Ahad Ha'am school at reconstituting Tradition, was largely in vain. Until the end of the 1960's, Israeli society seemed to be increasingly indifferent if not alienated from Tradition. J This topic is treated more fully in Charles S. Liebman and Eliezer Don©Yehiya, ”Civil Religion in Israel: Traditional Judaism and Political Culture in the Jewish State• (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). Religious Zionism The third trend within the new ”•”yishuv• that deserves mention is that of religious Zionism. It was a minor influence in the period of the ”yishuv•”• but has become far more influential in contemporary Israeli society. Therefore, its transformation is especially interesting. Religious Zionist thinkers adopted a rather ambiguous attitude toward Tradition. This was especially true within Torah d v'Avodah, the labor wing of religious Zionism. This is not surprising in view of the fact that the vast majority of rabbis, and the leaders of the rabbinic world in particular, i.e. the custodians of Tradition, bitterly opposed the Zionist enterprise. Aryei Fishman J Aryei Fishman, "'Torah and Labor': The Radicalization of Religion Within a National Framework," ”Studies in Zionism•, no. 6 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 255-271; "Tradition and Renewal In the Religious©Zionist Experience," Abraham Rubinstein (ed.), ”In the Paths of Renewal: Studies in Religious Zionism• (Ramat©Gan: Bar×Ilan University Press, in Hebrew, 1983), pp. 127©147; and ”Hapoel Hamizrahi 1921©1935 (Documents)•, edited and with an introduction by Aryei Fishman (Tel©Aviv: Tel©Aviv University, in Hebrew, 1979). has shown how the religious©Zionists integrated both Zionism and modernity into their religious formulations. They termed their own efforts "a holy revolution" and, in the tradition of Jewish religious reformers, invoked the message of the prophets, i.e. they ostensibly returned to an original, essential, more pristine Judaism, and payed relatively less attention to later rabbinic texts with their emphasis on ”halakha•. Furthermore, as Fishman notes, the religious©Zionists attributed a special sanctity to their own community ©© confident that the special charisma that resided among them would insure their fidelity to the commands of God, even as these appeared contrary to Tradition. * Tradition, Judaism and Religion Todayƒ Tradition, the Jewish religion, and Judaism are understood, today, by the vast majority of Israeli Jews, as meaning more or less the same thing. In the process of reintegrating Tradition, religion and Judaism, Tradition, in particular, has assumed new content ©© a process which, in Ivan Marcus' felicitous term we can label "innovation disguised as tradition". J Ivan Marcus, "The Devotional Ideals of Ashkenazic Pietism," Arthur Green (ed.), ”Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages• (New York: Crossroad, 1988), p. 357. The first point to note is that the rabbis have reemerged as d the custodians of Tradition. Their influence has come at the expense of custom (community practice) and the role of Judaic scholars. This is true among both the ”dati• (religious), as well as the non©”dati• population. Among the ”datiim•, for example, decisions of Jewish law, which once accommodated and even deferred to communal and familial custom, no longer do so. The classic anecdote, in this regard, and my colleague Menachem Friedman vouches for its authenticity, is the refusal of the grandson of the preeminent rabbinical sage of two generations ago, the Hafetz Haim, to offer the benediction over wine in his grandfather's goblet, because its size is inadequate according to criteria established by the Hazon Ish, the preeminent rabbinical sage of the last generation. Among non©”datiim•, especially but not exclusively among those of Sephardic descent, one can point to the rising influence of holy men, whose advice as well as blessings are increasingly considered critical in matters ranging from health care, marriage, and accident prevention, to the choice of political candidates. These holy men are possessed of charisma; they are not simply custodians of Tradition. But they nevertheless speak in the name of Tradition and never in opposition to it. One observor traces the growth of rabbinic influence among the non©religious to the decline of the influence of politicians and generals who "found popular trust being withdraen from them and reinvested, if anywhere, in rabbis." J Edward Norden, "Behind 'Who Is a Jew' A Letter from Jerusalem," ”Commentary• 87 (April, 1989), p. 30. The growing importance of rabbis as custodians of Tradition is evident in the space d offered to them in the general press prior to holidays. Most, perhaps all Israeli dailies devote at least one article, on the eve of a holiday, to a description of the nature of the holiday. My impression is that during the last two decades a decreasing number of article are written by Judaic scholars from a scholarly perspective and an increasing number of articles are written by rabbis from a rabbinic perspective. The noted Judaica scholar Yosef Dan notes the decline in importance of Judaica scholarship and scholars in Israeli society in the present period.He attributes this decline to the secular public's increasing association of Judaism with its religious, indeed its ”haredi• interpretation. J Yoesf Dan, "The Hegemony of the Black Hats," ”Politika• No. 29 (November, 1989), pp. 12©15. But the Tradition over which the rabbis reign is not, as we noted, the same Tradition over which they held sway in the past. The most important change is its nationalization ©© a process accompanied by the "traditionalizing" of Zionism. This is not an historiographical paper so I confine myself to repeating the observation by Immanuel Etkes J The observation was made in a paper delivered at a Shorashim Conference at the Mount Zion Hotel, March, 1989. about recent efforts, from a variety of sources, to blur any major distinction between the ”aliyot• of traditional Jews ©© the hasidim in the late eighteenth century and the ”aliya• of the Vilna Gaon's students in the early nineteenth century ©© with the Zionist ”aliyot• beginning in the late nineteenth century. One finds efforts to "zionise" the early ”aliyot• of religious Jews by describing them as messianic in intent and nationalist in activity. And one also finds efforts to traditionalize the Zionist ”aliyot• by emphasizing d the number of religious Jews present in the first ”aliya•. Etkes' observation is all the more significant because while he points to a tendency among academicians and putative scholars, I believe it is present among political leaders as well ©© in no less a figure than Ben©Gurion, especially toward the end of his life. The nationalization of the Tradition takes place at many levels. A necessary condition, perhaps even a catalyst, was the transformation of the Tradition in the hands of the religious×Zionists. Religious©Zionism could have legitimated the effort to establish a Jewish state and cooperate with secular Zionists through a number of alternative strategies. J See the chapter "Religious Orthodoxy's Attitudes Toward Zionism," in Charles S. Liebman and Eliezer Don©Yehiya, ”Religion and Politics in Israel• (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), pp. 57©78. It could have argued, as did Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines (1839©1915), and more recently Yeshayahu Leibowitz, that a Jewish state is vital for the physical well being of the Jewish people but that the Zionist enterprise has nothing to do with religion. It could have argued, as did Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel (1883©1946), for a rigidly utilitarian program of cooperation with secular Zionists, taking care to stress that on religious issues there is no distinction between religious©Zionists and anti©Zionist ”haredim•. Instead, religious©Zionism adopted the ideology of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook (1865©1935)”•, an ideology which sanctified Zionist ideals in religious terminology and even legitimated secular×Zionism by explaining it as an instrument of God in the Redemption of the Jewish people. In retrospect, the victory of Rav Kook's reconceptualization d of the Tradition was inevitable. Few religious people will dedicate their lives to a project which is not a matter of religious concern. What I find especially instructive is that this transformation in the content of Tradition took place before most religious©Zionists had read Rav Kook's work or heard his ideology expounded. It is only since the 1960's that interpretations of Rav Kook have flourished, that his disciples have founded ”yeshivot• which preach his message, or that study groups have been established all over Israel where Rav Kook's doctrines are taught as normative Judaism. I don't mean to minimize the impact of this effort. But it is important to note that Rav Kook's basic doctrine ©© a doctrine that pointed to the Zionist enterprise as the signal of divine redemption and to those engaged in that enterprise as fulfilling God's commands, whether they acknowledged it or not ©© was adopted by religious×Zionists because the idea facilitated their acceptance into the new ”yishuv• and their alliances with the non©religious, not because they found the proof texts in this regard overwhelming. But Rav Kook himself appreciated the radical nature of much of what he preached and the difficulty of integrating it into Tradition. Indeed, it has even been argued that he adopted a negative attitude toward "religion" although he construed this term in a very special manner ©© and at one stage some of his disciples sought to emphasise the distinction between "religion" whihc carried the negative association of ”galut• and house of study with "faith" and the Jew living a natural life in his own d Land. J Gideon Aran, "From Religious Zionism to A Zionist Religion The Origin and Culture of Gush Emunim A Messianic Movement in Modern Israel," Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Hebrew University, 1987. Today, his disciples have been at some pains to deny the radical nature of Rav Kook's thought; to the point of editing and censoring some manuscripts and refusing to publish others. J Hagai Segel, "Lights From Dimness," [Orot Me'Ofel] ”Nekudah• no. 113 (September, 1987), in Hebrew Rav Kook, in the eyes of his followers, is no longer a revolutionary voice or the radical innovator he was once reputed to be, but the successor in a line of luminaries that extends from Rabbi Judah HaLevi to Nahmanides to the Maharal. The integration of tradition, religion and Zionism in Israel is nicely illustrated in a recent bulletin of Tehilla, an organization dedicated to promoting ”aliya• among religious Jews. The bulletin contains an article by one rabbi and a news story about another. The first rabbi serves a major congregation in Tel©Aviv. In the photo accompanying his article he appears in a distinctively rabbinical style ©© black frock, homberg hat, beard, indistinguishable from a ”haredi•. The article centers on the different message to which each of the four cups of wine which the Jew drinks at the ”seder• points. The messages are distinguished by their level of spirituality but all point to the "spiritual centrality of the holy land". The most important or highest level message, the rabbi notes, must be transmitted to religious as well as non©religious Jews. Eventually they must all appreciate, he says, that the ultimate purpose of ”aliya•, which he compares to the exodus from Egypt, is the appropriation of the verse "and I shall be your God and you shall know that I am the Lord". J Ben©Zion Nesher, "Four Languages of Redemption," ”Derech Tehilla•, no. 22 (April, 1989), p. 9. This mingling of religion, tradition and ”aliya• stands in d contrast to a news story about an American rabbi, who immigrated to Israel and after a year©and©a©half revisited his native country. He is quoted as telling Orthodox audiences that: "there's lots more to being Jewish than religion ... Judaism is not just a religion but a nationhood." J The story apeared in the ”Cleveland Jewish News• (February 24, 1989) and was reprinted in ”Derech Tehilla•, no. 22 (April, 1989), p. 30. The reappropriation of Tradition and its nationalization by religious©Zionists was probably a necessary condition in the acceptance of Tradition and the legitimation of religion among the non©”datiim•. I already made reference to the growing influence of the rabbis in defining the content of Tradition among non×”datiim•. This is especially true of non©”datiim• aligned with the political right. Religious Jews are perceived as their political allies and religion as a powerful instrument to legitimate their political demands. Their conceptions of Judaism may more properly be termed a "mood" or an "identity" rather than an ideology. One reason it lacks clear articulation may be because its proponents are so sympathetic to traditional religion that they are reluctant to pose an alternative to religious conceptions of Tradition. Disproportionate numbers of Sephardi Jews, the bulk of those who define themselves as ”masorati'im• (traditional in their religious orientation), share this mood. But they include some who define themselves as ”hiloni• (secular) as well. Ariel Sharon, the favorite political leader of the ultra-nationalists, is quoted as saying, "I am proud to be a Jew but sorry that I am not religious." J ”Ma'ariv• "Weekend Supplement", (March 10, 1986), p. 12. In the last few years, as divisions between doves and hawks d have sharpened, one hears increasingly that fidelity to religion and loyalty to the state are associated. Thus, a circular from the Religious Division within the Ministry of Education to principals of religious schools in 1988 reminded them that Jewish traitors come from the anti-religious left and not from within the ranks of the religious. And a columnist for the religious-Zionist daily discusses "the Israeli left, sections of which betrayed the State and associated themselves with the PLO." J ”Hatzofeh• (June 27, 1968), p. 3. The writer notes that "leftism" is correlated with disorganized family life, divorce and "unofficial marriages" i.e. marriages not conducted in accordance with Jewish law. It is not surprising that ”dati• spokesmen emphasize the association between religion and patriotism. But non©”dati• leaders do so as well. Thus, for example, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is quoted as saying: The left today is not what it once was. In the past, social and economic issues were its major concern. Today, its concern is zealousness for political surrender and, on the other hand, war against religion. It is only natural that someone whose stance is opposed to the Land of Israel will also oppose the Torah of Israel. J ”Ma'ariv• (December 20, 1987 p. 6. J The affirmation of nationalist ideals and their integration into the Tradition, in the hands of the rabbis, certainly eased the way for the non©”datiim• to reaffirm their own ties to the Jewish people (no longer Hebrews as distinct from Jews), and to Jewish history (no longer repressing "two thousand years" of d ”galut•, or reducing it to an unfortunate interlude). Tradition has been nationalized, among both non©”datiim• as well as religious©Zionists, through a selective interpretation of sacred texts and of Jewish history. Emphasis is given to the sanctity and centrality of ”eretz yisrael•, the Land of Israel. The Zionists celebrated their radical departure from the Tradition in their efforts to reclaim and settle the Land, Israelis celebrate their continuity with the Tradition in this regard. What is all the more remarkable is that ”eretz yisrael• has come to symbolize both loyalty to the State of Israel as well as loyalty to the Tradition. Indeed, as Baruch Kimmerling points out, the term ”eretz yisrael• has increasingly replaced the term State of Israel in the pronouncements of national leaders, especially those on the political right. J Baruch Kimmerling, "Between the Primordial and the Civil Definition of the Collective Identity: ”Eretz Israel• or the State of Israel?", Erik Cohen, Moshe Lissak and Uri Almagor (eds.), ”Comparative Social Dynamics: Essays in Honor of S.N. Eisenstadt• (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985), pp. 262©83. To be a good Jew means to live in the Land of Israel under conditions of Jewish autonomy. The nationalization of the Tradition means its particularization as well. I don't wish to argue that this is a distortion of the Jewish past. I suspect that the effort to interpret the Tradition as moralistic and universalistic, an effort that is basic to the American Jewish understanding of Tradition, is far less faithful than is the Israeli version to what Jews throughout the ages understood as Tradition. J I explore this notion in greater detail in "Ritual, Ceremony and the Reconstruction of Judaism in the United States," ”Studies in Contemporary Jewry•, vol. VI. forthcoming. But it merits mention because it does stand in contrast to the Zionist effort to "normalize" Jewish existence. Classical Zionists suggested that antisemitism was a consequence of the peculiar condition of the Jews as perennial "guests" or "strangers" in d countries not their own. It was not, they claimed, the result of any special animus toward Jews as such. This claim was necessary to bolster Zionist belief that once the Jews had a country of their own their condition would be normalized and antisemitism would disappear. This was among the more non©traditional components of the Zionist credo. Israeli Jews no longer, for the most part, believe this to be true. Antisemitism, they are likely to believe, is endemic. "The world is all against us" as the refrain of a popular song went, suggests that there is nothing that Jews in general or Israelis in particular can do to resolve the problem. The Jew is special because he is hated and he is hated because he is special. This is the lesson of Jewish history, as my own students are wont to remind me, and it serves to anchor the state of Israel within the currents of Jewish life. In summary, Zionism, the ideology of Jewish nationalism has been transformed and anchored to the Tradition, and the Tradition, in turn, has been nationalized. Erik Cohen describes this trend as: a reorientation of the basic principles of legitimation of Israel: a trend away from secular Zionism, especially its pioneering©socialist variety, towards a neo©traditionalist Jewish nationalism which, while it reinforces the primordial links among Jews both within Israel and the diaspora, de×emphasizes the modern, civil character of the state. J Erik Cohen, "Citizenship, Nationality and Religion in Israel and Thailand," in Baruch Kimmerling, ”op. cit.•, p. 70. J The rise of particularism has implications for the interpretation of ethics and morality as well. Emphasis on law d (and ritual) means a de-emphasis on the centrality of ethics. But, in addition, religious Jews in Israel have redefined "morality" in particularistic rather than universalistic terms. According to the rabbi who pioneered the establishment of extremist education within the religious-Zionist school system, Jews are enjoined to maintain themselves in isolation from other peoples. Foreign culture is a particular anathema when its standards are used to criticize Jews. J Charles S. Liebman, "Jewish UltraNationalism in Israel: Converging Strands," in William Frankel (ed.), ”Survey of Jewish Affairs, 1985• (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 28©50. "Between the Torah of Israel and atheist humanism there is no connection"; there is no place in Judaism for "a humanistic attitude in determining responses to hostile behavior of the Arab population" says another. According to a leader of Jewish settlers on the West Bank: Jewish national morality is distinct from universal morality. Notions of universal or absolute justice may be good for Finland or Australia but not here, not with us. ! J ”Ibid•., p. 46 J This de-emphasis on universal standards of morality among rabbis, extends to areas other than the Jewish-Arab dispute. The chief rabbi of Ramat-Gan, for example, decries the practice of childless Israeli couples adopting Brazilian children, even though the children undergo conversion procedures. Such children, he says, will be raised as Israelis but not all of them will identify with the Jews. "After all, it is clear that children inherit characteristics from their parents," he says. He then cites rabbinic texts in order to prove that non-Jews are not blessed with the quality of mercy with which Jews are blessed, d but on the contrary are cruel by their very nature. " J ”Hatzofeh• (June 20, 1988), p.4. Many non©”dati• Jews may be unhappy with this type of interpretation, but they don't doubt that it is the authentic voice of Tradition. * The Authority of Tradition in Contemporary Israelƒ There is no question that Tradition has assumed a positive valence in Israeli society today. The initial rejection of Tradition was probably inevitable. Even those Zionists who didn't reject religion itself were conscious of the fact that their efforts stood in opposition to central values of the Tradition and the pronouncements of its custodians. But, in addition, the very excitement and hope, the revolutionary ardor which the Zionist enterprise generated among many of its followers, youth in particular, undermined a basic sympathy for tradition of any kind. "No more tradition's chains shall bind us...the earth shall rise on new foundations" is the anthem of the worker's International but is a sentiment which revolutionaries of all stripes are likely to share. The creation of Israel, the need to consolidate rather than innovate a national consciousness, the mass immigration of traditionally oriented Jews from eastern Europe but especially from North Africa, the decline of secular Zionism, all help explain the reemergence of Tradition, religion and Judaism as important components of Israeli culture. Of course, not all Israelis have adapted themselves to this d change. Important segments of Israeli society demur. A few of these merit attention. Steven Cohen and I have described them in fuller detail else. # J Charles S. Liebman and Steven M. Cohen, ”Two Worlds of Judaism• (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) First are ”•those whose dissent is an extension of their religious extremism ©© the anti©modernist and anti or non©Zionist ”haredim• who understand Tradition in its pre×nationalist and pre©modernist form. Second are those who understand the Tradition in less stridently nationalistic, in pan©Jewish and more moralistic terms. They include a segment of religious©Zionists of whom Rabbis Yehuda Amital and Aaron Lichtenstein (Yeshiva heads) or Rabbi David Hartman (theologian) are representative, and, on the other hand, those secular×Zionists who have remained faithful to an older generation's formulation of Judaism. The late Abba Kovner was an exemplary representative of this tendency. Finally there are those who don't object to the contemporary Israeli interpretation of Tradition but wish to have no part of it. This is probably the dominant strain in the political party Ratz, the Citizens Rights Movement. Political scientist Ze'ev Sternhall, though himself a member of Mapam, expressed this idea on the pages of ”Politika•, a journal sponsored by Ratz. Sternhall bewails the absence of western style democracy in Israel which he defines as a system of government which places the individual and not collective goals at the center of its concern. The key problem in Israel, he says, is understanding the essence of democracy, "the rights of humans to be masters of themselves...the expression of man's recognition that all sources of political, social and moral authority inhere d in man himself". $ J Ze'ev Sternhall, "The Battle for Intellectual Control," ”Politika•, no. 18, in Hebrew (December, 1987), pp. 2-5 Israeli political culture he suggests, rejects the basis of democratic thought -- that "society and state exist in order to serve the individual...and are never ends in themselves." A major source of Israel's collectivist culture, according to Sternhall, is the Jewish tradition. Even the non-religious Zionists, he maintains, "never really freed themselves from the tradition of their father's home, and in one form or another they deferred to ”Yisrael Saba•". Sternhall's sharp critique leads us to a final question: granted that his description of the Jewish tradition is accurate, to what extent does it carry real authority within Israeli society? Since we defined Tradition in terms of the perception or consciousness of contemporary society, it is reasonable to assume that Israelis wouldn't understand Tradition in the way they do unless it was congenial to them. I'm not suggesting that Israelis or any other society defines its Traditions arbitrarily and consciously to suit its preferences. There are two good reasons why it cannot and does not do so. First, because preferences themselves are a product, at least in part, of Tradition. Secondly, because the conscious manipulation of Tradition, like the conscious manipulation of religion, or law, destroys its authority. It ceases to compel deference and obedience once it is viewed as an instrument to satisfy contemporary needs rather than rooted in a transcendent source and/or a hoary past and/or the nature of reality. But there still remains an element of d subjectivity, of preference, of utility in the manner in which we define our Tradition, in the themes we select for emphasis, in the interpretation we offer to the symbols that compel us. In this respect, therefore, it is never entirely accurate to explain patterns of behavior by Tradition. For, at least in some respects, if such patterns did not suit us, we would behave otherwise. One mustn't exaggerate the compelling quality of Tradition in contemporary Israeli society. Clifford Geertz distinguishes between "religiousness" and "religious©mindedness" % J Clifford Geertz, ”Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia• (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968). ©© the difference between being held by religious conviction and holding such convictions. Religiousness celebrates the content of the belief, religious©mindedness celebrates the belief. Tradition, in Israeli society, is analogous to religious©mindedness. Israelis are in favor of the idea of Tradition which is not the same as saying that they submit themselves to Tradition. Tradition in the modern world ©© because it is self©conscious, because it exists, even in the mind of its adherents as something apart from them, because one can imagine non©Tradition ©© means that one must make choices with respect to it. The necessity to choose Tradition rather than simply live one's life in accordance with its norms and values inspires fanatical devotion among some but leads others to adopt a more permissive, latitudinarian and less submissive orientation. Furthermore, despite the deference which Israeli society accords Tradition, it is my impression that many Israelis are d ignorant of (not simply mistaken about), its basic tenets. Ritual and ceremony is certainly a source of knowledge about Tradition and a mechanism for socializing its adherents to its norms. In a forthcoming study of a middle income Tel©Aviv neighborhood, sociologist Ephraim Tabory shows how second generation secular Jewish Israelis, i.e. Israelis who define themselves as secular and report that they were raised in secular homes, observe virtually no Jewish ceremony or ritual. & J Ephraim Tabory, "Patterns of Living in a Mixed Community," Yeshayahu (Charles) Liebman (ed.), ”Relations Between Religious and Secular In Israeli Society• (Jerusalem: Keter, in Hebrew, 1990). The number of such Israelis is increasing far more rapidly than the number of ”hozrim bitshuva• (non©religious who have chosen to become religious). Tradition, as we have indicated, is not necessarily the same as religion and certainly not the same as the observance of religious ritual. But religion, especially in Judaism, is the most important instrument for socializing a population to the norms of Tradition. The fact that less than 20 percent of the Israeli Jewish population defines itself as ”dati• suggests that the position of Tradition within Israeli society is not as secure as one might otherwise believe. If the compelling quality of Tradition is so limited with respect to ritual and legal matters, than how compelling can it be in matters of values and general social norms where it confronts a world of competing and alternative values and norms? Individualism, Sternhall to the contrary notwithstanding, is becoming far more commonplace in Israel. The demand for self©fulfillment and personal gratification is growing. The mass media, foreign travel and the structure of the economy are enough to insure that. And those who d dissent from Tradition, even if they constitute a small minority, occupy key positions among the economic, political and cultural elite. Among such people, generally the better educated and more "enlightened", to use Shils' term, there is a prevailing notion that: a great many of the beliefs, practices, and institutions ...[need] to be changed, replaced, or discarded in favor of new ones which would invariably be better ones...the accent of intellectual and political discourse still remains on a movement forward from the recent and remote past. The emphasis is on improvement. ' J Shils, ”op. cit.•, p. 2. J It is difficult to sustain Tradition in a social milieu antagonistic to the norms of the past. We have only to remember that the opposite of utilizing tradition as a basis for decision×making is utilizing reason, and we are reminded of Tradition's inherent weakness. *&Endnotes