--.- t ,--- "4 '%--i d DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THE RELATIONSHIP TO ISRAEL OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS GROUPS : ORTHODOXY

Aharon Lichtenstein

Background paper prepared for THE PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL'S SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON WORLD JEWRY AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL 1983 7'ABL.E OF CONTENTS

Qpen i ng Remarks Iyoshe Davis 1

The Relationship to Israel of Jewish Religious Groups: Orthodoxy 3 Aharon Lichtenstein

Pinhas Medding (28) 18 Arieh Dvoretzky (29) Yidahu Branover (20) Yitzhak Navon (22) Yoharuxn Mazor (22) Andrd Neher (22) ShaZom Rosenberg (23) H& HamieZ (25)

Response

Participants in the Discussion OPEN l NG REMARKS Moshe Davis

We are grateful to Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, -Rosh Yeshiva of Har Etzion Yeshiva, for agreeing to clarify a rather complex issue for us. First, what do we mean by "Orthodoxy" when we pose the quest ion as to relationship tb Israel and to Zionism? As we all know, Orthodoxy is far from monolithic; it comprises not only differing, but even mutually opposing points of view, and the contrasts are - if anything - even sharper in the Diaspora than in Israel. Second, what is meant by "Israel's place" in regard to Orthodoxy? Is the mitzvah of settling Eretz lsrael coterminous with the obligations involved in maintaining the State of Israel, or are the two separate andb if so, in what respects? Third - and this is not an easy question - how do lsrael and the Diaspora influence one another as regards "Israel's place" in the Orthodox movement ?

When we began this series of talks, we were aware of the risk that, owing to lack of any basic research on the subject, we might be faced with unsupported hypotheses. However, we also knew that we had one safeguard against this danger, and that was to select authoritative speakers, men .of both theory and practice, who possess a profound understanding of these complex processes.

Everyone who knows our colleague Rabbi Lichtenstein and has enjoyed his participation in this Study Circle and in other groups, knows how well he fits this description. THE RELATIONSHIP TO ISRAEL OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS GROUPS : ORTHODOXY

Aharon Lichtenstein

The subject of our discourse, "The Status of the State of Israel within Diaspora Orthodoxy", is quite close to my heart, inasmuch as I relate to it in several modes: as a committed and observant Jew, as a Zionist and an Israel i , and as an educator. However, it is also a subject whose expert pro- fessional analysis and presentation lies beyond my ken - in part, because the requisite data is imperfect and imprecise, but primarily because I lack the proper qualifications. I am neither a sociblogist nor descended from one. The statistical fecundity upon which research is grounded and by which it is enriched, the disciplinary terminology through which its master describes a situation and posits it within a comprehensive conceptual framework -.all these are quite beyond me. However, inasmuch as I stressed these limitations when I was invited to discuss the topic - thus giving vent to the initial reservations incumbent upon a prospective sh'liach zibhm - and having been asked to proceed nonetheless, I approach the task with my own t~ls:sans the professionalism of the practitioner but suffused with the immediate per- ception which is the boon of whoever experiences a phenomenon directly, and hopefully' imbued with at least a trace of the amateur's enthusiasm.

In his lecture which opened this series, Dr. Abramov surveyed the his- tory of Zionism within the Reform movement - from its inception in Central Europe, through its development in the United States, and including its re- cent introduction to Israel. His presentation traced the shift from the trend toward an almost total sociopolitical universalism - which perceives knesset JsraeZ as a religious community rather than as a national society and which denies, for both philosophic and social reasons, a particularistic link to a country or, a fortiori, to a specific state - to a recognition of the renascent land and State of Israel as the center and focus of national existence; to identification with them, pride in them, and perhaps even a yearning for them. As we come to deal, concomitantly, with the status of Zionism within contemporary Orthodoxy, it should be clarified at the outset that no such process took place, or could have taken place, within its con- text. For the Jew committed to the observance of Torah and mitzvot, the problem of his Reform peer, that of the very link to Zion, simply does not exist. From early on, he is imbued with the love of Zion and the yearning for Jerusalem. Daily, he prays for their growth and renewal; after every meal, he offers thanks for his national patrimony and petitions for the full restoration of its capital; continually, he mourns their destruction and longs for their total redemption: for the return of kohmim to their service, of Zeviim to their festive song, and the people of Israel to their homes; for the restoration of "judges as of old and thei r counsel lors as of yore." To be sure, with respect to him, the dialectic antinomy between universalism and particularism exists, whether at the metaphysical plane - "Behold., heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have bui lded" - or whither at the historical and national. He encounters it in the chapters of psukei d'zimrah which he recites daily no less than in the blessings of maZchuyot, zichronot, and shofarot which constitute the heart of the Rosh Hashanah prayer; and at the center of his splritual con- sciousness stands a verse which asserts both that the Lord is our God and that He is One. And regardless of whether we interpret, with Rashi, "The Lord who is now our God and not that of the nations shall, in the future, be the One God, as it is written, 'For then I will turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may call upon the name of the Lord,' and as it is written, 'In that day shall the Lord by One, and His name one,' 'I or whether we understand, as did Sforno and other commentators that the two dimensions are concurrent, the dialectic is manifest. Nevertheless, it does not under- mine, in the slightest, the experiential and ideological bond to the sacred land.

But while the basic link to Zion is both deep-rooted and beyond question, the relation to Zionism - as a movement dedicated to resettlement, striving for the establishment of a sovereign state, and seeking to secure once more the position of knesset Israel within the commonwealth of nations in the wake of its return home - has been far more complex. From the outset - in- deed, even before it had taken shape as an organized and structured movement - the fundamental principles of political Zionism have been the subject of con- troversy within the Orthodox wokld, with its opponents often holding the upper hand. The controversy centered upon four primary issues: 1) The placcof 'knesset IsraeZ as a moving and initiating agent within the millennia1 redemptive process. This point of course relates to a major crux within universal historiosophy, but the question of the nature and scope of human involvement in history assumes added significance with reference to "the eternal people'' in light of our profound Jewish faith that "the portion of the Lord is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance" - particularly so, as the Ramban (vccyikra 18:25) stressed, with respect to all that relates to Eretz Israel . 2) The attitude toward the material element - whose national manifesta- tions are geopolitical, in the form of country, state, and economy - within the world of the spirit. Should one adopt and emphasize the position impli- cit in Rabbi Abba's comment'with respect to the signs of the Messianic era (~mhedrin98a), "No millennium is more manifest than this, as is stated (YehezkeZ 36:8), 'But ye, 0 mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people Israel; for they are at hand to come ' ?'I Or ra-ther, noting that bread pales into insignificance besides Torah, should one stress its relative inanity and lash out at those who em- brace the mundane at the expense of the eternal? - - 3) The value of partial achievements in the realization of the vision of redemption. One school took a positive view, often citing a celebrated passage from the Talmud Yerushalmi (~erakot1:1) as a proof-text: "Rabbi Hiyya Rabba and Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta were once walking, early, in the Arbel Valley when they saw the dawn breaking. Thereupon, Rabbi Hiyya Rabba said to Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta, 'Master, thus is the redemption of Israel: initially, minuscule; subsequently, enlarged. Why? (As it is written (MLeah 7:8)), "Though 1 sit in darkness, the Lord is a light unto me." Another, contemplat,ing the immense gap between prophetic promise and contem- porary,' predominantly secular, reality, finds it difficult to regard its in- sipid grayness as an even partial expression of an eschatological redemption destined to install and inspire a society in which "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." 4) Evaluation of the specific Zionist phenomenon, taking into account not only current content and characteristics but also prospective growth and development, both near- and long-term.

These tbpics served, for over a century, as the focus of heated debate, in the course of which diametrically opposed views were presented. These ranged from the ascription to Zionism of "Messianic functions1' (to use a phrase much cherished by Rav or en) within the context of incipient redemp- tion, to its definition, as the Satmar Rebbe would have it, as the devil's initiattve. However, I presume that this polemic, at least in general out- line, is familiar, and I prefer to turn to my specific subject: the sketch- ing, description, and analysis of the current situation as it has evolved over the last decade primarily and in the United States especially.

I would be more than happy to follow in Dr. Abramov's footsteps and to report to you that, in comparison not only with the preceding century but even with the previous generation, the situation is distinctly improved. Much to my chagrin, however, the reality is quite different; and it is, from a Zionist perspective, rather dismal. And while it is true that, in part, the reason is that, unlike that of Reform Jewry, the Orthodox point of com- parison is not near-zero, the fact remains that the present scene offers us little cheer. Relative to its status within Diaspora Orthodoxy from pre-1948 and until the Six-Day War or even the Yom Kippur War, Zionism's cur- rent position is unquestionably depressed. If twenty or thirty years ago the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox community, its yeshiva component included, was suffused with pride in the State and identified with its charac- ter and symbols; if the instruction of Zimudei kodesh in the Hebrew language was then regarded as a distinction by many educational institutions; if the support of Israeli government policy was almost unreservedly solid, virtually taken for granted - all of these are, today, receding. Broadly based empathy remains, but it is more limited and, above all, more shallow. The State's denigrators no longer speak gotto voce, and its policy is no longer under- mined only out of dark corners. As in other camps, observant Jews who repre- sent the United States as the modern Babylonia do not seem bizarre. And what is perhaps even more significant, those who do espouse the State, and pre- sumably champion it as in yesteryear, are less enthusiastic and less authori- tative, with Eretz lsrae1,now less central within their world and they less central within Orthodoxy as a whole.

This decline stems from the conjunction of two factors. The first is, of course, the general erosion which has occurred in the status of the State of Israel in the United States - more specifically, within its Jewish comnuni- ty - and simi larly, mutatis mutandis, in other Diasporas. To our chagrin, this phenomenon is all too familiar. It was most clearly reflected during the recent Lebanese War, reaching its peak in relqtion to the massacre of Sabra and Shattila. But the slippage has persisted for close to a decade - since the time, in the wake of the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, that our struggle ceased to be perceived by the consciousness and imagination of the West as a battle for survival gamely fought by a lone lamb entrapped within the wolfish Arab world and began to be regarded as a confrontation with em- battled Palestinians overwhelmed by our superior power. Be that as it may, this situation, its inherent injustice and distortion included, is, again, well-known, and there is no need to dwell upon it in extenso. I should only point out that this development has not left the Orthodox community un- affected. Its members, too, watch the newscasts and read the Times, and they, too, despite a fundamental and abiding loyalty to the State, are influ- enced by the prevailing winds. The second factor requires fuller attention. This factor is internal: the demographic and ideological composition of the Orthodox community per se. During the last ten or twenty years, we have been witness, in the Diaspora. even &re than in Israel, to a process of religious rigorization. This pro- cess finds exp.ression not only in the deepening and broadening of commitment to Torah and mitzvot - a most welcome development - but in the rejection, at times strident, of all not bound by and linked to them, in the narrowest sense of these terms and as measured by the strictest of standards. Right- wing elements (I very much dislike this stereotyping terminology - all the more so here as in many respects I identify, both emotionally and ideologi- cally, with this camp and regard its attainments as genuine progress - but in a brief essay it is difficult to avoid it entirely) have been gathering strength, and with them the whole system has moved. This phenomenon was al- ready noted, almost two decades ago, by Professor Charles Liebman in his study, "Orthodoxy in American JewSsh Life, "(l' but since then it has gather- ed considerable momentum. The proportional weight of these groups has in- creased, both because of their own absolute growth (they do not espouse Z.P.G., and are hardly content with two children), and, unfortunately, as a result of continual attrition - whose scope within Orthodoxy does not ap- proach that outside it but is nevertheless quite sibstantial - within the presumed "rivalii camp, "modern Orthodoxy." Beyond this, the right-wing fac- tion has aggrandized even more than it has grown. Its spokesmen brim with confidence, the assurance of their own righteousness - and, at times, ex- coriation of their opponents - finding full-throated expression. The educa- tional system, and particularly, its apex, the yeshiva world, has come in- creasingly under its control - whether because many of its adherents have evinced a readiness to work in this field in- a spirit of self-sacrifice not always comparably found in their modernist peers, sr because characteristic certitude and manifest sincerity appeals to a younger generation eager for clear and positive solutions and change of complexity. This public and its leadership (although it should be noted that rhe leadership is, by and large, more moderate than its constituency) is increasingly dictating Orthodox 1 i fe- style and axiological norms - norms which become bench marks even for many not affiliated with this camp, who do not accede to its authority, and who are unwi 11 ing to 1 ive in accordance with Its pragmatic demands. As many of the power centers of Diaspora Orthodoxy have gradually come under at least partial right-wing domination, its impact has been felt even in areas beyond its control.

This process - stronger, again, in the Diaspora than in Israel, although it is evidently taking place here as well- has had a direct and significant influence upon the status of Zionism w'ithln the Orthodox world; and this, for both axiological and structural reasons. IdeologicalJy, the right wing is not much inclined to Zionism. It regards Judaism as almost exclusively fo- cused upon the pursuit, as intensive as possible and primarily personal, of the study of Torah and the fulfillment of practical dtzvot. Political, perhaps even national, attainments, occupy a secondary position, if indeed they figure at all within its scale of values.- Any conception ltnking the millennium with branches and fruits is wholly foreign to it; and it is suffi- ciently distant from the Holocaust that another millennia1 sign, the ingather- ing of Diasporas, leaves it largely unimpressed. 'Like their confi-eres in Israel, its adherents and sympathizers are reluctant to cooperate with secular Zionists; and unlike those confreres, their existential and legal framework does not pressure them to do so.

Moreover, the relation of this camp to the rest of the American Jewish community exerts further influence upon its relation to Zionism. Anyone even vaguely familiar with Ametican Orthodoxy is aware of the extent to which, over the past generation, it has been divided and even torn by the question of its link to the whole of Amekican Jewry - especially to the Reform and Conservative movements. The most prominent expression of this division has been the intermittent struggle within the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congrega- tions concerning membershiplin the Synagogue Counci 1 of America, in which : representatives ofthe three movements sit jointly. Anyone not directly in- volved may find it difficult t~ grasp the extent to which this issue, which from a certain perspective may appear qulte peripheral and perhaps purely organizational, has concerned and perturbed many of American Orthodoxy's com- munal leaders, But this is unquestionably the case. I recall once observ- ing this situation closely, not wlthout a measure of astonishment. In the fa1 l of 1966, 1 was invited, together wf th three other rabbanim, to parti- cipate in a symposium, to be held at a session of the U.O.J.C.A. convention, which was to deal with Orthodox unlty, Inasmuch as the subject was - and still is - close to my heart, I accepted enthusiastically. I was therefore most surprlsed when the first speaker - initially scheduled to appear later but who asked to be advanced as he had to leave early - arose and declared more or less as follows: "Gentlemen! 1 have indeed accepted your invitation and am participating in this symposium; but let no one therefore dare con- clude, in the slightest, that I agree with your policy with respec: to the Synagogue Council or acquiesce in it. This policy is trefa, repugnant, wholly unacceptable. Moreover, if you wish to deepen your ties with us" - he regarded himself, correctly, as the prime representative of the right at the symposium - "you must terminate your ties to the other movements." Hence, a session scheduled to deal wlth Orthodox unity was transformed into an often acrimonious debate over one of Its most controversial issues, so that the last speaker (a1 though then a member of the presidium of the Agu- dat Harabbanim, general ly regarded as close to the right) complained about this obsession. He quoted the Hafetz Hayyim's remark that while a house- wife and a cat both abhor mice, the former wants them to disappear while the latter prefers that they exist so as to be chased.

This particular point, as has been noted, constitutes the most prominent manifestation of an issue perturbing many within modern American Orthodoxy; and there is no dearth of others. The right wing, by contrast, has no such iroblem. And in relation to it, the rejection of any substantive link to other segments of the Jewish community is, with respect to the Zionist issue, doubly significant. On the one hand, due to separatist tendencies, this camp is not inclined to join forces with others. On the other, this disinclination is itself reinforced by the separation per se. Inasmuch as one of the central conanon areas is the State of Israel and everything relat- ed to it, both aspects are manifest with regard to Zionism. Quite apart from aforementioned reservations, the right-wing camp is reluctant to parti- cipate in the Zionist enterprise inasmuch as it does not favor joint action with those beyond its pale; and the very dilution of contact with elements to whom Zionism remains important and perhaps central constricts the horizons of the right-wing community and its attachment to the State.

From a purely numerical perspective, this community is not very large. Its specific weight, however, is considerable; and it should be emphasized, again, that its impact is perceptible throughout the Orthodox world, most notably among those, particularly the young, for whom their Judaism is cen- tral. Leavening the dough, i t ferments modern Orthodox circl es and thei r institutions - in certain respects, positively, but in regard to Zionism, negatively. One might cite a small but typical example. In the field of higher education, the bastion of modern Orthodoxy is unquestionably Yeshiva University. I recall .vividly how warmly Ben Gurion was received when he visited Yeshiva. Or again, that when Golda Meir came in the late sixties, the strains of "Am Israel Hai" which filled the'auditorium upon her entry were so powerfully vibrant that the Prime Minister, tough as she was, was moved to tears. One can safely wager that should her counterpart, whoever he may be, visit today, he will be received with dignity and with honor - but more tepidly and more mildly.

The relation of Orthodoxy to Zionism is further influenced, from another aspect - at least, in the United States - by growing acculturation within the Diaspora and deepening kinship with the country of "exile". Even those who do not necessarily relate to its culture in the narrower sense of the arts and the like enjoy the ambience of their generally indigenous existen- tial range. Unlike its predecessors, the current Orthodox generation, in- cluding Yeshiva students and their middle-level leaders, now in their forties and fifties, is no stranger to the American scene, It speaks and writes English - of a kind which indeed frequently shocks the sensibility of the more. de 1 icatel y ref i ned but whi ch serves as lingua franca nonetheless ; it develops and promotes an extensive network of vernacular periodicals and expository 1 i terature; and it faces its envi rons with unabashed pride. The sense of alienation - at times, of inferiority and subliminal shame - which ofen marked the older members of the Agudat Harabbmim is foreign to their heirs (5.f the Histadmt or Iggud Harabbanim. Consequently, as they feel more at home in their Diaspora habitat, Orthodox Jews are naturally less inclined to flock to Zionism by way of solving the presumed "JewiSh problem". More- over, within Orthodoxy - and not only in relation to its right-wing - one encounters a particular concern with a problem which confronts the Jewish community as a whole: increasing competition between conmitment to the needs of local institutions and readiness to work and contribute on behalf.of Israel and its enterprises. This phenomenon is especially acute in the Or- thodox world because its needs are greater and possibly, as some would have it, its capacity more limited. Education, kashrut, mikvaot - all demand of the Orthodox Jew more than of his Conservative, Reform or secu.lar peer. Furthermore, in a certain sense, paradoxical as it may seem, he also perhaps needs the State of Israel less. Whereas a public less rooted in tradition regards it as a spiritual anchor and virtually indispensable source of in- spiration which enables it and its children to cope with rising waves of assimilation, those committed to Torah and nritzvot in depth possess an al- ternate value system which help stave off this danger. These facts may have some bearing upon their readiness and ability to act on behalf of Israel, particularly in periods of economic stress such as have affected the United States several times during the past decade.

In addition to the axiological and ideological element, we might note an organizational factor which has also affected the current standing of Zionism within American Orthodoxy. For some years now, the power and posi-

1 tion of large and central synagogues has been declining and in their stead have flourished numerous small synagogues and shtiblech. This development dertves, In part, from population shifts from urban centers to suburbia and relatively dispersed newer neighborhoods and, in part, from inclinations, both ideological and practical, related to processes discussed earlier. Whatever the cause, the result, as far as Zionism is concerned, is clear. In contrast with a large synagogue, which often also serves as a community center and which, by dint of its very character and structure, engages in general activity and relates to broad aims, the shtibel is less r'eady, and possibly less able, to cope with problems which lie beyond the needs, be they personal or institutional, of its constituents. It provides a place for prayer, for Torah study, and for congenial socialization; but it averts its gaze, relatively, from public causes unrelated to the neighborhood. Concomltantly, its rabbi (and there are some which manage quite we1 1 "without one) is general ly disengaged from the broader national plane. This develop- ment unquestionably has many positive aspects. However, its influence upon the status of Zionism is clearly negative, and it constitutes an additional cause for its decline within American Orthodoxy.

To complete the picture, some comparison of the situation in the Dias- pora with that prevailing in Israel is in order. To a great extent, as al- ready indicated, they are analogous and to those attuned to the scene, the phenomena I hake described are quite familiar domestically. Nevertheless, I believe that with respect to Zionism, the erosion in its status within Orthodoxy and the dissociation from the State and from the Zionist endeavor in general are sharper abroad than at home. Two factors are primarily re- sponsible. First, the mere fact that a Jew, especially a religious Jew, lives in Israel, even if he disapproves, ideologically, of the prevalent regime, has an impact upon him. Presence within a common and unifying boat serves to weld and meld within the framework of a practical "Zionism" which indeed rejects the movement's political program but which nevertheless goes far beyond the link to Zion as a sacred land and relates to it as the locus of 1 i fe and existence.

Let me cite a minor Instance. Some years ago, my wife and I visited a leading Jerusalem Torah personalfty who, in purely ideological terms, would certainly have defined himself as vehemently anti-Zionist. The conversation turned to the reading of the megiZZah on Purim. I inquired whether, given the location of his home and certain Halachic data, he read it on the four- teenth or on the fifteenth of Adar. His reply was illuminating. At one time, he read on the fourteenth, as In "open cities" (i.e. those not walled at the time of Joshua's entry into Eretz Israel), inasmuch as 1) he did not regard Jerusalem's "new city" as Jerusalem proper; and 2) before the Six-Day War one could not view it as appended to the Old City - in which case one would read on the fifteenth on the basis of the provision that places which are "proximate and visible" in relation to a walled city are accorded it status - since the latter lacked the requisite minimal Jewish population. "However," he continued, "now that we have captured the Old City," he had changed his practice and now reads on the fifteenth. Once outside, my wife remarked: "Just imagine - we!" It was perhaps a sl ip of the tongue, but beneath that casual narrative lay a profound existential and experiential truth. Analysis of policy pronouncements issued by roughly comparable anti- Zionist elements, often members of the same party, In Israel and abroad, con- sistently reveals that in the Diaspora the dissociation from Zionism is sharp- er and opposition to it keener - especially so, one notes to our chagrin, with respect to younger, more determined and more vigorous, leadership.

Secondly, regarding the Orthodox - and especially the Torah-world in its totality - it is clear that here in lsrael there exists a Zionist counterbal- ancing Torah force which, in terms of conparable scope and power, is simply lacking abroad. The domestic Bnei Akiva movement and its yeshivot is quite different from its Diaspora counterpart. There, it is difficult if not im- possible to find frameworks and institutions within which commitment to Torah and to Zionism is interfused to an extent and in a manner familiar in Israel. I know of nothing abroad camparable to Yeshivat Merkaz Harav - and gbshivot hesder are of course out of the question. This fact perhaps has no direct bearing upon the right wing under discussion; but it unquestionably affects the total picture and, to my mind, its imprlnt has ramifications with regard to the non-Zionist Orthodox community as well.

In conclusion, I would like to balance somewhat that which I have here- tofore emphasized. By no means do I wish to create the impression that the American Orthodox community in general is on the verge of dissociation from Zionism or alienation from the State. Unquestionably, the great majority of its members identify - not only formally but also, in large measure, em- pathetically - with the State; and the Zionist fervor of the average shul- goer is surely greater, perhaps significantly so, than the general. More- over, the spiritual and intellectual leadership of modern Orthodoxy - which, numerically is surely still the dominant group - remains firm in its rock- ribbed Zionist commitment. Only recently, its organ, Tmdition, published a symposium, in which, inter aZia, participants were asked to answer the question, "How should Orthodoxy respond to the State of Israel?" The replies varied but as to the cardinal premise there was unanimity: The State of l srael is a significant and central phenomenon in modern Jewish history.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Zionist enclaves also exist in "non-modern" circles. The outstanding example is, of course, Habad. Philo- sophically and practically, the world of Habad hasidat is quite complex, es- pecially so with regard to the problem discusskd at the outset, that of par- ticularism and universalism. As regards Zionism, however, I, at any rate, think it is clear that the Rebbe's firm anchorage in Brooklyn notwithstanding, his pronouncements and the wide-ranging activrty under his inspiration and direction bespeak identification with the purpose and changes related to of- fical organized Zionism.

So there Is still much light and it certainly exceeds the darkness. Nevertheless, I have chosen to emphasize the lengthening shadows because the changes which have taken place over the last decade have been rather dishear- tening. The growing power of non-Zionfst - at times, even anti-Zionist - circles, who have not only increased their own power but have concurrently exerted influence upon others, while acting variously as a driving and as an inhibiting factor, should flash a red light to all of us. And if we wish to know the current scene and how to cope with it, we must be fully aware of its complex and possibly chiaroscuro character.

In accordance with my announced intentions, I have focused upon American Jewry, both because it is the largest and most prominent of Diaspora communi- ties and because I know it most intimately. However, the developments I have described, their positive and negative elements included, have been substan- tially similar in other countries. There are, of course, differences, some quite significant. The situation in France, for instance, in which massive immigration from North Africa has changed the demographic picture radically, is surely different from that prevailtng in England, where the composition of the community has remained relatively stable. Nevertheless, the phenomena I have emphasized - general erosion in the status of Zionism within circles comni tted to Torah- and mitzvot and the polarization of Orthodoxy, with non- Zionist circles gaining in power and influence - have been in evidence on various continents. Their dimensions in England are broader than in South Africa but the direction is similar. Almost everywhere, the changes which have occurred during the last ten years have, from a comprehensive Jewish and Torah perspective, many positive aspects; but their impact upon Zionism has been largely negative.

The general picture is, then, worrisome. It is not, of course, wh6lly bleak and the anxiety should not be exaggerated. But it is far from being encouraging. We are sti I1 deal ing with a pub1 ic whose ties to Zion and even to Zionism are strong and deep. However, Inasmuch as these have been attenu- ated, it is our responsibility, both Jewish and Zionist, to be aware of this fact and to act accordingly. Drawing deeply rooted Jews to the Zionist en- deavor is - or should be - a major natl~nalpriority.

-Note

1 . American Jevish Year Book, 2965 (phi 1 adel phia, 1965) , pp. 21 -77. Discussion

Rabbi Lichtenstein's account and his analysis have concentrated mainly on the United States and on social and internal processes in that county. My impression is that the situation is grave, and the picture he has painted is indeed far from encouraging. I would like to ask Rabbi Lichtenstein a few questions about the effect of events in lsrael on Orthodoxy both here and in the States.

1 ask myself the following question:. If I wished to see the Orthodox Torah world abroad as a Zionist Orthodoxy, what would 1 demand of the spiri- tual leaders in Israel? What example should they present to Diaspora Jewry, particularly to its Orthodox sector? In other words, what should they do so that people will not just say but also believe that "out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem1'? Who says this today? Does anyone fulfill the promise that it implies? And does anyone outside lsrael really feel and believe that "out of Zion shall go forth the Law" - and in what sense?

Let me be more specific. Is there any way in which some spokesman of Israeli 9rthodoxy - from the spiritual or the political leadership - still speaks of the halakhic value of the State, or even dares to pose the question? All this - if I would like the Orthodox world abroad to regard lsrael some- how as not just "a nice place," a place with which to identify, but as a place from which to derive spiritual inspiration, a place which wi 11 pravide spiritual leadership. And this is essentially the second question I would like to ask Rabbi Lichtenstein: to what extent has an attempt been made to develop the idea and to establish the value of the State from the halakhic point of view? Does any such thing exist? Is this Eretz-Israel, Zion - nothing more - or is the State of halakhic significance? In other words, can a person who attaches importance to haZakha find some positive value in the State of Israel, in respect of which he must act in a specific manner?

A third question, regarding the spiritual and political leaders of Ortho- doxy in this country. Is it not true that because of their preoccupation, on the one hand, with the question of the "Occupied Areasii and, on the other, with the fine details of the mitzvot, the Orthodox world both here and in the Diaspora no longer concerns itself with matters that were previously dis- cussed, thought about, written about, matters that used to be of central im- portance?

For some time now I have heard nothing about the concept of the "Torah State." Does anyone speak about that today? Does anyone treat it today as an educational goal? Is this not one of the pivotal questions for the Ortho- dox world today? It seems to me that if one does not do these things, if one sees lsrael in the same light as Rabbi Lichtenstein has described it, one is necessarily disappointed with the State, certainly with its external aspect, perhaps also with its internal aspect. The intrinsic spiritual value of life In lsrael sometimes fails to attract Orthodox Jews, both here and abroad. Some even see in Israel, in a certain sense, a threat to Orthodox li'fe. That is to say, people of Diaspora Orthodoxy are sometimes afraid to send their children to lsrael for a Zionist education. These trends can, I believe, be halted, provided we are willing to see the positive side and the deve-opment of the Torah ideology of national Zionism; without that we are left hith the state of affairs that Rabbi Lichtenstein bas described.

At the beginning of his interesting talk, the speaker mentionet the weakening of the Orthodox community's attachmeni: to Israc.1 and att-ibuted this, inter alia, to disappointment with the State's val~es. As a:\ example he cited what happened after the Lebanese war, saying that lsrael is no longer seen as a "lone lamb" among wolves, so that support for the State has some- what declined. I believe that this description is certainly valid in many circles, but perhaps least of all in the Orthodox community. There - so it seems - only a relatively small faction have been party to any moral upheaval. Such a faction does indeed exist, but at any rate it does not represent the majority of Orthodoxy. I think that here a considerable part of the disap- pointment concerns the national or nationalistic image. It was perhaps no accident that the speaker mentioned the Yom Kippur War as a turning point in this context. And this also explains, to my mind, why the Orthodox immi- grants arriving these days tend to affiliate to a large extent with those circles who support the Greater Israel movement. I would like to hear to what extent the element of disappointment with universal humanistic values has furthered the decline in Orthodox Jewry's attachment to Israel.

The picture just presented is rather gloomy and I would like to make it a little more balanced. Both Rabbi Lichtenstein and the other speakers have emphasized the trend of erosion in the relationship between Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and Zionism and the State of Israel, on the other. I would just like to present some facts concerning what has recently been happening within the new Orthodoxy of the Soviet Union.

Is there any Orthodox community at all in the Soviet Union? That there actually exists an Orthodoxy there is beyond doubt, simply because there are no other religious groups there. The only religious group is Orthodoxy and there are no others. Quantitatively speaking, the numbers of those re- turning to religion are gradually increasing. We can now estimate that these Jews may be reckoned in thousands throughout the Soviet Union. In relation to the number of people taking any interest at all in aZiya and in Judaism the proportion is by no means negligible. If we restrict ourselves to those who do not belong to the "Jews of Silence" but are aware of their identity the proportion is gradually increasing. 1 believe it is quite legitimate to speak today of a new Orthodoxy. Their voice is definitely being heard and they are in the forefront of those struggling for aZiya.

With regard to our topic, the attitude to Zionism and the State of Israel, not only is there no phenomenon of erosion in the Soviet Union but on the contrary, we see.complete identification. And just as in other times of war, during the Lebanese war, too, everyone is rallying round. This is also re- flected in telephone conversations. There is also some concern - that is only natural. But I have no doubt of their full support. One might even say that many people have joined this movement in the past few months pre- cisely because of what happened in this country in the sumner of 1982.

To summarize: what is happening in the Soviet Union is the very opposite of what we have just been told about Orthodoxy in the United States and per- haps also in Europe, though the latter was not mentioned specifically.

Have I understood correctly, that Habad hasidut has a favorable atti- tude to Zionism? It seems to me that concerning interest in what is happen- ing in this country, that is certainly true. We feel their interest, in- volvement, advice, guidance, etc. But 1s It also part of their general out- look, from the ideological point of view?

Yohmm .Manor

i was quite surprised at one expressfon used by the-speaker, namely, Orthodoxy's reluctance to flock.to Zionism by way of solving the "Jewish problem." I had no idea that this group at all feels 6r envisages the exis- tence of the "Jewish problem." 1 would like some clarification on a few points: Has the Orthodox group every experienced - and does it sti 1 l think of itself as experiencing - a problem situation, one that requires solution, and, if so, in what way? There has been a convergence of ideas - or, at least, of national and religious symbols - between the Orthodox world and what has been happening in general in Israel throughout the past few years, specifi- cally since 1973; might one not say that this very convergence has engender- ed the feeling that the symbol is no longer remote enough to be a symbol? In other words, it is a fact that Orthodoxy is moving along a path parallel to the general trend in Israel, i.e., toward the right. Isn't this parallel movement nulllfying the necessary distance between Diaspora Jewry and the State of Israel, the distance that is the very basis for identification with I srael?

Andre Ne her

Two remarks. 1 agree in general with Rabbi Lichtenstein's account, although I do believe that he has drawn an overly gloomy picture. I repeat what Professor Branover has said about the Jews of the Soviet Union. I am afraid that he has rather ignored the repentance movement. There are "re- pentants" not only Fn the U.S.S.R. and not only in this country,'but also In France, for example. It is perhaps not a very large movement; but.-viewed agalnst the si tuat Ion before the establ lshment 0.f l srael and before the Holocaust, this is a positive trend. And it is a very important trend, as it has brought young Jews, long assimilated,to Torah Judaism, and moreover, not only to Zton but also to Zionism.

A second remark - concerning conversion. I am not referring to pro- cedures which have araased contrwersy, but to conversion according to hatakhah. There are a number of converts known to me who are arriving from Europe, whose coming is motivated by thelr conversion, who come to Eretz- Israel as Zionists, out of a love of Judaism. And another remark concerning something which Rabbi Lichtenstein repeat- ed - and rightly so - several times. The personal example is decisive; There is no need for a message to the Diaspora. The very fact that we, as Orthodox Jews, as Jews who observe the mitzvot, 1ive here and not in the Diaspora, is equivalent to giving an example. The fact that Orthodox leaders from the United States, France and England have not fulfilled the mitzvah of immigra- tion, do not see aZiya as a mitzvah, is a much more serious matter in the Orthodox camp than among the Liberals and the Conservatives. For the Ortho- dox it is indeed a mitzvah, and failure to fulfill it implies a gap between utterance and prayer on the one hand, and practice on the other. This may well have some influence on the general status of Orthodoxy and the attitude of Diaspora Orthodoxy to Z ioni sm.1

Shalom Rosenberg

1 would suggest examining what is happening in the religious world ac- cording to two criteria: first, the attitude to the community of Israel, keZaZ YisraeZ; second, the attitude to Jewish history-in-the-making. As to the attitude to ketat YisraeZ, one should examine to what extent Orthodoxy regards keZaZ YisrazZ as a value, as against the other camp, which hol-ds wi th the idea of She 'grit YisraeZ, the Remnant of I srael , and sees i tsel f as the only representative of the nation.

Underlying this question is an extremely important element. It is this distinction in the ultra-Orthodox camp that marks the difference between, say, Habad, which regards keZaZ YisraeZ in a fundamental 1 ight, and, say, the Satmar sect or others, who regard themselves as the genuine Remnant of Israel and are therefore constantly clashing with those who belong - to use their customary Kabbalistic terminology - to the "mixed multitude," the erev mu.

As to the other aspect, the attitude to Jewish history in the present, here there is yet another important element in respect of which Habad presents a positive attitude. The question is essentially whether we are talking about 3ecwlar or religious history. This, for example, is the difference between Rabbi Schach and Habad. Of course, it is possible that Rabbi Schach also has a feeling for keZaZ YisraeZ and a sense of responsibility toward it. In thls respect there is an interesting difference between Hasidim and Mit- naggedlm, something which is not usually noticed. However, we are concerned at the moment with the second aspect, that of history in the making. It is also important in that Habad for example, claims that history-in-the-making is part of the religious history, even in the State of Israel. And this, I believe, may also be seen to some extent in a considerable part of the ultra- Orthodox camp. Surprisingly enough, statements are being made in some ultra- Orthodox yeshivot in this country, the likes of which were previously to be found only in the writings of Rabbi Kook. An example is the assertion that secular activity is a preparation for some kind of religious heritage to be built on its foundation, in other words, a kind of preparation for what is to come later.

The two criteria I have suggested seem to me to be very i,mportant in connection with differences within the ultra-Orthodox camp, which should not be viewed as mono1 ithic. By dint of these criteria, one perceives server- a1 waves in motion, in different directions. For example, take the appear- ance of posters in Jerusalem declaring "Touch not Mine anointed ones" in con- nection wi th acceptance of government support for ul t ra-Orthodox education. This signifies a total about-face - taking government funds for Talmudei Torah. I quite understand that this may well seem rather ridiculous. "So what?" you will say, "what's so special about accepting money from the State?" One must understand, however, that in a part of the ultra-Orthodox camp thls represents a tremendous revolution - the very readiness to accept some measure of collaboration.

To conclude, I would like to say only that whoever discusses these matters, whoever takes an inside view of the ideological events taking place in the ultra-Orthodox world, knows that that world is in the throes of a revolution whose course is unpredictable.

As an illustration of what we have heard from Rabbi Lichtenstein, I should like to cite the following. Around the time of the First World War, the Rebbe of Gur refused to visit the United States. He was afraid of the Zionist rabbanim there. Indeed, at that time all the rabbanim were Zionists. There are documents showing that he was afraid to leave for the United States. And what do we see today? The Rebbe of Belz is afraid to visit because of the Rebbe of Satmar.

What has happened in the past forty or fifty years? One should under- stand that those years saw the arrival in the U.S. of all the extreme rabban- im who used to run their shtetZs in Poland, in Eastern and Central Europe. That was where all the anti-Zionist, extreme groups were concentrated. This entire world relocated to the U.S. As for the Zionist rabbinim - they have either grown old or immigrated to Israel. Many of them have immigrated to - Israel , and those who remain are afraid of the extremists.

Some years ago I had occasion to talk to someone whom I regard as the greatest American rabbi, whose influence also extends to Orthodox Jewry throughout the world, a proponent of religious Zionism. I asked him, "Why are the few remaining Zionist mbbanim - yourself included - afraid to come out in favor of aZiya, to speak in pub1 ic, bravely and vigorously?'' He gave me various answers, but one of the most interesting was: "My own pupils will not listen to me. They are under the extremist influence of others, even though they are my pupi 1 s and come to hear Torah from me."

Rabbi Lichtenstein has drawn a faithful picture of Orthodox Jewry today; it may be defined as a kind of "shtibelization" - endless shtiblach. If you take a walk in the Jewish ghetto - whatever you want to call it - you will come upon shtibl upon shtibZ. Each shtibZ has its own rebbe. And each shtibZ has its own leader. What unites them is, to a certain extent, their opposition to Zionism, their extremism. At the same time, no mention has been made in this discussion of a central and decisive element - the sys- tem of education that this Orthodox movement has been building up in recent years. Let us note that, until the establishment of the State of Israel, re- ligious day-school education was headed by the Mizrachi's Committe for Torah Education. It was the Mizrachi that led the way, having founded the first

re1 igious day-school s, "Torah va-Da 'at .It We1 1, where are the "Torah va-Da 'att' institutions today? The Mizrachi people were the first to establish an edu- cational network. But when the State of Israel was established they handed over the day-schools to others, to extremists. Today we have "Torah u-Masorah," which is becoming more extreme from day to day. True, this does not imply that the schools have become anti-Zionist. In fact, whereas the schools are affiliated with "Torah u-Masora" at the organizational level, each school is, as it were, a republic unto itself, and the principal may do as he pleases.

I would 1ike.to poFnt out two phenomena which deserve attention. On the one hand, many schools in the United States and elsewhere receive support from the Israeli government and the Zionist Organization. This support is both financial and otherwise. Their personnel come to Israel, they send their graduates to study here in yeshivot of various types. However, in spite of everything, they have certain reservations about Zionism, even though they undertake to teach Hebrew and history and to celebrate Yom ha- Atzmaut. They are discharging an obligation, albeit perfunctorily, for otherwise the support will not be forthcoming.

On the other hand, only today I was speaking to a teacher from "Torah u-Masora," a non-Zionist. He told me, "We shall not be able to maintain our education - and I am not talking about explicitly hasidic schools - we shall not be able to maintaln our education without support from Israel, whether this be financial support or - even more - a supply of teachers, as- sistance in curriculae, and help in bringing our students, to Israel." Response

Aharon Lichtenstein

The question has been raised here as to whether Orthodox Jews acknowledge any problem of Jewish existence. The answer is, to my mind, that if one is considering the ability of keZaZ YisraeZ or of the individual Jew to survive in a Diaspora which has been - and still is - frequently hostile, then it is certainly true that an Orthodox Jew, who feels the anti-semitefs whip no less than any other Jew, acknowledges the problem. On the other hand, if one were to ask whether he considers the very phenomenon of Jewish exis- tence in such a situation to be questionable, and whether that existence in itself is strange and exceptional - the answer is undoubtedly in the negative. To be a Jew - that is the most natural, the healthiest situation. In fact, the unusual thing is to be a Goy. However, there is no denying the basic fact that Jewish existence in a world in which Gentiles control the politi- cal, mi 1 itary, economic and social power centers does present various prob- lems. It was to this situation that I was referring.

Mr. Manor's other question, if I have understood it correctly, was this: Should not the fact of a parallel ideological shift in this country and in the Diaspora have created some kind of communication between Orthodox Jews here and abroad? This is indeed an apposite question. Some months ago, in an interesting article,Menahem Friedman surveyed the increasingly stronger contacts between members of the right-wing camp in the Diaspora and their peers in Israel. He described how the formerly yawning distances are being narrowed down, how an international community is being created with centers both here and abroad, consolidated like one big "choZentffthrough business connections (these have become a major factor, thanks to the economic boom enjoyed by part of the right-wing), through travel, and through marriage. The number of "mixed" matches reported by Friedman is quite impressive, much exceeding the normal proportions in other circles. I believe I can'. offer a partial explanation for this phenomenon. Relatively speaking, it is more difficult for a young Israeli Zionist to marry a girl from abroad, since the question of Eretz Israel is a substantial separative factor. However, to the degree that attachment to Zionism is no obstacle, it follows that such a match, if "suitable" in other respects, stands a better chance of consumma- tion.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is a certain contact between the two communities. However, the contact is not with Zionism as a movement and an ideology, but rather with Zion. Those whom you have described as largely dissociated from Zionism are quite frequent visitors to this coun- try. I do not know if the data published during the El A1 strike, to the effect that the religious comnunity constitutes some thirty to forty percent of that company's passenger load, are accurate. Perhaps these figures were tendentious, but it is a fact that the amount of travel back and forth is considerable. However, this is not Zionism in the accepted sense of the term.

As to the question raised about Habad - 1 am far from being an expert in this field, and there are those among us who are much closer to the Habad movement and can speak for it more authoritatively. Let me say, nevertheless, that one should not judge Habad's Zionism by overly severe criteria. I-do not know whether its ideological platform can be adapted to that of Herzl or Ussishkin. Let us assume that it cannot. But it is clear'that the Rebbe encourages people to immigrate and speaks of Israel in tones of identifica- tion. As far as I am concerned, these are sufficient credentials. The fact that he is severely critical of many phenomena in this country is obvious. So am I. But that is not what should interest us here. If one can test the Rebbe's Zionism not against that of the President of lsrael but against that of extreme anti-Zionist factions in New York, it is apparent that the latter have labeled him as a Zionist par exceZlence. When he pronounced his opinions, following the Entebbe expedition and on other occasions, on Zahal's resource- fulness and courage, speaking of the power of hashgaha implicit in its actions, the extremists were of a mind to hang him. 1 have been told that on a cer- tain occasion they burned the Rebbe in effigy before New York television cameras; when they discovered that something had gone awry during the filming, they were not deterred by the expense involved in making another puppet, so as to burn it "properly."

Now let me return to the questions with which Professor Medding opened this discussion. His first question was, what can - or should - the Zionist leadership here say or do so that Torah should manifestly come forth out of Zion and radiate from Jerusalem? To my mind, it need not concentrate on organizing a special project or campaign to bring Torah to the Diaspora, On another occasion 1 was asked to comment on the question of Israel's spiri- tual influence on Diaspora Jewry. I stated then, and I reiterate this today, that the best thing that can be done to raise the level of Judaism in the Diaspora is for us ourselves to be better, more authentic Jews. Of course, it is important to send out teachers, sh'lichim, study materials, etc. How- ever, if we wish it to be manifest that Torah is coming forth out of Zion, we must make sure, first and foremost, that there is Torah in Zion itself - otherwlise, how can it come forth?! It is not primarily a question of writ- ing essays and conduct ing fiery ideological discussions, but of 'deepening and broadening the authentic Torah reality of this country. Some influence does indeed emanate to the Diaspora from the Torah community here and Its leaders. However, it does not quite reach those circles 1 have discussed here. Sh' 1 ichim and teachers are being sent out, and they undoubtedly pene- trate the Orthodox community too. In general, however, they are not direct- ed toward the leading, strongest groups in that community, but tend rather to deal with groups whose religious identification - and sometimes also their national identification - is borderline. The need mentioned by Professor Medding - and I quite agree that it exists - is to produce people who can really implant a strong and firm Zionist feeling in a deeply commit- ted Torah community. But as I have already stated, I believe that assignment of persons and material to the Diaspora Is of secondary significance.

Professor Medding also asked to what extent anyone is undertaking here to develop the halakhic aspects of the idea of the Jewish State, and whether - here I am perhaps combining his last two questions - the Orthodox leadership in this country is not itself rather a victim of the processes I have des- cribed, insofar as it occupies itself with the problem of the "Areas", Greater Eretz Israel, etc., increasingly ignores the concept of the Torah state, pre- ferrlng to concentrate on Torah study and fulfi 1 lment of practical mitzvot. I agree that the development of the idea of the State from a halakhic point of view has suffered a regression. I accept the thesis that this is due, partly, to the processes that 1 have described. I t presupposes a capacity to see the picture in.its entirety and in all its complexity. And because of the brain drain to the extremes, there is a lack of really first-rate minds willing and able to cope with the problems. But this is only a partial explanation. The regression is a,lso a consequence of the very passage of time. Immediately after the foundation of the State of Israel, many rabbm- h, including some very. prominent Torah personalities, rushed to tackle the fundamental problems in this area. The then Chief Rabbi, R. Herzo~of- blessed memory, plunged into the matter at length. A series of articles was published in Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, the organ of the Rabbinical Association of Mizrachi/Ha-Poel ha-Mizrachi, which dealt with the nature of a Torah state in our times, with the basis of the halakhic authority of the State of Israel today, and with similar questions which had been relatively neglected for centuries. After this initial breakthrough, once the primary questions had been more or less exhausted, the rabbanim began to descend from the Olympus and to discuss more prosaic problems such as arise in everyday life. These are naturally less interesting and impressive - one cannot discuss them in resonating ideological tones. Hence one more reason for the feeling of decline - and the actual decline - in the ideological enterprise. I do not consider this development wholly negative. One cannot dwell constantly on Olympus. It is important to preserve a vision, but we cannot be expected constantly to occupy ourselves with those fundamental questions, and indeed we should not do so. Beyond these considerations, hasn't the vi- sion of the Torah state in general undergone some erosion within the National Relrgious community? This is probably true. However, this is not necessarily because that community has become less Zionist. It may well be that, a generation ago, certain false hopes were current. At the time, many people entertained very high expectations, and some of the most optimistic predic- tions have been proved false. Anyone not on a messianic trip is liable to experience real disappointment. He should set himself a more modest target, and be content to grapple with everyday, practical problems. Complex though they may be, these do not make the headlines in the context of the idea of the Torah state. At the same time, it is quite likely that there has been some real erosion, as there has been in the general level of Zionist fervor. The words "Torah state," like "Zionism," are also written occasionally in question marks. It is not a question of Zionism being abandoned out of disappointment, perhaps even bi tterness. Perhaps there are such cases. But if the State of Israel were to hold more faithfully to the ideal of a moral and spiritual Torah entity, such as an Orthodox Jew would like to see, this would serve as a counter-balance to those forces that tempt one to dissociate oneself from Zionism. However, with regard to the group which is the topic of my present discussion, the dominant factor is not conscious disappoint- ment but simply erosion due to the passage of time and the blunting of sensi bi 1 i ties.

And now to Professor Dvoretzky's question. When I spoke of a certain estrangement from Israel, I did not see it against the background of dis- appointment rooted in a humanistic outlook, and I did not refer at all to the war in Lebanon. Some ramifications of the war, including the Sabra and Shatila massacre, are painful enough in themselves, and I agree that a sizable part of the Orthodox world has not reacted with sufficient vigor. However, the processes that I have delineated, whether in Jewry in general or in the United States, all predate the Lebanese war, and the latter has no essential relation to our topic.

Professor Branover is, of course, more fami 1 iar with the situation in the Soviet Union than I am. I am happy to hear from him of the positive developments there; however, I have my doubts as to the significance of his information, for a1 1 the satisfaction that it engenders. I understand, first, that the group in question is relatively small; Professor Branover mentioned a few thousand - out of a few million. Second, we are concerned here with a group whose path to Judaism has been conditioned largely by its attachment to Israel; hence the two elements are linked in its consciousness. This is not particularly valid with regard to Western Jewry, where, as I have sur- mised, an Orthodox person may well feel less need of the State as a religious basis than others do, since he "gets by" - so he believes - without it; ipso facto, the link between his Judaism and his Zionism is less axiomatic.

My reaction to Professor Neher's information about France is similar. I do not wish to disparage the phenomenon - or, if you wish, the movement - of repentance. Every Jewish soul is a world unto itself, and as such worthy of respect and cultivation. However, if one surveys the genera1,pattern - and that is what I have been asked to do here - one should not really inflate the phenomenon beyond its true proportions. In the final analysis, the total number of repentants, including all those studying in the various yeshivot, is only a small segment; and despite the individual value of each one, they unfortunately constitute only a tiny minority of the total picture.

Moreover, in respect of the specific Zionist factor, we must remember (I presume the situation in France is not dissimilar to that in the United States or in this country) that many of the repentants, even those who make aziya to Israel, do not end up in strongholds of Zionism. A brief survey of institutions of learning geared to repentants reveals the distressing fact that practically none of them are part of what is known as the National ReligT'ous world. There is "Machon Meir;" close to the Mercaz ha-Rav Yeshiva, but not much more. On the other hand, the non-Zionist camp is investing greater efforts in this area - and reaping a more plentiful harvest. This Is not the proper occasion to analyze the reasons for this situation, but the fact itself is incontrovertible. Hence one should not exaggerate the signi f i cance of the repentance movement as a source for the reinforcement and inspiration of National Religious Jewry.

If this is the case in regard to the repentance movement, it is a forti- ori true in the case of conversion. The number of persons who have converted accordfng to the proper procedures and are committed to a life of Torah and mitzvot, is surely not very significant.

As to the attachment of the ultra-Orthodox community to the mitzva of settling in Eretz Israel, such attachment certainly exists. But I mentioned at the start of my talk that this applies to Zion rather than Zionism. And I should like to stress again, what I mentioned at the end, that I perceive a distinction between those in Israel and their confr8res abroad. My reali- zation of this distinction was reinforced during my first visit' to Israel, in summer 1962. At that time, I became friendly with the late R. Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (of ~erusalem), of blessed memory. I used to- visit him frequent- ly, and he was the last person I visited before my return to the States. We sat together well into the night, and before my departure he asked me about my plans for the future. To my answer that my plans were as yet uncertain, he retorted, simply but firmly: "A yid darf zayn in Eretz Yisroelii ("A Jew should be in Eretz Israel"). I doubt whether a person of similar standing in New York - and R. Soloveitchik was certainly no sympathizer with Zionism - would voice similar sentiments. I am in general agreement with Professor Rosenberg, including his re- mark that readiness to accept state funds is a real step forward. I agree, too, that one should distinguish between the attitude to kelal Israel as a whole and the attitude to Zionism; however, I believe that in most cases there is a link between the two. I find it hard to believe that the emphasis on "Let thy springs be dispersed abroad" and profound concern for the 'IpinteZe Yid" in every Jew, both characteristic of Habad, have no effect on one's attitude to Zionism and also on one's attitude to the present reality as a religious reality. In view of Habadis attachment to keZaZ Israel and to the individual Jew, the possibility that what is happening here in Israel is in the nature of "devil's work'' becomes a priori rather dubious.

As to the incipient sympathy for Zionism that Professor Rosenberg perceives in some hasidic yeshivot, I am insufficiently close to that world to be able to react informedly. Belz is perhaps a case in point - but, again, I think that the influential factor is the mere fact of living in this country. Perhaps, if the Belzer Rebbe were a resident of Brooklyn, he would feel - and speak - differently.

Finally, let me refer to Dr. Hamiel's contribution in which. he both stated a fact and proffered an explanation. I more or less agree with his description of the change in the constitution of the rabbinical world in America, though I might not have stated it in such sharp terms. I still remember Mizrachi Confer- ences In the United States which were attended by a whole gallery of venerable rabbanim, some of them gedolei Torah, dressed in kapota, 1 arge scull -caps on the i r heads, full-bearded - and no-one regarded their presence there as exceptional. That group, which included such scholars as R. Nisan Telushkin and his colleagues, has left practically no heirs. However, as to the proposed explanation - that the United States has been inundated by emigrants from Hungary - I am less certain. This is a conventCnt explanation for the National Religious community, including its Torah personalities, since it exempts them from responsibility for the situation. It presumes that they have done all they were supposed to do but have simply been unable to cope with the demographtc shift. We are making our task too easy if we accept this as the sole answer.

The demographlc shift has indeed had some significance, but it is by no means the only factor. The shift is also a consequence of the weakness of the National Religious camp itself, part of which has not expressed sufficient esteem for Torah personalities. Lurking within their hearts was the feeling, the hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) message: The real ly great and im- portant personalities are the professors, scientists, statesmen and politi- cians, whereas anyone who makes the Torah his prime occupation is described as "only1' a rabbi or "only" a rosh yeshivah. There was no need, so it was believed, to "cultivate" rabbanim, as they were held in less esteem and at any rate, seemed to be "in the bag." it was more popular to court other groups, which presented a quasi-secular fascination. And thus, gradually, to the extent that the National Religious camp drew away from the Torah world, so the Torah world reciprocated and dissociated itself from the Na- tional Religious camp.

Leaving that aside,. one should also ask - and here I am returning to Professor Medding's remarks - to what extent our community has revealed t.he same devotion and adherence to ideology and values that is characteris-tic of non-Z ionl st ci rcles. I fear that the "modern-Orthodoxl' communi ty has not proved itself. It has not worked with the same courage and sense of self- sacrifice for its values and its world outlook, in comparison with the other camp. ThSs fact, no less than the waves of new emigrants, has effected the shift which we are discussing. The educational network was not presented to non-Zionist forces on a silver platter. Nobody appeared one fine day and gave them control over Torah u-Masorah, for example. They themselves took over by dint of great devotion and a readiness to "get out there and work." Their institutions produce young men who are willing to go to the farthest reaches of the United States for the most meager pittance - salaries which are a disgrace to the American Jewfsh cornunity in general and its Orthodox sector tn particular - and serve as teqchers, perhaps while continuing their studies in koZeZ, Members of the same age-group in our own circles weigh things over seven times and tend to decide that perhaps, after all, it's better to jotn I .B.M. There are some who hold that the difference stems not only from an idealistic lacuna but also from a lack of choice - our boys are simply faced with less options. t do not wish to pronounce judgement on this polnt; at any rate, I am referring to the fact, not to its causes. And it is indeed a fact which, together wl th the lack of readiness or of ability to grapple with a complex conception, fraught with balances and counter-balances, and the tendency to identify decisiveness with truthfulness affects the status of Zionism within the Orthodox world.

In conclusion, concerning the question as to why rabbanim who in fact identify with Zionist concepts do not set up a strong organization and tackle the problems we have been discussing. The answer to this question com~risesseveral components, but the crucial point is that there is indeed a leadership problem - if not crisis. To some extent, this is true of American Orthodoxy in general. Head and shoulders above everyone else there is a brilliant group of a few gedoZei Torah. However, the members of this group are now in their eighties, they are less active today, and to replace them one searches far and wide for figures of comparable stature, capable of leading and arousing enthusiasm. The problem is particularly crucial for National Religious Jewry, which is now, as 1 have stated, paying the penalty for decades of neglect, for reluctance to allocate the requisite efforts and resources for the cultivation of leadership, and for deterioration of insti- tutions in which gedolei Torah can develop. Our camp in the United States is suffering from a lack of leaders worthy of the task, leaders who will both earn admiration for their Torah and spiritual qualities and provide guidance and drive in the Zionist endeavor. So the situation is indeed grave - it is difficult for a community to make progress when there arenone to lead it. PARTICIPANTS IN THE DISCUSSION

YlRMlYAHU BRANOVER Department of Physics, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba

AR IEH DVORETZKY Department of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

HAlM HAMIEL The School of Education, Bar-llan University, Rama t Gan

YOHANAN MANOR Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; World Zionist Organizatior

PINHAS MEDDING Department of Political Science and Institute of Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusadem

ANDR~NEHER former 1 y Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature at University of Strasbourg and Rabbi in that city

SHALOM ROSENBERG Department of Jewish Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem This is a translation of a lecture and discussion held on I November 1982 at the Study Circle on World Jewry under the auspices of the President of Israel

The complete Hebrew text will appear in the thirteenth series of publications of the Study Circle edited by Moshe Davis Shazar Library, Institute of Contemporary Jewry The Hebrew University of Jerusalem