Notes on Gersonides' Place in Religious-Zionist Thought

chapter 21 Notes on Gersonides’ Place in Religious-Zionist Thought

Dov Schwartz

Religious-Zionist thinkers sometimes refer to Spain’s “Golden Age” as an arche- type of poetic and literary renewal and use it as their justification for having chosen the path of “enlightenment,” in contrast to the non-Zionist Orthodox (Ḥaredim). It is thus no wonder that Judah Halevi, the great poet, and Mai- monides, the polymath scholar, are their role models.1 Religious Zionism, seek- ing to forge a new type of religious person who would be nationalist, creative, and a culture hero, found that the Andalusians were well suited to this goal. But Gersonides was not. He had not been active in an era of artistic and intel- lectual flowering, but in an age that several historians have characterized as one of decline and regression. His writings could not be viewed sympathet- ically by scholars of the early and mid-twentieth century. Even today, inter- est in his philosophical thought is confined to academics. Only his biblical exegesis has penetrated the educated public in recent years, with three edi- tions of his commentary on the Torah released more or less simultaneously by three publishers and teams affiliated with religious Zionism (Mosad Harav Kook, the Maʿaliyot Press of the Birkat Moshe Yeshiva in Maʿaleh Adumim, and the Miqraʾot Gedolot ha-Keter project at Bar-Ilan University). But aside from the commentary, religious-Zionist scholars have had strong reservations about Gersonides’ philosophy. In this article, I will deal with various aspects of Gersonides’ work and its significance for religious-Zionist thought. I start from two premises and an argument: 1. The dominant attitude towards Gersonides in religious-Zionist thought is qualified and cautious. His originality and eminence have won him a certain admiration, but his consistently radical rationalism produces a tension that remains unresolved. 2. Religious-Zionist thinkers have sometimes felt a need to defend Gerson- ides and to show that, against all odds, his thought is indeed part of the

1 See Dov Schwartz, “Maimonides in Religious-Zionist Philosophy: Unity vs. Duality,” in The Cultures of Maimonideanism, ed. James T. Robinson (Leiden, 2009), 385–408.

Jewish philosophical tradition and contributed to the renewal of national thought in the modern age. 3. Building on the foregoing, I will argue that the attitude to Gersonides, although a marginal motif, does reflect certain aspects of religious-Zionist thought. In the religious-Zionist thought to which these premises apply, unity is a funda- mental principle. R. Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook applied this principle not only to the Jewish people but also to the movement’s ideology. Religious Zion- ism endeavors to erect a unified structure in which all ideas, including those of radical thinkers, fit into the same mosaic. This is the key to its attitude towards Gersonides.

1 The Founding Generation

Three prominent figures in the early history years of the Mizrachi movement were R. Zeʾev Jawitz, R. Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, and R. Chaim Hirsch- ensohn. All were troubled by Gersonides’ theology. Jawitz was bothered by Gersonides’ notion of the eternity of the universe; Rabbi Kook wrestled with Gersonides’ view of providence; and Hirschensohn considered his exclusion from Jewish religious philosophy. Jawitz called attention to his supposed delin- quencies and rejected him, whereas Kook supported him and illuminated Ger- sonides’ approach in the “right light.” Their treatment of him wavered between the prosecution and the defense. Hirschensohn used Gersonides’ teachings to support his own critical approach.

1.1 Eternity Volume 12 of Toledot Israel (The history of Israel) by Zeʾev Jawitz (1847–1924) was published posthumously.2 Jawitz—a historian, writer, and educator—was one of the founders of Mizrachi and viewed as its main ideologue during the first two years of its existence. Jawitz wrote this comprehensive historical exposition from a distinctly national-religious perspective. It was largely meant as a counterweight to sec- ular or Haredi historical writing (Graetz, Weiss, and their ilk). He posited an opposition between Judaism and Hellenism and contrasted “positive” figures who had contributed to the Jews’ national and religious uniqueness with “neg-

2 See Reuven Michael, Jewish Historical Writing from the Renaissance until the Modern Era (Jerusalem, 1993), 456 (Heb.).