The Great State Debate

By: Rav Reuven Taragin

Any comprehensive series on hashkafah must address perspectives on the State of Israel. This issue represents a major dividing point among Torah-observant Jews, not only due to ongoing debate but also because of their highly polarized views. Some regard the state as integral to the ultimate redemption, while others consider it as a severe theological transgression.

{Polar Opposites

How can there be such opposing views on the matter? How can Torah Jews see the return of the Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael as violating a divine oath?

Two central issues underlie this debate. Let’s explore both by analyzing historical Torah perspectives on redemption and the Zionist movement.

From the moment of our exile, we yearned to return to Eretz Yisrael, and many actually did so. As for a comprehensive national return, the traditional assumption was that it would only occur with the arrival of Mashiach. Attempts to return en masse beforehand were considered inappropriate. In fact, the Gemara(Ket.111a) references three oaths taken by the Jews and Gentiles, including a commitment by the Jewish people not to initiate such a return.

The nineteenth century began with many Gedolei Torah encouraging Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael. Although historians often attribute the origins of mass return initiatives to secular Zionist leaders, these efforts were initially led by Gedolei Torah. In particular, in anticipation of 1840, a year associated with themes of redemption, the Gra, various Chassidic Rebbes, and other Torah leaders around the world encouraged return to Eretz Yisrael as a necessary step toward redemption.

Even after 1840, several Gedolei Torah, such as Rav Yehudah Alkalay, Rav Eliyahu Gutenmacher, and Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher, and later Rav Shmuel Mohilever and the Chovevei Tzion groups he led, continued to advocate for mass immigration to Eretz Yisrael. As a result, the number of returnees increased significantly, with thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of religious Jews returning to the land.

These efforts prompted debate regarding the appropriateness of mass migration. The Rebbe Rashab of Lubavitch, for example, objected, arguing based on the “three oaths” that Jews should wait for the arrival of Mashiach before returning en masse to Eretz Yisrael. Although Chabad established centers in Israeli cities, beginning with Chevron in 1813, the movement opposed attempts to reclaim Eretz Yisrael in its entirety.

Despite opposition from the Rashab and others, most Gedolei Torah were at least sympathetic to, or in some cases even actively supported, efforts to return to Eretz Yisrael. They regarded the three oaths as either non-binding (Toldot HaChafetz Chayim pg. 43) or no longer applicable (Ohalei Yaakov Emor 5708). The Netziv, Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin Yeshiva, was a notable supporter of these settlement initiatives.

A Secular Movement

Although the earliest advocates for returning to Eretz Yisrael were religious, by the late nineteenth century, many non-religious Jews had joined the movement. Disillusionment with failed assimilation and increasing antisemitism led figures such as Theodore Herzl to view Eretz Yisrael as a potential refuge for the Jewish people. These leaders expanded upon the work of the original predominantly religious Chovevei Tzion groups and formally established the World Zionist Organization, which was primarily composed of non-religious Jewish leaders and supporters.

This development introduced new challenges. Jewish life, especially in Eretz Yisrael, is meant to be guided by religious principles. However, many settlers did not adhere to these standards, despite official guidelines for settlements and support that specified these expectations.

Furthermore, Pirkei Avot (1:7) cautions against partnership with “reshaim.” This raised concerns about whether efforts to resettle Eretz Yisrael could be coordinated with non-observant Jews.

Additionally, Herzl and the WZO fundamentally changed the mission’s nature. Unlike the Chovevei Tziyon, who encouraged and facilitated the return to and resettlement of Eretz Yisrael, the WZO aimed to establish a Jewish state. Herzl spoke and wrote about a future state, and he invested in diplomatic efforts to secure one.

Though most Gedolim supported the return to and settlement of Eretz Yisrael, many felt that establishing a state was inappropriate. Many felt that these efforts ran against the three oaths. Human initiative towards return was permissible and even laudable, but a state needed to wait for Moshiach.

The irreligiosity of Zionist leaders, coupled with the new broader mission of their movement, caused many Gedolei Torah to become increasingly uncomfortable with the Zionist movement.

A Secular Mission

The Zionist Congress of 1901 marked a pivotal moment for the movement. Led by figures such as Ahad Ha’am, the Congress adopted the “culture” resolution, which established the re-education of Jews according to Zionist principles as a central objective. These principles constituted a significant departure from Torah ideology, as they promoted secular nationalism in place of Avodat Hashem. The movement sought to create a “New Jew” and a new form of Judaism that prioritized nationhood and the land over Torah and mitzvot.

This ideology was fundamentally incompatible with Torah, and the adoption of the resolution created a significant rift between the Zionist movement and the Torah community. While some religious Zionist leaders remained within the movement and established Mizrachi to advocate for Religious Zionism from within, and others, such as Rav Kook, continued to support the settlers, the resolution led the majority of Gedolei Torah and their followers to strongly oppose Zionism and the Zionist movement. Although they supported the principle of returning to Eretz Yisrael, they categorically rejected efforts to alter the foundations and ethos of Judaism and Jewish identity.

In fact, Zionist overemphasis on Eretz Yisrael even prompted many Torah leaders to downplay its significance. In response to those highlighting Eretz Yisrael as opposed to the rest of the mitzvot, many religious Jews emphasized the rest at the expense of focusing on Eretz Yisrael.

The Zionist movement’s turn against religion contributed to the founding of Agudas Yisrael (the Agudah), which sought to serve as an alternative to the World Zionist Organization as a representative body for world Jewry.

Two Issues, Three Approaches

We have seen the two issues that were raised regarding the Zionist movement. A minority of Gedolei Torah fundamentally opposed the idea of taking the initiative in this area, while the majority rejected the movement’s non-religious character and eventually, its anti-religious stance.

These two issues led to three primary positions among Gedolei Torah regarding the pre-state Zionist movement: a minority supported Zionism despite its challenges; another minority opposed the very concept; and the majority endorsed the principle of return but objected to the movement’s practical implementation.

The Holocaust and the State of Israel

The strong opposition of religious Jews and Gedolei Torah to the Zionist movement persisted through the Holocaust. This stance contributed to the reluctance of most religious Jews to immigrate to Israel, even as conditions in Europe deteriorated during the 1930s.

The 1940s brought dramatic changes to the Jewish world. The devastation of European Jewry during the Holocaust was followed by the establishment of the State of Israel just three years later. Both were clearly extraordinary developments that raised the question of how to interpret the new state. While Zionist efforts had succeeded and the state provided a refuge for Jewish survivors, the state and its government were distinctly secular.

The various approaches to pre-state Zionism persisted following the establishment of the state, shaping subsequent interpretations. The principled objection to Zionism continued, with groups such as Satmar and Neturei Karta characterizing the state as an act intended to test loyalty to Torah principles. Conversely, those who supported Zionism viewed the founding of the state as validation of their position.

Those who previously held a middle position, supporting the principle of return but objecting in practice, were most affected. Some completely aligned themselves with Religious Zionism, while others viewed the state as a possible beginning of the geulah process and hoped it would head in that direction.

However, this expectation was not realized. Israel’s predominantly secular government implemented policies contrary to Torah principles, such as conscripting women into the army. Additionally, certain government elements actively sought to secularize new immigrants.

The Years Since

During the early decades of the state, a large percentage of religious Jews in Israel and abroad identified with Religious Zionism. In recent decades, however, significant demographic shifts have occurred. Currently, many, if not most, religious Jews in Israel and worldwide do not identify as Zionist. A minority object in principle, while others object to current realities.

A Complex Reality

The State of Israel remains a complex phenomenon. As we still lack the Beit HaMikdash and its avodah, the coming of Eliyahu HaNavi and Mashiach, true peace, and a religious government and populace, no Torah Jew regards the State of Israel as a complete geulah.

At the same time, the ingathering of over 7.5 million Jews to Eretz Yisrael, the revitalization of the land, and the return of Jewish sovereignty are all elements envisioned by the Nevi’im and Chazal as part of the geulahprocess. Furthermore, the number of lomdei Torah is far greater than in past generations. 

Nevertheless, traditional Jewish thought generally assumed that these elements would occur as part of a broader geulah, led by religious individuals and guided by religious principles. The secular and at times anti-religious character of the state has continued to prevent many from viewing it as part of the redemption.

Where We Go from Here

Beyond analyzing the foundations of various Torah perspectives on the state, it is important to consider constructive responses. Regardless of past differences, there is a near-universal consensus on the future: we must inspire a return to religious observance and practice.

While outreach efforts must address Jews worldwide, they are particularly significant for Jews in Israel and the state itself. Most religious Jews regard the state as a divinely granted opportunity. Regardless of interpretations of the past, the prevailing responsibility is to improve the future and respond appropriately to Hashem’s kindness.

May we recognize and appreciate the kindness Hashem has shown us by facilitating the return, sovereignty, and success of so much of the Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael and show our gratitude by striving to inspire the State of Israel to become what Hashem wants it to be. 

Rav Reuven Taragin is the Dean of Overseas Students at Yeshivat Hakotel and the Educational Director of World Mizrachi and the RZA. His new book, Essentials of Judaism, is available at rabbireuventaragin.com.