הלכה: תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. אִם רָאִיתָ עֲייָרוֹת שֶׁנִּתְלְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹמָן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל דַּע שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִיקוּ בִּשְׂכַר סוֹפְרִים וּמַשְׁנִים. מַה טַעַם. עַל־מָה֙ אָֽבְדָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ נִצְּתָ֥ה כַמִּדְבָּר֭ מִבְּלִי֭ יוֹשֶׁב׃ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר י֙י עַל־עָזְבָם֙ אֶת־תּ֣וֹרָתִ֔י.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: When you see towns in the Land of Israel uprooted from their place, know that they did not contribute to the wages of Bible and Mishnah teachers. What is the reason? Why is the land ruined, torn down like an uninhabited wilderness? The Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah.
רִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂייָא שְׁלַח לְרִבִּי חִייָה וּלְרִבִּי אַסִּי וּלְרִבִּי אִמִּי לְמִיעֲבוֹר בַּקִּרֵייָתָא דְּאַרְעָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִמְתַקְנָא לוֹן סָֽפְרִין וּמַתְנִייָנִין. עֲלוֹן לְחַד אֲתַר וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחוֹן לָא סְפַר וְלָא מַתְנִייָן. אָֽמְרִין לוֹן. אַייתוֹן לָן נְטוּרֵי קַרְתָּא. אַייְתוֹן לוֹן סַנְטוּרֵי קַרְתָּא. אָֽמְרוּן לוֹן. אֵילֵּין אֵינּוּן נְטוּרֵי קַרְתָּא. לֵית אֵילֵּין אֶלָּא חָרוּבֵי קַרְתָּא. אָמְרִין לוֹן. וּמָאן אִינּוּן נְטוּרֵי קַרְתָּא. אָֽמְרוּן לוֹן. סַפְרַייָא וּמַתְנִייָנַיָּא. הָדָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב אִם י֙י לֹא־יִבְנֶ֬ה בַ֗יִת וגו׳.
Rebbi Judah the Prince sent Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Immi to tour the towns of the Land of Israel in order to give them Bible and Mishnah teachers. They came to one place where they found neither Bible nor Mishnah teacher. They said to them, bring us the watchmen of the town. They brought them the stewards of the town. They told them, these are not the watchmen of the town, they are the destroyers of the town. They asked them, and who would be the watchmen of the town? They told them, the Bible and Mishnah teachers. That is what is written, if the Eternal would not build the house, etc.
שִׁ֥יר הַֽמַּעֲל֗וֹת לִשְׁלֹ֫מֹ֥ה אִם־ה' ׀ לֹא־יִבְנֶ֬ה בַ֗יִת שָׁ֤וְא עָמְל֣וּ בוֹנָ֣יו בּ֑וֹ אִם־ה' לֹא־יִשְׁמׇר־עִ֝֗יר שָׁ֤וְא ׀ שָׁקַ֬ד שׁוֹמֵֽר׃
A song of ascents. Of Solomon.
Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain on it;
unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchman keeps vigil in vain.
Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain on it;
unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchman keeps vigil in vain.
וְרַבִּי זֵירָא — הָהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוֹמָה. וְרַב יְהוּדָה? ״הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי״ אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב. וְרַבִּי זֵירָא — הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר: שָׁלֹשׁ שְׁבוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ לָמָּה? אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוֹמָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יִמְרְדוּ בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, וְאַחַת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בָּהֶן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי.
And Rabbi Zeira maintains that the oath mentioned in that verse means that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, i.e., en masse, whereas individuals may immigrate as they wish. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Yehuda reply to this? The Gemara answers that this command is derived from another verse in which “I adjure you” (Song of Songs 3:5) is written. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira explain the repetition of this oath in these verses? The Gemara explains: That verse is necessary for that which was taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said: Why are these three oaths (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4) needed? One, so that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, but little by little. And another one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the Jews that they should not rebel against the rule of the nations of the world. And the last one is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively.
Declaration of Principles, “The Pittsburgh Platform” – 1885
5. We recognize, in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect, the approaching of the realization of Israel’s great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.
5. We recognize, in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect, the approaching of the realization of Israel’s great Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state.
The Jewish State, 1896
Theodore Herzl
We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain we are loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences or their wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country. The majority decide who the "alien" is; this, and all else in the relations between peoples, is a matter of power.
Theodore Herzl
We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain we are loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences or their wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country. The majority decide who the "alien" is; this, and all else in the relations between peoples, is a matter of power.
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook (1865 – 1935)
First Chief Rabbi of the land of Israel
Secular Zionists may think they do it for political, national, or socialist reasons, but in fact – the actual reason for them coming to resettle in Israel is a religious Jewish spark ("Nitzotz") in their soul, planted by God. Without their knowledge, they are contributing to the divine scheme and actually committing a great Mitzvah.
First Chief Rabbi of the land of Israel
Secular Zionists may think they do it for political, national, or socialist reasons, but in fact – the actual reason for them coming to resettle in Israel is a religious Jewish spark ("Nitzotz") in their soul, planted by God. Without their knowledge, they are contributing to the divine scheme and actually committing a great Mitzvah.
'We Fought for a Better Tomorrow'
Benny Mer in Haaretz, July 29, 2011
Unwaveringly secularist in its beliefs, the Bund also relinquished the idea of the Holy Land and the sacred tongue. Its language was Yiddish, spoken by millions of Jews throughout the Pale. This was also the source of the organization's four principles: socialism, secularism, Yiddish and doyikayt or "localness." The latter concept was encapsulated in the Bund slogan: "There, where we live, that is our country."
Benny Mer in Haaretz, July 29, 2011
Unwaveringly secularist in its beliefs, the Bund also relinquished the idea of the Holy Land and the sacred tongue. Its language was Yiddish, spoken by millions of Jews throughout the Pale. This was also the source of the organization's four principles: socialism, secularism, Yiddish and doyikayt or "localness." The latter concept was encapsulated in the Bund slogan: "There, where we live, that is our country."
Social Democracy and the National Question, 1904
Vladimir Medem
Let us consider the case of a country composed of several national groups, e.g. Poles, Lithuanians and Jews. Each national group would create a separate movement. All citizens belonging to a given national group would join a special organisation that would hold cultural assemblies in each region and a general cultural assembly for the whole country. The assemblies would be given financial powers of their own: either each national group would be entitled to raise taxes on its members, or the state would allocate a proportion of its overall budget to each of them. Every citizen of the state would belong to one of the national groups, but the question of which national movement to join would be a matter of personal choice and no authority would have any control over his decision. The national movements would be subject to the general legislation of the state, but in their own areas of responsibility they would be autonomous and none of them would have the right to interfere in the affairs of the others.
Vladimir Medem
Let us consider the case of a country composed of several national groups, e.g. Poles, Lithuanians and Jews. Each national group would create a separate movement. All citizens belonging to a given national group would join a special organisation that would hold cultural assemblies in each region and a general cultural assembly for the whole country. The assemblies would be given financial powers of their own: either each national group would be entitled to raise taxes on its members, or the state would allocate a proportion of its overall budget to each of them. Every citizen of the state would belong to one of the national groups, but the question of which national movement to join would be a matter of personal choice and no authority would have any control over his decision. The national movements would be subject to the general legislation of the state, but in their own areas of responsibility they would be autonomous and none of them would have the right to interfere in the affairs of the others.
The Colors of Jews, 2007
Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz
What do I mean by home? Not the nation state; not religious worship; not the deepest grief of a people marked by hatred. I mean a commitment to what is and is not mine; to the strangeness of others, to my strangeness to others; to common threads twisted with surprise. Diasporism takes root in the Jewish Socialist Labor Bund’s principle of doikayt—hereness—the right to be, and to fight for justice, wherever we are...Doikayt is about wanting to be citizens, to have rights, to not worry about being shipped off at any moment where someone else thinks you do or don’t belong…I name this commitment Diasporism.
Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz
What do I mean by home? Not the nation state; not religious worship; not the deepest grief of a people marked by hatred. I mean a commitment to what is and is not mine; to the strangeness of others, to my strangeness to others; to common threads twisted with surprise. Diasporism takes root in the Jewish Socialist Labor Bund’s principle of doikayt—hereness—the right to be, and to fight for justice, wherever we are...Doikayt is about wanting to be citizens, to have rights, to not worry about being shipped off at any moment where someone else thinks you do or don’t belong…I name this commitment Diasporism.
The Necessity of Exile: Essays from a Distance, 2023
Shaul Magid
In my view the Zionist narrative, even in its more liberal forms, cultivates an exclusivity and proprietary ethos that too easily slides into ethnonational chauvinism. It is for this reason that I believe, as religious Zionist thinker Rav Shagar wrote in his book Briti Shalom, that "Zionism has exhausted itself."
This book is therefore, in some sense, anti-Zionist—or more precisely, as I suggest below, counter-Zionist. I try to sever Zionism as an ideology from Israel as a nation-state. In so doing, I fully acknowledge the land of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and the same land as the homeland of the Palestinian people. I also fully acknowledge the legitimacy of the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people in their homeland and for the Jewish people in their homeland. I am thus in favor of Israel acting as a nation-state that protects and exercises the rights of both peoples. (At some point in the future, this might even mean changing the name of the country to better represent all of its citizens.) And I do not believe that Zionism as an ideology can ensure those equally legitimate rights. Not today. By distinguishing the nation-state from Zionism I suggest that we can begin to cultivate a new collective ideology that, if enacted, could serve Israel as a more liberal and more democratic place for the next phase of its existence.
But the fact that many confuse a critique of full Jewish hegemony in Israel with anti-Israelism is, in my view, part of the problem. Zionism is an ideology; the State of Israel is a country. Israel may have been founded on the principles of Zionist ideology but, like all countries, it needn't be wed to its founding principles. Ideologies and nation-states are not identical. America, now experiencing its own deep fissures as a country marked by its history of slavery and genocidal occupation, has undergone significant shifts in ideology since its founding. For example, the nineteenth-century theory of Manifest Destiny was once a quite popular justification for western expansion, yet today it is only espoused explicitly by white nationalists and white supremacists. Similar narrative shifts have occurred in other countries as well. If we were to allow for such a narrative shift and leave statist Zionism behind, for example, we could imagine a new relationship to exile—positing a counter-Zionism that reappropriates exile as a productive motif for rebuilding a humble and non-proprietary Jewish relationship to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Such a shift, in my opinion, is precisely what Israel needs.
Shaul Magid
In my view the Zionist narrative, even in its more liberal forms, cultivates an exclusivity and proprietary ethos that too easily slides into ethnonational chauvinism. It is for this reason that I believe, as religious Zionist thinker Rav Shagar wrote in his book Briti Shalom, that "Zionism has exhausted itself."
This book is therefore, in some sense, anti-Zionist—or more precisely, as I suggest below, counter-Zionist. I try to sever Zionism as an ideology from Israel as a nation-state. In so doing, I fully acknowledge the land of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and the same land as the homeland of the Palestinian people. I also fully acknowledge the legitimacy of the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people in their homeland and for the Jewish people in their homeland. I am thus in favor of Israel acting as a nation-state that protects and exercises the rights of both peoples. (At some point in the future, this might even mean changing the name of the country to better represent all of its citizens.) And I do not believe that Zionism as an ideology can ensure those equally legitimate rights. Not today. By distinguishing the nation-state from Zionism I suggest that we can begin to cultivate a new collective ideology that, if enacted, could serve Israel as a more liberal and more democratic place for the next phase of its existence.
But the fact that many confuse a critique of full Jewish hegemony in Israel with anti-Israelism is, in my view, part of the problem. Zionism is an ideology; the State of Israel is a country. Israel may have been founded on the principles of Zionist ideology but, like all countries, it needn't be wed to its founding principles. Ideologies and nation-states are not identical. America, now experiencing its own deep fissures as a country marked by its history of slavery and genocidal occupation, has undergone significant shifts in ideology since its founding. For example, the nineteenth-century theory of Manifest Destiny was once a quite popular justification for western expansion, yet today it is only espoused explicitly by white nationalists and white supremacists. Similar narrative shifts have occurred in other countries as well. If we were to allow for such a narrative shift and leave statist Zionism behind, for example, we could imagine a new relationship to exile—positing a counter-Zionism that reappropriates exile as a productive motif for rebuilding a humble and non-proprietary Jewish relationship to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Such a shift, in my opinion, is precisely what Israel needs.