Conclusions

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
[ Home ] [ Paper ] [ Handouts ] [ Power-Points ]

Conclusions

In Part I, the underlying methods employed to analyze the Parashot resulted in a tentative conclusion that—with regard both to borders and to conceptualizations of what constituted “land”—Modern Israel comported with how a “Jewish State” would exist. Analysis of each Parashah was necessary to ensure that the functioning of this State complied with the details of what was carefully defined in the Torah, for Ancient Israel. This was not performed as an apologia, for Modern Israel certainly has myriad “issues.”

All the other disclaimers articulated in Part I (such as recognizing the exclusion of the rest of the Bible from discussion and minimizing insertion of interpretive information) remained operational; the goal was to maintain as academic a posture as can be achieved. Habel’s work was distilled (yielding a unified stance regarding how each criterion might be conceptualized) and (subsequently) found to encompass the generalized points made throughout (invoking an informal cross-walk between the text and his interpretations).

Part II detailed depictions of the Parashot, invoking Lichtman and the JPS Commentary, recognizing the need to distill crucial data and to dispel tangential polemics (e.g., aliyah), yielding a comprehensive citation of specific references to Eretz Yisrael. To these ends, it was decided to defer performing such detailed review of the other two biblical books (encompassed by the Prophets and the Writings) as well as the rabbinic commentaries composed thereafter (Talmudic and otherwise); episodic reviews of the latter did not add appreciably to concepts derived directly from the Parashot. Therefore, it is felt that the essence of what was envisioned for this study—Modern Israel—was addressed after a probing-analysis/synthesis of Parashot, framed by context (Part I) and analysis (Part III).

Part III summarized how the major American Jewish movements conceptualize Israel, as well as how (academically) key characteristics of the Covenant (borders and contracts) reflected how the Ancients viewed and functioned in their world. Then, a demographic analysis yielded the conclusion that, at least by using the distilled parameters in a text written for the United States Government, the prose therein (albeit prejudicial) did not preclude drawing the conclusion that (viewed from a multidisciplinary perspective) “Israel is Kosher.” More precisely, perhaps, it was concluded that Israel isn’t Tref.

Overall, despite what the myriad movements in American Judaism might dispute, it is clear that the expository depiction of Zionism composed by Mordechai Kaplan represents the most cogent articulation and reasoning (eloquently stated from multiple perspectives) for why Zionism is inherent within Jewish Philosophy (and, certainly, is not “racist”).

Nevertheless, despite the capacity for multiple authors to wax philosophical regarding the importance of Israel to Jewish Life and a hopeful future, the motivation for this ability may not have been articulated (even as its manifestations were being profoundly felt). And the “force under the radar” has been the dynamism of the Promised Land, defined by whatever borders might be needed to conceptualize its physical manifestation in 2008. That Jewry needs to be “assisted” in the process of developing a unique relationship with the Land and its People, this is perhaps the opening concern of some future scrutiny.

Afterward

While this document was being composed, Rabbi Josh remitted the following e-mail:

As promised, I wanted to take a few minutes to look over what you’ve been writing before I leave on vacation. Obviously, the scope of your project is beyond what one can take in through a cursory glance and, as I warned, I’m not in a position to start responding to and offering feedback at the level of individual arguments. With that in mind, I did have a few quick comments for you to consider as you move ahead:

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the very idea of approaching Israel from a ‘dispassionate perspective’ is something of a fallacy. Israel is sufficiently charged that anything we say about it now can hardly be seen as devoid from a particular orientation and perspective. Our writing today on the subject of Israel is invariably polemic just as much now as it was in the Bible. You do an admirable job of identifying your own predilections up front, but I think it’s important to make explicit that it’s impossible to be objective on the issue, which is an important part of why it is so hard to write about.

You note my saying that there is a dearth of literature in the area of Biblical theology and Land. That was not my intention and it’s not the case. There are plenty of books that take up the topic, many of which you note (one favorite that doesn’t appear is Jon Levenson’s Sinai and Zion). I understood your question to be about whether the topic of how Israel is presented in the Bible is systematically presented anywhere from a religious (rather than academic) perspective and that’s where I acknowledged myself to be at a loss, other than the Lichtman book.

While you’re properly critical of the Lichtman book and its conclusions, I want to reinforce that it isn’t in any meaningful way a survey of what the Torah has to say about the Land of Israel. Rather, it’s an attempt to draw connections – often tenuous – between each of the parashot and Israel, relying heavily on rabbinic commentary and assumptions. To that end it may be a decent survey of classical rabbinic attitudes toward Israel – and is certainly a valuable primary source to illustrate contemporary religious Zionist attitudes – but it is not in anyway an attempt to lay out and evaluate what the Torah has to say on its own terms about Israel. All of which is to say I’m not sure how much of a service you do yourself attempting to support arguments about the Biblical perspective on Israel using Lichtman’s book. As you know, I was using it only as a jumping-off point and generally as a foil to explore our attitudes on contemporary issues – its best use as far as I’m concerned.

These comments aside, your passion and energy for the topic are commendable and I hope this project is a source of pride and satisfaction. I wish you best of luck as you continue this obvious labor of love, and I look forward to seeing you when I return in August.

This topic was also presented (twice) to the Adult Education Havurah at Or Hadash. Because it is anticipated that this will also be delivered to the entire congregation during the High Holidays [“two slots on Rosh Hashana and one slot on Yom Kippur”], most of the feedback was predicated on how to summarize the information (using power-point and handouts) so that the key-concepts will crystallize effectively. It was strongly advised that emphasis be placed initially on the expansive quotations from Rabbi Kaplan [because of their precision, and also (of course) because he fathered Reconstructionism] and, possibly, that the term “Moral Ecology” be transposed into “Moral Geography” [because of the need to dissociate its use from established “environmental mindsets”], despite the fact that the former was pervasive and no other term appears in the literature.

During the discussion, it was also noted that Rabbi Kook’s major “political” achievement (regardless of whether this was intended, or simply the effect of his writings on Jews) was to transform the secular foundations of Herzl’s Zionism (which, per the Evans-Smith monograph, had European “nationalistic” roots as early as in 1840) into an ideology that Orthodoxy could accommodate seamlessly. And it was suggested that, historically, Japan’s Shintoism may be a possible second example of a religion that was “rooted” in land-references (although, in this case, it may have been more because Japan is an island that because of any overt decision to claim a land and to define its borders as holy.) [The upcoming presentations will be distilled, but may encompass more primary data.]

Another individual challenged the suggestion that any Land-related contract could have been transacted with the Levites (which had been provided no Land-based inheritance).

My response to these points is, first, to record them and to acknowledge their credibility. Next, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that Lichtman’s book was, itself, used as a foil when composing this survey; although it provided a superb starting-point, some points were interpreted differently in the JPS Commentary…and a few were gleaned from the original source-material that included the word “Land” and that had not been discussed within either resource. Finally, regarding contract-law, the alleged Levite-kudurru homology is elaborated upon by Weinfeld in this specific fashion [pages 262-264]:

The Grant of Priesthood and Priestly Revenues. The documents of grant in the ancient Near East also include grants of status—maryannu-ship, priesthood, etc. The priesthood of Aaron in Israel has also been conceived as an eternal grant….Priestly revenues in the ancient Near East were also subject to grants and royal bestowals. This is also reflected in Israel. The holy donations assigned to the Aaronide priesthood are formulated in the manner of royal grants: “All the sacred donations of the Israelites, I grant them to you and to your sons as a prerequisite, a due for all time [Numbers 18:8; cf. Leviticus 7:34] and in slightly different formulations. “all the sacred gifts that the Israelites set aside for YHWH I give to you, to your sons…as a due forever, it shall be as everlasting salt covenant… for you and your offspring as well” [v. 19]. Similarly, the tithe, which belongs to the Levites [Numbers 18:21], was also given to them as a grant for the services that they perform. Grants of the tithe of a city to royal servants are actually known to us from Ugarit, as we read, for instance, in the grant of Ammištamru II: “(From this day) Ammištamru granted everything whatsoever (that belongs in the city) to Yaşiranu…forever for his grandsons, his grain, and his wine of its tithe.”….The grant to Aaron and the Levites is rooted in Hebron, as are the other grant traditions….

There can be nothing more “humanistic” than recognizing that a Land may interact (responsibly and responsively) with humans so as to promote justice and ethical conduct. It carries “intellectual/nationalistic” overtones, even as the reason for this model to have initially been formulated was to situate the individual living within a community that was establishing its capacity to mesh with The Promised Land, and to survive thereafter.

To contact me--Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.--just send an e-mail (rsklaroff@comcast.net).