Home Home / Jerusalem the Golden: A 2-Part Lecture …

Speech

February 25, 1968

Jerusalem the Golden: A 2-Part Lecture Series (1968)

Zionism
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Note

For Speech at Katz Prize Jerusalem (1983)

Rabbi Dovid Lifschitz once shared with me a powerful teaching from his late father-in-law, Rabbi Joseph Yosselevitch. Speaking in Suvalk at the 50th anniversary of the original Hibat Zion meeting – in a town deeply identified with the early Zionist cause – Rabbi Yosselevitch reflected on the halakhah that forbids leaving an uncovered knife on the table during Birkat Hamazon. The reason, he explained, is twofold. First, the table is likened to the altar in the Temple, which could not be built with iron because iron represents war and destruction, while the altar represents peace. Second, and even more poignant, is a tragic historical episode: a destitute Jew once sat down to a meager meal of dry bread. When he reached the third blessing of the Grace After Meals, the one that beseeches God to rebuild Jerusalem, he was so overcome by despair over the ruined state of Zion that he took the knife before him and ended his life. To prevent any future recurrence of such anguish, the Sages decreed that no knife be present – a gesture that both acknowledges and guards against the possibility of such despair born of intense love for Zion. Rabbi Yosselevitch concluded that Hibat Zion is not merely a modern movement born 50 years prior, but an ancient emotional and spiritual reality – a visceral, enduring love for Jerusalem powerful enough to break the human heart.To this, I would add a teaching I heard from Rabbi Isaac Bernstein regarding Birkat Hamazon: the first blessing, authored by Moses, is in the third person – “He feeds the entire world” – while the second, composed by Joshua, is in the second person – “We thank You… for the Land.” Why the grammatical shift? Because Moses, who never entered the Land of Israel, spoke of God from a distance, while Joshua, who lived in the Land, could speak directly to God. In this, too, we find a link to Rabbi Yosselevitch’s point. The longing for Jerusalem is not theoretical or abstract – it is personal, immediate, and at times devastati…
Zionism

Outline

Israel: The Next Fifty Years (1998)

Introd: I uniquely qualified: מיום שחרב ביהמ"ק, ניטלה נבואה מן הנביאים וניתנה לשוטים ולתינוקות. Since not infant... * More: diff'cult prophecy re: Land where rivals = נביאים. * My theme: Rel & cult'l divisions in Isr. Bias: Y deserv know My Bias: I=M.O.; Rel Zt bt no sympthy Mafdal; א"י but not א"י השלימה (not until משיח). * For me, Isr=J state, nt just state Js. If only latter – NYState ==>geot/econ/techn, tho not histry. I nt blv millnn'l J histy & attch't א"י meant cliamx in stt Js
Zionism

Speech

The Ideology of Religious Zionism (1969)

In a broad sense, Zionism has always been an integral part of Judaism. Although the majority of Jews were away from the Land of Israel throughout most of the 3,500 years of Jewish history, ארץ ישראל has always loomed large, indeed, indispensable, in Jewish religious thought. It began at the beginning — with the divine promise to Abraham, and the blessing, which centered about the relation of God, People, and Land. Thus, the Talmud considers the settlement in ארץ ישראל as a mitzvah or obligation, and the overwhelming majority of authorities hold that this obligation is in force today too. This relationship between Israel the People and Israel the Land transcends historical memory or religious ideal or legal obligation. It is all these and more—a long, painful, and glorious love story. In the (Lev. 26:32) we read: "And I will bring the land into desolation; and your enemies that dwell therein shall be astonished ( ) at it." means more than "astonished" some translate; "appalled." Even more accurate, according to Jewish tradition, would be "desolated" so the Land will be desolate that even the enemy will not be able to flourish in it. The Sages found a consoling element in this prediction of doom: "This represents a good quality for Israel that the enemies will find no satisfaction in the Land, for it will be desolate of its inhabitants." People of Israel and Land of Israel are like two lovers, husband and wife, who have had bitter arguments and left each other. But it is a lover's quarrel—they are angry with each other, they have separated, but neither will give its love to any other. The People will not transfer its ultimate commitment to any other Land—neither Uganda nor Birobidjan. And the Land will not yield its secrets nor offer itself up to any other lover. Only Jews have ever succeeded in settling the Land and making it flourish—not the Germans in days of the Kaiser, not the Turks or English or Arabs. Of course, with such a glorious history of mutual love, lon…
Zionism