| Abstract
|
:
|
This study explores the ideologies of two schools of Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism: R. Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888) and his followers and descendants and R. Joel Teitelbaum (1887–1979), the Rebbe of Satmar and his followers in his Hasidic sect as well as in Jerusalem's Edah ha-Haredit and Neturei Karta. (Teitelbaum was significantly influenced by the ideology of an earlier Hungarian Hasidic leader, R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira [1872–1937], the Rebbe of Munkacs.) Intellectual historians have generally emphasized the disparate nature of German Neo-Orthodoxy and Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy due to the different views of these two schools on issues relating to acculturation, that is, whether Jews ought to adopt the cultural patterns of their surrounding non-Jewish environment or whether they should adopt a stance of cultural insularity. However, the issue of ideology, as far as it concerns the relationship between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews, is a significant point of agreement between the followers of Hirsch and his son-in-law R. Salomon Breuer (1850–1926) and those of the Satmar Rebbe and other likeminded Hungarian Ultra-Orthodox leaders. Hirsch championed secession (Austritt) not only in Germany but also in Hungary—he was actively involved in the struggle for secession by the militant Orthodox leaders there and he was applauded by them for his hardline stance on this issue, although they did not share his views on acculturation. The convergence between these two groups is most palpable in the underlying theological basis for why both schools opposed the Zionist ideology and movement. At stake here was not only the issue of Austritt but also of traditional rabbinic approaches to messianism, which advocated a passive posture, as opposed to the messianic activism that was latent in the Zionist attempt to restore Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Hirsch was a vehement opponent of messianic activism, and therefore opposed the proto-Zionist endeavors of R. Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, as did the leaders of Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy. The view of some scholars that Hirsch was motivated in his opposition to proto-Zionism by a desire to demonstrate loyalty to the German Fatherland, and not by traditional rabbinic concerns, is called into question in this paper. Since Hirsch did not live to see the seminal events in the history of Zionism, such as the creation of the State of Israel, it was left to his followers to apply his principles to changing circumstances. Although Hirsch's ideological heirs have offered varied responses to twentieth century developments, with Isaac Breuer's approach standing out as the most innovative, none of them adopted the approach of the Satmar Rebbe, who advocated complete non-recognition of the State of Israel. It is the task of this paper to delineate the reasons for the change in approach between these two groups despite the underlying commonalities in their ideological opposition to messianic activism, their support for Austritt, and their shared opposition to the Zionist ideology.
|