Dispersion and the Longing for Zion, 1240-1840
reprinted
with the permission of The
Shalem Center ©
Arie Morgenstern
It has become increasingly accepted in recent years
that Zionism is a strictly modern nationalist movement,
born just over a century ago, with the revolutionary
aim of restoring Jewish sovereignty in the land of
Israel. And indeed, Zionism was revolutionary in many
ways: It rebelled against a tradition that in large
part accepted the exile, and it attempted to bring
to the Jewish people some of the nationalist ideas
that were animating European civilization in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But Zionist
leaders always stressed that their movement had deep
historical roots, and that it drew its vitality from
forces that had shaped the Jewish consciousness over
thousands of years. One such force was the Jewish
faith in a national redemptionthe belief that
the Jews would ultimately return to the homeland from
which they had been uprooted.
This tension, between the modern and the traditional
aspects of Zionism, has given rise to a contentious
debate among scholars in Israel and elsewhere over
the question of how the Zionist movement should be
described. Was it basically a modern phenomenon, an
imitation of the other nationalist movements of nineteenth-century
Europe? If so, then its continuous reference to the
traditional roots of Jewish nationalism was in reality
a kind of facade, a bid to create an "imaginary
community" by selling a revisionist collective
memory as if it had been part of the Jewish historical
consciousness all along. Or is it possible to accept
the claim of the early Zionists, that at the heart
of their movement stood far more ancient hopes, and
that what ultimately drove the most remarkable national
revival of modernity was an age-old messianic dream?
For many years, it was the latter belief that prevailed
among historians of Zionism. Its leading proponent
was Benzion Dinur, a central figure in what became
known as the Jerusalem school of Jewish history. Dinur,
a historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
who was also Israels minister of education from
1951 to 1955, understood the relationship between
the Jewish people and the land of Israel to be a basic
element of Jewish consciousness, and believed that
messianic longing had played a decisive role in aliyot,
or waves of Jewish immigration to the land of Israel,
throughout history. For Dinur, the driving force behind
the aliyot of the medieval and early modern periods
was the "messianic ferment" that cropped
up in Jewish communities from time to time, precipitating
widespread efforts to predict the exact date the messianic
era would begin; the appearance of charismatic leaders
in various Jewish communities, who were seen as heralding
the end of days; and, most notably, efforts to organize
groups of Jews who would go to live in the land of
Israel in order to hasten the redemption. "These
two phenomena," wrote Dinur, "messianic
ferment and movements of immigration to the land of
Israel, are among the basic phenomena of Jewish history
throughout the generations...."(1)
Animated by this perspective, Dinur and his colleagues
succeeded in uncovering much of the lineage of Jewish
nationalism. Against the commonly held belief that
Zionist activism was a rejoinder to the "passivity"
of traditional Judaism, scholars of the Jerusalem
school stressed the dynamic and activist quality of
the messianic impulse in Jewish history. In every
generation, it was shown, there were a great many
Jews, including communal and spiritual leaders, who
were not content with passively hoping for divine
intervention, and who instead took action aimed at
bringing it about. Of the means at their disposal,
aliya was often seen as the most potent way to bring
the redemption: For centuries, despite the danger
and hardship involved in making the trip to Palestine,
Jews from all over the diaspora continuously attempted
to reestablish the presence and even sovereignty of
the Jews in the land of Israel, efforts that stemmed
from a longing for Zion that had suffused the prayers
and practices of Jews around the world. In Dinurs
view, the Zionist awakening was not motivated primarily
by modern European ideas, but by this same longing,
which flowed from the deep springs of Jewish historical
consciousness.
In recent years, however, this view of Jewish history
has been subjected to relentless criticism. Dinur
and his colleagues have been accused of allowing their
Zionist ideology to inflate the importance they attributed
to the land of Israel as a part of the Jewish consciousness,
and as a goal for practical action. One of the most
prominent critics of Dinurs approach is Jacob
Barnai of Haifa University. In his study on nationalism
and the land of Israel, Historiography and Nationalism
(1995), Barnai argues that Dinurs belief in
the centrality of aliya cannot be reconciled with
the fact that Jews did not succeed in establishing
an uninterrupted presence in Palestine. Moreover,
those who did come were hardly the elites of the Jewish
people whom Dinur had depictedand therefore
could not be said to reflect anything essential regarding
the Jewish experience in exile. "The definition
of the yishuv as the elite of the Jewish people...
was not subject to a clear analysis and definition
in [Dinurs] thought, and contradicts what we
know about the land of Israel at different times as
the place where precisely the lower elements
of Jewish society were concentrated."(2)
The historian Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin has made a wider
claim in his critique of Dinur and his colleagues,
arguing that Zionist historiography erred in offering
a portrayal of Jewish attitudes towards the land of
Israel as being consistent and uniform. According
to Raz-Krakotzkin, a distinction should be drawn between
positive and even fervent Jewish attitudes towards
redemption, on the one hand, and the minimal effect
these attitudes had in encouraging a return to the
land of Israel, on the other.(3)
In building his case, he relies on Elhanan Reiners
study of aliyot in the Middle Ages, which depicted
Jewish immigration to Palestine as having been inspired
far more by Christian pilgrimages than by any Jewish
messianic belief.(4) Raz-Krakotzkin
argues that the time has come to "reappropriate"
the discussion of the Jewish relationship to the land
of Israel and to remove it from its Zionist "framing
narrative"; he sees Reiners study as setting
a new course for historians, who will no longer be
constrained by what he calls the "principle of
return" that characterizes the classic Zionist
narrative.(5) According to this view,
the Jewish conception of redemption related to the
land of Israel only in abstract terms, as a spiritualized
goal to be reached in a far-off time, whereas the
classic Zionist assertion that Jews consistently and
actively sought out the physical Palestine is simply
wishful thinking.
Of course, this debate among scholars is of far more
than academic interest. Scholars such as Raz-Krakotzkin,
as well as the sociologists Uri Ram and David Myers,
have placed the criticism of the Jerusalem school
at the center of a broader critique of the Zionist
movement itself.(6) These scholars
take it as self-evident that Zionism rewrote Jewish
historical memory, exaggerating the importance of
the land of Israel in order to give its adherents
the "false consciousness" needed to realize
its colonialist goals. This critique of the Jerusalem
school has been central to a larger effort in recent
years to assail the foundations of the Zionist movement,
and it is on the basis of these criticisms that some
Israelis have in recent times come to question Zionisms
founding beliefs, including the very justice of the
enterprise. If it turns out that their criticisms
are firmly based in the historical record, the implications
may be far-reaching indeed.
Today, however, the evidence exists to resolve this
historical debateevidence that was available
in only limited measure to Dinur and his colleagues,
and that has largely been ignored by recent critics
of the traditional Zionist historiography. Indeed,
with the opening of archives in the former Soviet
Union, and in the wake of archival discoveries in
Western and Central Europe and in Israel, much that
was a matter of speculation can now be addressed on
the basis of well-documented sources.
On the basis of this evidence, it seems that Dinur
was largely correct in his understanding of the centrality
of the land of Israel and aliyot in the centuries
preceding Zionism, while his critics erred. The work
of scholars such as Joseph Hacker, Yisrael Yuval,
Binyamin Zeev Kedar, David Tamar, Elhanan Reiner,
and Avraham David, as well as my own research, indicates
clearly that the land of Israel served as a focus
not only of spiritual longing for the Jews in the
exile, but also of continual organized aliyot from
all over the diaspora. These efforts brought thousands
of Jews, including many important scholars and leaders,
to settle in Palestine throughout the six centuries
that preceded the appearance of Zionism.
Indeed, from the time of the Crusades until the nineteenth
century, Jewish life was infused with a sense of messianic
anticipation, which found expression, among other
things, in aliya. This messianic anticipation was
focused on specific dates, which were endowed with
mystical significance. Starting with the year 5000
on the Jewish calendar (1240 c.e.), the beginning
of each new century signaled for many the possibility
of redemption, leading large groups of Jews to make
the journey to Palestine as a necessary step in bringing
it about. Some of these aliyot were unknown to us
until recently; in other cases, recent research has
added substantial detail to the historical record.
The picture which emerges is one of a clear, recurrent
trend of immigration to the land of Israel, which
was by no means limited to the "lower" elements
of society but took with it Jews from all walks of
life. Indeed, in many cases, some of the outstanding
Jewish figures of their day led the way. Although
the number of Jews who succeeded in making the voyage
and settling in Palestine never constituted more than
a small portion of world Jewry, these messianic aliyot
were of enduring significance, partly because of the
renown of those who took part, partly because of their
regular appearance over the centuries, and partly
because of the variety of diaspora communities which
participated. The messianic impulse which spawned
these waves of immigration, and the belief in the
centrality of the land of Israel upon which they depended,
were in no way marginal to the Jewish tradition, but
in fact became an axis of Jewish spiritual life. Indeed,
the story of aliya from the thirteenth to the nineteenth
centuries illustrates the depth and force of the Jewish
peoples connection to its ancestral homeland,
a connection that was carried into the late nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, when modern Zionism found
a new way of giving it voice.
Next
Notes
1. Benzion Dinur, "The Messianic
Fermentation and Immigration to the Land of Israel
from the Crusades until the Black Death, and Their
Ideological Roots," in Benzion Dinur, Historical
Writings (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1975), vol.
ii, p. 238. [Hebrew]
2. Jacob Barnai, Historiography
and Nationalism: Trends in the Research of Palestine
and Its Jewish Population, 634-1881 (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1995), p. 39. [Hebrew]
3. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, The Nationalist
Portrayal of the Exile, Zionist Historiography, and
Medieval Jewry, doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv
University, 1996, p. 331. [Hebrew]
4. Elhanan Reiner, Pilgrims and
Pilgrimage to the Land of Israel, 1099-1517, doctoral
dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988.
[Hebrew]
5. Raz-Krakotzkin, Nationalist Portrayal,
pp. 333-334.
6. See David N. Myers, Reinventing
the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and
the Zionist Return to History (New York: Oxford,
1995); Uri Ram, "Zionist Historiography and the
Invention of Modern Jewish Nationhood: The Case of
Benzion Dinur," History and Memory 7:1
(1995), pp. 91-124. For a critique of Dinur that does
not tend towards a critique of Zionism as a whole,
see Jacob Katz, Jewish Nationalism: Essays and
Studies (Jerusalem: Zionist Library, 1979), pp.
230-238. [Hebrew]
Copyright © 2002 The Shalem Center. All rights
reserved. Opinions expressed herein are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views of
The Shalem Center or Azure.
Azure WINTER 5762 / 2002
|