558) The Temple Mount in Religious Zionism: Yesterday’s radicals - today’s moderates?

Hishtachavaya (full body prostration) on the Temple Mount. Just three years ago, this act would have led to immediate ejection.  

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Isaac Hershkowitz—examines the transformation of the Temple Mount from a previously marginal symbol to a current central component of Religious Zionism. 

Until about two decades ago, the need to ascend the Temple Mount was not a primary concern for Religious Zionism. Today, however, it shapes the contemporary political, theological and messianic discourse (Hershkowitz 2026:2). With the demographic rise in the religious sector in general, and the Religious Zionist sector in particular, the question of the Temple Mount is likely to assume an increasingly prominent role in all future Israeli narratives. 

Until the Six-Day War in 1967, the Temple Mount—while central to Jewish historical memory and messianic expectation—played little role in mainstream secular Israeli politics or in the evolving theology of Religious Zionism. By contrast, it was the Western Wall—not the Temple Mount—that commanded most political and religious attention (Hershkowitz 2026:2). This all changed after the Six-Day War, when the Western Wall began to be viewed as a marker of exile and the past, while the Temple Mount became the focus of redemption and the future [see: Kotzk Blog: 507) The rise of contemporary Religious-Zionism]. 

Trajectory of transformation

British Mandate: 1920-1948

During the period of the British Mandate, Jewish attitudes toward the Temple Mount: 

“blended profound historical reverence with pragmatic restraint amid political realities and intercommunal tensions. Broadly, the longing for the Temple Mount during this period lacked a robust territorial dimension…” (Hershkowitz 2026:3). 

During this period, the Western Wall was the nearest and most practically accessible remnant of the Temple. It aligned with the prevailing attitude to prioritise “coexistence over territorial claims” (Hershkowitz 2026:3). This perspective was also the position of Rav Kook, Chief Rabbi of Palestine, and is important because it shows how early Religious Zionism, even in its messianic currents, did not initially push for direct engagement with the Temple Mount. 

Jordanian Control: 1948-1967

Between 1948 and 1967, the Temple Mount was under Jordanian control and remained inaccessible to Jews during this period. In fact, throughout this period, there was a deliberate policy of refraining from asserting claims over holy sites in the land as a whole, “favouring stability over territorial or militaristic pursuits” (Hershkowitz 2026:3). 

After the 1967 Six-Day War

After the capture of the Temple Mount in 1967, Defence Minister Moshe Dayan advocated for Jewish access and limited Muslim autonomy over all sacred sites. The era of pragmatic restraint that had characterised previous times had come to a close, and an era of renewed (secular and religious) messianism had taken hold: 

“Nevertheless, it would be accurate to assert that even among those gripped by a messianic fervor immediately following the war, the broader expanses of the land captivated their imagination far more, relegating the Temple Mount to a relatively minor achievement of the conflict” (Hershkowitz 2026:4). 

During the post-1967 period, the emphasis was placed more on expanding territorial control than on the Temple Mount itself. This was largely driven by an: 

“affirmation of the messianic value of the current era, [which] gave rise to an existential need to expand the boundaries of settlement” (Hershkowitz 2026:6). 

Even Religious Zionist factions “sidelined the Temple Mount” as Gush Emunim began settlement of Judea and Samaria, “neglecting the Mount’s status” (Hershkowitz 2026:5). The Western Wall, however, emerged as a significant new national and religious symbol, with greater energy devoted to its development than to securing access to the Temple Mount: 

“[T]he Temple Mount was ceded to the Muslim Waqf with minimal public resistance, underscoring its secondary role at the time” (Hershkowitz 2026:4). 

The Waqf is the Islamic trust that administers and oversees the Temple Mount (known in Arabic as Haram al-Sharif). Since 1187, when Saladin placed the site under Islamic custodianship, the Waqf has been responsible for managing religious affairs there. 

In the meantime, the Western Wall’s significance became even more dominant. In 2000, the Camp David Summit proposed a “vertical division” of the Temple Mount. This amounted to Palestinian control over the upper area, including the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, while a special status was granted to the subterranean areas which included possible Temple remnants. Camp David marked the beginning of a renewed interest in Jewish engagement with the Temple Mount (Hershkowitz 2026:5). 

From 2000 onwards

From around 2000 onwards, various rabbis within the Religious Zionist movement began awakening an engagement with the Temple Mount which had remained relatively dormant until then: 

“The Settlements’ Rabbis’ Council, shedding mid-90s restraint, endorsed ascent, with luminaries like Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, and Rabbi Haim Druckman, disciples of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, leading students atop the Mount” (Hershkowitz 2026:6). 

Today, it is evident that the renewed interest in, and practice of, ascending the Temple Mount—beginning from around 2000—has become mainstream and widespread. Hershkowitz now addresses the question of whether or not this popular turn to the Temple Mount was fueled by fundamentalist or moderate elements. 

A non-extremist approach

At this juncture, Hershkowitz’s research takes an intriguing—if somewhat counterintuitive—turn. He argues that the post‑2000 surge of interest in the Temple Mount, though undeniably messianic, did not represent a fundamentalist or extremist development: 

“As crises beset the settlement movement, the original messianic trend to return to the Temple Mount gradually strengthened, even among elements within Religious Zionism not perceived as fundamentalist… even among significant factions within Religious Zionism that positively regard liberal and democratic values” (Hershkowitz 2006:6). 

In 2003, the Tzomet Institute published the anthology Kumu veNa’aleh (Arise and Ascend), edited by R. Yisrael Rosen, which, by “leveraging meticulous scholarship to crack the blanket prohibition” (Hershkowitz 2026:6), declared it Halachically permissible to ascend the Temple Mount. Rabbis from various affiliations joined together, and half of Israel’s Hesder Yeshivot and some important High Schools regularly visit the Temple Mount. These visits are not framed as rebellion, but as mainstream piety: 

“Moderate rabbis from Har Etzion Yeshiva, like Rabbi Yuval Sherlow and Rabbi Yaakov Medan, joined hardline voices like Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, forging a coalition spanning Religious Zionism’s spectrum” (Hershkowitz 2026:6). 

It should be noted that a significant segment of the Orthodox and ultra‑Orthodox community maintain an absolute ban and Halachic prohibition on ascending the Temple Mount. 

On an interesting aside: 

“[T]he current lack of practical engagement with sacrificial rites facilitates an esthetically appealing and digestible ‘marketing’ of the longing for the Temple site, sidestepping controversies over aspects of divine service at the Temple that might be perceived as archaic” (Hershkowitz 2026:7). 

The following graph depicts the tenfold rise in numbers of visitors to the Temple Mount over the past fifteen years. The average age of these ascenders is younger than the demographic average in Israel. This indicates a profound and dramatic shift in contemporary Religious Zionist discourse:

Ascension to the Temple Mount has now become non-radical, mainstream and normative:

“This trend aligns seamlessly with an ideological need interwoven with the theological fabric that has characterized Religious Zionism nearly since its inception. An active ethos of terrestrial efforts to advance redemptive processes, combined with the establishment of an acceptable goal (institutionalizing the right to pray and a place of prayer on the Mount)… [This] explains why the ascent to the Temple Mount and the political and religious struggle for Jewish sovereignty and prayer rights upon it are likely to constitute one of the central objectives facing Religious Zionism in the coming decades” (Hershkowitz 2026:10). 

Conclusion

We have observed a distinct transformation of the Temple Mount, “from a marginal symbol to a central component of Religious Zionism’s contemporary identity” (Hershkowitz 2026:1). These findings—based on historical analysis, ideological discourse, rabbinic rulings, and empirical data—indicate that this development does not represent a radical trend by radicalised individuals. Rather, they appear to be driven predominantly by moderate players whose views have become institutionalised and normalised within mainstream contemporary Religious Zionist circles. 

This changes the perceptions noted by previous scholarship that the driving force behind this shift and transformation of Temple Mount activism emerged from extremist, radical and subversive groups like the followers of R. Meir Kahane and others. These radicalised groups may indeed have been active in the initial stages of this phenomenon, but no longer represent its current trajectory” (Hershkowitz 2026:2).

 Analysis

At first glance, if I understand Hershkowitz correctly, his position seems not one of outright advocacy or opposition, but rather a balanced sociological, theological and historical analysis of the normalisation of Temple Mount ascents within mainstream Religious Zionism. On this reading, his examination is descriptive, not prescriptive or evaluative. 

On the other hand—and I may be completely wrong—there may be another way of reading him. Hershkowitz (2026:1) does write that he “traces the gradual erosion of that [earlier] restraint” (emphasis mine) against engagement with the Temple Mount. This phrasing, perhaps, leaves room for interpretation because some readers may view the mainstreaming of formerly radical ideas as cause for concern. 

Hershkowitz also offers a projection about Religious Zionism’s present identity and likely future priorities, and by highlighting the move from fringe to core, alludes to possible consequences and implications. The data shows evidence of significant and measurable change, and by emphasising the institutionalisation and normalisation of this change, he may be suggesting strategic (and achievable) intent. 

On the shifting definition of ‘moderate,’ consider the following example: In 2009, during Pope Benedict’s visit to Israel, R. Yisrael Rosen (1941-2017) publicly commented on the event. Rosen was then head of the Tzomet Institute (the moderate body, mentioned earlier, that had issued Halachic guidance allowing ascent to the Temple Mount). He told the Pope rather bluntly that Jesus was a false messiah who deserved to die, but Catholics could still help Israel to fight a war against fundamentalist Islam. 

At the same time, Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, although clearly supportive of the state, identifies more as ultra-Orthodox—and presumably ‘less moderate’—adopted a very different approach: 

“Jewish people are scattered all over the globe…[T]he Catholic Church has a large amount of influence…[Therefore] I, as a rabbinic figure…foster good relations with the Catholic Church… at least, by being involved in dialogues with other religions, I know I am doing what I can."^[1] 

So, who exactly (and how moderate) are the contemporary mainstream moderate players whose views have now become institutionalised and normalised?

 

Bibliography

Hershkowitz, I., 2026, ‘From Fringe to Core: The Temple Mount in Religious Zionism's Evolving Identity’, Modern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, Vol. 46, no. 1, 1–19.

Further Reading

 Kotzk Blog: 507) The rise of contemporary Religious-Zionism]. 

---

[1] Online source: https://www.jpost.com/features/front-lines/article-142349. Retrieved 18 June 2026.

 

 

557) The Roaring Lion returns: A contemporary polemic against Jewish mysticism

The Roaring Lion by R. Leon of Modena

Note: This article examines Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah from a historical, psychological and analytical perspective. If you prefer not to read such treatments of mysticism, you may wish to skip this piece. 

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Lippman Bodoff—examines the highly contested roots of Medieval Jewish mysticism. I started writing this article twice and then stopped. This was because I know that some of the ideas expressed in it will be challenging to some, particularly in an era where mysticism has become mainstream Judaism. For many (including myself from the early age of thirteen), mysticism, specifically in the incarnation of modern Chassidism, had been the portal through which we returned to Torah Judaism. 

556) The Babylonian Talmud in its original Persian-Iranian context

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Shai Secunda—explores aspects of the cultural, legal and spiritual background to the Babylonian Talmud. The title of this Talmudic corpus, ‘Babylonian Talmud’ is in itself interesting because it was not produced in Babylonia as many assume, but rather in Sasanian Persia (modern-day Iran). The Babylonian Talmud, or Talmud Bavli, is most often studied in yeshivot, where the cultural context of this foundational work of Jewish literature is usually overlooked. In yeshiva environments, the importance and extraordinary authority of the Babylonian Talmud is frequently regarded as Divine and sometimes accorded a status equal to or above the Torah itself (Secunda 2018: at 2 min). 

555) Resisting the friendship impulse: Relationships in the teachings of Ishbitz

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Israel Koren—explores a most unusual approach to sociability, friendship and family, in the teachings R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica (Ishbitz) (1800-1854). He dramatically broke away from the warm, traditional Chassidic conception of interpersonal relationships, which had previously been regarded positively as both reflective of, and parallel to, union with the Divine. Instead, he promoted a decidedly anti-social stance where sociability was scorned. Today, the Ishbitzer’s work, Mei haShiloach, is very popular. However, R. Mordechai’s striking ambivalence toward human friendship and companionship goes mostly unnoticed. Koren’s study of the Isbitzer’s distinct asociality contributes to a fuller understanding of the writings of Ishbitz. 

554) Rabbinic perspectives on honour killings

The Bat Rabim collection of manuscripts in the Russian State Library.

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Dr Moti Benmelech—examines rabbinic perspectives on honour killings. It traces the fraught process by which some rabbis tried to reconcile local honour codes with Jewish law and practice, while others resisted and pushed back to deliberately limit its reach to uphold Jewish legal and moral standards. 

Honour Killings

An honour killing, or shame killing, typically refers to the murder of a female family member by a male relative, who believes she has behaved immorally, committed adultery, or otherwise brought shame upon the family. Such killings are intended to preserve or restore the family’s perceived honour and reputation. The phenomenon persists to this day, and according to the UN, five thousand girls and women are killed each year in honour‑related violence. 

553) The forgotten legacy of Philo of Alexandria

 Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dovid Campbell—examines the often-overlooked intellectual legacy and deep influence of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE) on later Jewish thought. Philo, a leader of “the largest Jewish community of the first century,” may have been “one of history’s most influential Jews”. He laid solid foundations for “the entire stream of Western philosophy, including its religious and distinctively Jewish branches” (Campbell 2024:42). Essentially, Philo was an early, if not the first, thinker to understand the Torah as speaking the language of philosophy behind the plain meaning of its text. For Philo, Torah was philosophy. At this stage in Jewish history, Torah meant Tanach or Bible, because the rabbinic or Talmudic period was just beginning. Philo introduced numerous philosophical ideas into Judaism that changed its shape forever, but the man behind these contributions was lost to Jewish history. Today, we only know about Philo because other religious traditions preserved his work. In fact, many of his forgotten contributions have unknowingly become part of the very fabric of contemporary Orthodox Judaism, to the extent that those who disregard them would—to this day—almost certainly be considered as espousing heretical views. Campbell’s groundbreaking research expounds on this peculiar irony. 

552) The added blessing in the Amidah: Who are we cursing?

 

Kefar Sachnin in Galilee

Introduction:

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor R. Reuven Kimelman[1]—examines the twelfth of the eighteen (today nineteen) blessings of the Amidah, in an attempt to establish just who it is referring to. The nature of the ‘blessing’ is more of a curse and a petition for this community (or these communities) to “instantly perish.” The text of this prayer—which is today known as Bircat haMinim (Blessing denouncing the Heretics)—becomes a fascinating window into Jewish perceptions of the need to exclude the ‘other’ during the first century CE. The question is: who is this unnamed ‘other’ (or ‘others’)? 

551) R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik’s adaptation of German Volk elements.

R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik in 1944

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Daniel Herskowitz[1]—examines how certain elements of Germanic Volkish (volk = folk) thought, circulating in interwar Germany, are evident in the writings of R. Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, also known as the Rav (1903-1993). Volkism was a folk, cultural, and ideological movement which began in Germany in the late 19th century. R. Soloveitchik studied cultural themes that also appeared in Volkish and later National Socialist discourse, but R. Soloveitchik’s use was philosophical, not political. To be clear, although R. Soloveitchik adopted Volkish thought, he severely criticised it when it became politicised, adopted and weaponised by the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s. Nevertheless, Volkism did indeed become the basis of the National Socialist movement in Germany. 

550) Likutei Halachot: Reinterpreting Halacha as a means to connect with the Tzadik

My copy of Likutei Halachot by R. Natan Sternhartz

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research by Dr Leore Sachs-Shmueli[1]—examines the nineteenth-century Chassidic work, Likutei Halachot, by R. Natan Sternhartz of Nemirov (1780-1844). R. Natan worked on his manuscript of Likutei Halachot for forty years, from 1806 to two days before his passing in 1844. His autograph (i.e., original) manuscript is housed in the  National Library of Israel. This work by R. Natan, the foremost student of R. Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810), essentially redefines Halachic practice as a mnemonic (memory system) and theurgic (spiritually manipulative) means of connecting with the Tzadik, R. Nachman of Breslov (or more accurately Bratslav).

549) From Serafim to Sefirot: The Kedusha and the rise of human participation in the cosmic drama

The Kedusha in a 1745 Siddur according to the custom of the Arizal

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research by Dr Leore Sachs-Shmueli—examines a fundamental shift in the mystical interpretation of the Kedusha, recited during the communal repetition of the Amidah (standing prayer). The Kedusha, with its liturgy dating to the fifth century CE (Fleischer 1998:305), was understood in early Jewish mysticism—particularly the Heichalot and Merkavah literature beginning from around the second century CE—as an opportunity for earthly worshippers to imitate and mimic the prayers of the heavenly angels who united heaven and earth through their recital of the Kedusha. In this ancient framework, human prayer was conceived as an echo of the primary celestial liturgy. However, with the emergence of the Zoharic corpus in the late thirteenth century (the Zohar first circulated around 1290), a significant theological shift took place. The angels, who were once conceptualised as being central to the Kedusha, were now relegated to the margins, while humanity assumed the pivotal role in a cosmic drama that sought to unite heaven and earth. 

 

548) Early Mussar: Demonic threat management and displacement of the Divine

Yiddish translation of Kav haYashar

Introduction

In a previous article, we delved into the possibility of Sabbatian connections to, if not outright authorship of an early Mussar (ethical) text, the  Kav haYashar [see: Kotzk Blog: 303) MYSTICAL YIDDISH TEXTS AS A CONDUIT FOR CHASSIDIC THOUGHT:]. This article—drawing extensively on the research by Professor Isaac Hershkowitz—explores a different dimension of the Kav haYashar with its striking emphasis on angelology and demonology. These themes are not incidental but central to the work, to the point where they appear to eclipse God in the text’s pursuit and development of religious-ethical development (Mussar). In early Mussar, such as Kav haYashar, ethical conduct is shaped more by obedience to a cosmic system of angels and demons. In this scheme, God is to a notable degree marginalised—eclipsed, displaced, if not altogether absent—from the process of moral perfection. Likewise, the individual’s own self-effort is detached from the work of ethical refinement. Instead, early Mussar emphasises the conceptual struggle of enlisting good angels and combating demonic forces as the primary path toward moral righteousness. 

547) From the Nile to Safed: Egyptian Judeo-Sufism as an influence on Lurianic Kabbalah

 

Cairo Geniza fragment of the writings of  Maimonides' son, Avraham ben haRambam

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on research by Professor Paul Fenton—expands upon the previous discussion of six generations (Fenton 2025-)[1] of Maimonides’ Egyptian descendants who embraced and disseminated a synthesis of Jewish mysticism and Islamic Sufism, known as Judeo-Sufism. This movement, with large numbers of adherents known as Chassidim, followed a mystical path called Derech haChasidut (Fenton 2017:50). Its influence eventually reached Safed, transmitting Judeo-Sufi ideas and practices that arguably informed the Arizal’s sixteenth‑century Lurianic Kabbalah.