570) Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov: An early model of Religious Zionism

R. Shmuel Alexandrov (1865-1941)

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Dr Isaac Slater—identifies and analyses a forgotten early model of Religious Zionism as presented in the writings of Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov. Religious Zionism today is readily recognisable in its various popular iterations, but there were many early models and visions of how such a movement should be constructed. We shall explore just one of these diverse theological projections on how to integrate classical traditional Judaism, as understood during the late nineteenth century, with emergent Zionism. 

Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov

Shmuel Alexandrov (1865-1941) was a respected graduate of the Volozhin Yeshiva, founded around 1803 by R. Chaim of Volozhin, who was a student of the Vilna Gaon. Ironically, Alexandrov came from a family of Chabad Chassidim. This dual association created an interesting blend of Talmudism and Kabbalah, which becomes even more interesting when we add his penchant for Maimonidean philosophy and a tendency towards Halachic antinomianism. He was familiar with the teachings of Rav Kook, with whom he had previously studied. They maintained correspondence with each other, and this way, Alexandrov was also drawn into the world of nascent Religious Zionism. Additionally, Alexandrov was also deeply influenced by Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, known as Achad Ha’am (1856-1927), the important pre-state Zionist thinker who developed the notion of cultural Zionism. All these divergent influences contributed to an unusual theological and rabbinic response to modern Zionism. 

Complicated early formulations of Zionism

Alexandrov saw Achad Ha’am as his political partner, but instead of only focusing on Achad Ha’am’s cultural Zionism, he wanted to infuse that culture with a spirit of religion as well. Achad Ha’am maintained that education must be prioritised over immediate and indiscriminate Jewish settlement in the land. Achad Ha’am differed from Herzl, who wanted a “state of Jews,” and argued instead for a “Jewish state.” 

Politically, early Zionism was complicated: The Mizrachi party allied with Herzl, but Rav Kook was fundamentally opposed to this alliance. Yet Rav Kook sided with Herzl on the issue of Zionism springing from a secular base as part of a necessary messianic programme. 

Eish Dat veRuach Leumi

Many of Alexandrov’s views are explained in his work, Eish Dat veRuach Leumi (Fiery Law and National Spirit, 1891). Essentially, he offered a religious interpretation of Achad Ha’am and tried to create a new form of “religio-nationalist consciousness” (Slater 2023:143). Eish Dat veRuach Leumi explores the relationship between—and perhaps tests the limits and potential of—the Jewish religion and Jewish nationalism. He uses mystical imagery from Kabbalah and philosophical imagery from Maimonides—integrated with Marxist ideas—through references to fire, water and air. Fire represents religion, which can either be “rays of light” or “rays of heat.” Religion is thus an active choice between intellectual understanding (light) and restrictive and regressive subjugation (heat). Water symbolises a scientific and enlightened approach which controls the wild energy of Fire. Air corresponds to spirit, which in Alexandorv’s conceptualisation denotes nationalism and a strong sense of belonging to a group. These three elements stand in a delicate balance: Nationalism and natural human affinity allow the fire of religion to glow after it has been mitigated and almost extinguished by science, intellectualism and enlightenment. 

A theology of Nationalism (Zionism)

The way I understand Alexandrov’s thought is that nationalism (Zionism) is not just a factor in the triad of Fire, Water and Air, but a crucial component because it ‘saves’ and ‘mitigates’ religion from the challenge of enlightenment. This may also have been a strategic measure appropriate to the era of the Enlightenment (Haskalah) in which he lived. 

Nationalism is not simply a biological phenomenon but an expression and development of the authentic religious and “inner spirit” (Slater 2023:146): 

“[T]he nationalist spirit is preferable to religion and represents a more advanced stage in the development of Judaism. The crisis of religion, then, was not incidental but rather a preparatory stage for a cultural shift, a shift of proportions unseen since the Sinai revelation” (Slater 2023:146). 

Alexandrov writes: 

“We may observe two eras in the life of every nation that persists for long years upon the earth: the era of religion and the era of nationalism” (Shmuel Alexandrov, 1891, Eish Dat veRuach Leumi, 147). 

In Alexandrov’s writing, he describes established nations naturally transitioning from an earlier era of religion to a more developed era of nationalism. But he qualifies this transition by explaining that nationalism will not entirely displace religion: 

“In saying that the era of nationalism is the last, following the era of religion, we do not intend that nationalism will inherit the full force and authority of religion, such that the people will exist only by virtue of nationalism… Nationalism is a supernal force [that has] come down to enliven the dry bones that have lost the fire of religion” (Ibid.). 

On this view, nationalism is part of a religious renaissance and, according to Slater, it aligns with the religious ideology of rabbis like R. Shmuel Mohilever (1824-1898, a founder of Chovevei Tzion) and R. Yitzhak Yaakov Reines (1839-1915, founder of Mizrachi). These rabbis maintained that a spirit of national revival would bring Jews back to their religion. In keeping with this ideology, Alexandrov cautioned secular Zionists to recognise the importance of religion. 

Fear-driven religion

Alexandrov is very conscious of the overly authoritative, dogmatic—if not abusive and fear-driven—nature of religion. Such a view is derived from the rabbinic description of Mt Sinai, which is described as a terrifying event with God “holding the mountain over the people like a barrel” and forcing them to accept the Torah. This heavy-handed approach, he argues, was practised by the rabbis, particularly around the end of the nineteenth century and caused masses of Jews to flee from religion. 

“Alexandrov’s solution was the establishment of a national culture that would unite traditional religious values with the European Enlightenment” (Slater 2023:146). 

Alexandrov did not see enlightenment as being in conflict with religion. He felt that the Jewish religion in its essence carried within it great elements of enlightenment, and by the same token, he maintained that not all enlightenment was secular because it also contained elements of the Divine. This resonates with the Maimonidean concept of the Sechel (intellect) being the ‘spark’ of the Divine. In theory, both religion and enlightenment could work together through the means of nationalism. One can detect echoes of Rav Kook in this notion. Alexandrov draws on Kabbalistic sources and declares that “Spirit (=nationalism) contains both fire (=religion) and water (=enlightenment).” In this sense, there was to be a natural historical progression from religion to enlightenment to nationalism, and there was no dichotomy. 

Redeeming Torah from Halacha

The notion—although not entirely unfounded in Kabbalistic (and even mainstream) thought—that in messianic times the Old Torah will make way for a New Torah is perhaps the most controversial in all of Alexandrov’s ideology. This idea reaches its most extreme mystical and messianic interpretation in his model of Religious Zionism. It was also a most unusual messianic projection, because most versions of messianism include some form of apocalyptic or political event. In Alexandrov’s projection, the event was to play out in the Halachic arena, with the redemption of Torah from the restraints of Halacha. One cannot help but also hear possible echoes of Sabbatian ideology, from a century earlier, in this regard. 

Alexandrov maintains that Moses knew this idea of a new Torah, but intentionally hid it, and Judaism, therefore, developed into a Halachic religion. The purpose of the Messiah (who is a counterpart to Moses) is to reveal what Moses hid. Moses, therefore, gave us  a black Torah created from “black fire.” The Messiah will present a white Torah created from “white fire.” In this conceptualisation, the text of the Torah would not change at all; only its “cover” will be removed to reveal its original intention. Again, this notion is not entirely foreign to Kabbalistic thought as: 

“[v]arious Kabbalistic texts describe these expressions as allusions to a mystical Torah concealed within the ‘earthly’ Torah text” (Slater 2023:158). 

This resonates with the mystical notion that in messianic time we will no longer read the black letters of the Torah, but the white spaces between the letters, instead. 

Jerusalem

Alexandrov maintains that the messianic event can only be activated when Jews are centred around their spiritual home in Jerusalem. On this point, he differed from Achad Ha’am, who, while he also spoke of being centred around Jerusalem, meant a physical settlement in Jerusalem. By contrast, Alexandrov was referring to: 

“an institution of scholarship and hermeneutics, a combination of the academy and the traditional yeshiva, in which educated Jews from across the national and religious spectrum would cooperate in re-evaluating the traditional sources and forging a new national-cultural identity”(Slater 2023:158). 

In a correspondence with Rav Kook—when Alexandrov heard that Rav Kook wanted to establish a yeshiva in Jaffa—he suggested that the proposed yeshiva should resemble an academic institution. This correspondence resulted in ongoing discussions between the two on the nature of future Jewish learning and what subjects should be taught over and above traditional studies. 

Alexandrov’s vision of a learning academy was, by his own admission, inspired by Zvi Hermann Schapira, which actually materialised in the later founding of the Hebrew University in 1925. Later, Bar-Ilan University was established in 1955 (fourteen years after Alexandrov was killed in the Holocaust), which was probably more in line with Alexandrov’s vision of the merging of religious and secular studies. 

Influencing other proto-Zionist visionaries

Alexandrov was not happy with the overwhelming effort to create a secular Jewish nationalism and Zionism, and he implored other ideologues to be more inclusive of traditional Judaism. He believed the future of Zionism had to include, and foster a relationship with, Torah study and adherence. 

Diaspora as a central messianic component

Surprisingly, neither Achad Ha’am nor Alexandrov imagined the Land of Israel: 

“as the residence of the entire Jewish people but rather the spiritual-cultural centre of world Jewry, who would continue to reside in their home countries” (Slater 2023:159). 

Instead, the diaspora was to remain a fundamental aspect of the messianic future. The Diaspora was essential to “Jewish identity and…an inseparable part of its universalist mission”(Slater 2023:159). On the importance of maintaining strong exilic Jewish communities, Alexandrov writes: 

“By being exiled among the nations, the Jews taste the fruit of the Tree of Secular Knowledge, which has fallen to be gathered by all the nations, as could not have been when they dwelled alone and unchanged in their land. In exile, however, they influence and are influenced, receiving the knowledge of the world from the nations among whom they dwell, and in exchange teaching them divine knowledge. They eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and give of the Tree of Life” (Shmuel Alexandrov, 1902, Tachlit Maaseh Shamayim vaAretz, 267-8).

 This is an interesting aspect of a model of Zionism where the spiritual centre in Jerusalem depends “by design on the continuation of the Diaspora,” and, in fact, requires a “thriving Jewish Diaspora” (Slater 2023:159). 

Messianic radicalisation

It must, however, be noted that after 1907, it seems that Alexandrov became more radical and revolutionary in his views, which became a more messianic expression of nationalism superseding religion, with a “New Torah” (Torah Chadasha). The story now takes an ironic turn because Alexandrov, while clearly promoting a religious-cultural ethos for Zionism, maintained that religion as we understand it would eventually be displaced in a mystical messianic vision where a “New Torah” fully replaces the “Old Torah.” In the initial stage, Jewish Zionists would have to be practising Religious Zionists, but eventually they would be subsumed under a new spiritual rubric. This was an extreme interpretation of the notion of a “New Torah.” Initially Alexandrov: 

“was not the only one who saw Zionism as a movement of cultural renewal that demanded a new kind of Torah; in this he was joined by the likes of R. Avraham Yitzḥak Kook, [R.] Ze’ev Yavetz (1847-1924) and [R.] Chaim Hirschensohn (1857-1935)” (Slater 2023:163). 

However, according to Slater (2023:162), after 1907,  Alexandrov became a “religious anarchist,” seemingly adopting the view that cultural nationalism would take the place of religion altogether (displacing even the notion of a “New Torah”). In other words, Alexandrov’s ultimate vision was the annulment of Halacha. Yet, he drew on mystical and Chassidic ideas, which he repurposed as inspiration for such a conclusion. 

Possibility for future relevance to Religious Zionism

Although this later view is certainly an extreme and radical position to adopt, Slater suggests that Alexandrov’s earlier ideology may still be of value in formulating future trajectories for Religious Zionism. This later radicalism: 

“does not discount the moderate revolutionism of Alexandrov’s early thought, especially in relation to the mainstream of religious nationalism” (Slater 2023:162). 

Slater argues that Alexandrov still has a contribution to Religious Zionist thought that is worthy of study because it opens possibilities that the popular “linear portrayal” of the history of Religious Zionism does not reveal or make space for. 

“This linear portrayal, emphasizing ideas that became central later in history, marginalizes other ideas that have not yet merited the same political success but that do merit increased interest for the light they cast on the meeting of the Jewish tradition with nationalism and the variety of possibilities that remain latent within that meeting” (Slater 2023:141).  

At least some aspects of Alexandrov’s thought can remain a potential for further development in Religious Zionism, which already is the product of much evolution and conceptual borrowing. 

Conclusion

Despite his later controversial views, he remained a spiritual mentor for many rabbis and yeshivah students, who looked to him for guidance during the first half of the turbulent twentieth century. Today, Religious Zionism is easily recognised in its popular standard iterations, but its complicated and diverse origins are not that well known. Slater suggests that: 

“It is time to recall the forgotten diversity of religious Zionism and return to the fundamental questions that have accompanied this movement since its inception…” (Slater 2023:163). 

This argument becomes even more compelling when we remember that “Alexandrov was one of the most original thinkers of religious Zionism” (Slater 2023:163).

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Slater, Isaac, 2023, ‘A forgotten variety of religious Zionism: The thought of Shmuel Alexandrov’, Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. lxxiv, no. 1, 40-63.