R. Shmuel Mohiliver and R. Yitzhak Yaakov Reines: Two Types of Religious Zionism

Abstract

A typology presents ideal concrete types, and probing their personality and character enables the creation of general patterns. The study of the personality thus grants access to the depth of an idea not only in abstract terms but also in its function as a guide to, and a source of, an ethos. Furthermore, the personality construct plays a significant role in the understanding of historical processes because many events are ascribed or tied to the centrality of a specific individual. The study of typology is especially linked to Eduard Spranger (1882–1963), who claimed that ideal types convey conscious structures. In his view, we can impart significance to actions and behaviors only in relation to the agent’s set of values. In his writings, Spranger presented six ideal types. What is the meaning of a typology when discussing a movement such as religious Zionism? In this article, I attempt to trace an ideological portrait of two types that, in my estimate, created through their personality and their endeavor the ideological pattern that has accompanied religious Zionism and the religious-Zionist idea throughout this movement’s existence. I set up these two thinkers and entrepreneurs as pure types, even though no such types exist in reality. I present the pure types as founded on dominant features although, again, well aware that there are no pure features in the concrete world. Besides describing the characteristic features of the two types, I will argue that the interaction between the patterns they established facilitates understanding of several historical events. These patterns at times continue one another but, mainly, they confront one another. To illustrate their course, I will relate to two historical episodes where these personality patterns come forth, one that took place a few years after R. Reines’ death and the other about fifty years later or more, whose implications are felt up to this day.

Full text

Citation: Schwartz, Dov. 2024. R.
Shmuel Mohiliver and R. Yitzhak
Yaakov Reines: Two Types of
Religious Zionism. Religions 15: 882.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15080882
Received: 9 August 2022
Revised: 24 July 2023
Accepted: 25 July 2023
Published: 23 July 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
religions
Article
R. Shmuel Mohiliver and R. Yitzhak Yaakov Reines: Two Types
of Religious Zionism
Dov Schwartz
Department of Jewish Philosophy, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel; dov.schwartz@biu.ac.il
Abstract: A typology presents ideal concrete types, and probing their personality and character
enables the creation of general patterns. The study of the personality thus grants access to the depth
of an idea not only in abstract terms but also in its function as a guide to, and a source of, an ethos.
Furthermore, the personality construct plays a significant role in the understanding of historical
processes because many events are ascribed or tied to the centrality of a specific individual. The
study of typology is especially linked to Eduard Spranger (1882–1963), who claimed that ideal types
convey conscious structures. In his view, we can impart significance to actions and behaviors only
in relation to the agent’s set of values. In his writings, Spranger presented six ideal types. What is
the meaning of a typology when discussing a movement such as religious Zionism? In this article,
I attempt to trace an ideological portrait of two types that, in my estimate, created through their
personality and their endeavor the ideological pattern that has accompanied religious Zionism and
the religious-Zionist idea throughout this movement’s existence. I set up these two thinkers and
entrepreneurs as pure types, even though no such types exist in reality. I present the pure types as
founded on dominant features although, again, well aware that there are no pure features in the
concrete world. Besides describing the characteristic features of the two types, I will argue that the
interaction between the patterns they established facilitates understanding of several historical events.
These patterns at times continue one another but, mainly, they confront one another. To illustrate
their course, I will relate to two historical episodes where these personality patterns come forth, one
that took place a few years after R. Reines’ death and the other about fifty years later or more, whose
implications are felt up to this day.
Keywords: religious Zionism; typology; R. Shmuel Mohiliver; R. Yitzhak Yaakov Reines; political
leadership; settlers
1. Introduction
R. Shmuel Mohiliver (1824–1898) was an important leader of the Hovevei Zion (Lovers
of Zion) movement. He died about five years after he created the “Mizrachi” (an acronym
for Merkaz Ruhani—spiritual center and also hinting to the Land of Israel, considered as
being in the east, mizrach) and about four years before R. Yitzhak Yaakov Reines (1839–1915)
founded the “Mizrachi” as a faction in the World Zionist Organization in 1902. Judging the
endeavor of these two men in a historical perspective, particularly against the background
of Eastern European Jewish society, will reveal a revolutionary and constitutive element.
I will argue that R. Mohiliver and R. Reines denote two primary personality patterns in
the life of national religiosity, and my concern will be the background of these patterns’
emergence.
1.1. The Similarities
These two public figures, who stood at a historical crossroad in the emergence of
Jewish religious nationalism, have much in common. Consider the following aspects:
(1) Background. Both R. Mohiliver and R. Reines served as city rabbis in Eastern
Europe. Their activity ensued their social and spiritual leadership experience.
Religions 2024,15, 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15080882 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions

Religions 2024,15, 882 2 of 15
(2) Achievements. Both founded movements and organizations associated with the
awakening of Jewish nationalism (“Mizrachi”).
(3) Outlook: Both sensed a need for some human activity beside Divine Providence to
redeem the Jewish people from exile.
Eliezer Schweid referred to the human activity emphasized in item (3) as the “secular
element”. Writing about Mohiliver and his colleagues, Schweid notes:
The statements of R. Eliashberg and R. Mohiliver suggest acquiescence with
existing secular elements as well as limited affirmation of a secular principle com-
patible with belief in the Torah and its commandments. What is that principle?
How was it formulated and exposed in reality? The answer is in the issue at the
center of the most acute controversy between supporters and opponents of Hibbat
Zion in the religious Haredi camp. And in abstract terms—is the Jewish people
allowed to adopt an independent initiative at a broad national level to change its
condition among the nations of the world? That is actually the innovation that
Zionism brought with it and, on its basis, Zionism is to be defined as a modern
movement. (Schweid 1986, p. 696)
The extent to which the principle of human initiative is “secular” is perhaps debatable.
In any event, Mohiliver and Reines did not internalize this notion in identical terms.
Mohiliver directed it to action rather than to the definition of identity, whereas Reines
viewed it as a component of identity, as shown below.
In this article, I will attempt to delve into the distinction between personality patterns
and the activity of R. Mohiliver and R. Reines (Salmon 2018, pp. 9–32). I will relate to
them as representing two ideal and “pure” types, who convey religious participation in
the endeavor to revive Jewish nationalism. I am aware that, in reality, the pure type is
versatile. Yet, I will argue that the development of the revival movement occurred through
the confrontation and integration of the two pure types.
R. Mohiliver is the archetype of the religious supporter within the Hibbat Zion move-
ment, which was responsible for establishing cells to promote settlement in the Land of
Israel and their administration, while R. Reines is the archetype of the Mizrachi member
who devoted all his time and efforts to promote religious Zionism as a branch of the Zionist
movement. I claim below that Mohiliver is the archetype of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi activists
and, therefore, the real confrontation between the two models represented by R. Mohiliver
and R. Reines erupted with the foundation of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi in 1922. I will also argue
that the next landmark in this confrontation is to be found fifty years later. At this later
time, R. Mohiliver is the archetype of the active model of settlement founded by Gush
Emunim, whereas R. Reines is reflected in the behavior of the official party that was then
representing religious Zionism, the National Religious Party (NRP).
1.2. The Differences
I have already presented elsewhere the approach that religious Zionism as a unique
and revolutionary stance begins with R. Reines’ foundation of the Mizrachi, not with R.
Mohiliver’s creation of the “Mizrahi” or with the activity of Hovevei Zion. The reason is
that the true revolutionary event is the official declarative recognition of a secular Jewish
organization through the payment of membership dues (Schwartz 2004, pp. 24–134). Such
a move, no matter the apologetic explanations that accompany it, represents a change vis-à-
vis the preceding centuries. By contrast, Hibbat Zion did not require official membership
and identity and, therefore, can be viewed as anticipating two trends:
(1) Anticipating the religious Zionism founded by R. Reines in its negation of exile.
(2) Anticipating support for the Zionist religious endeavor without officially acknowl-
edging it, as evident in the personality and the circle surrounding R. Abraham Yitzhak
Hacohen Kook (1865–1935).
Some scholars, particularly those who focus on the study of Hibbat Zion, do not accept
this approach and, in the spirit of religious-Zionist self-promotion, they wish to date its
emergence before 1902. Religious-Zionist thought sought to substantiate its continuity,

Religions 2024,15, 882 3 of 15
especially within the non-Zionist religious public and, therefore, claimed to be a follow-up
of Abraham’s aliyah, Nahmanides’ aliyah, the aliyah of the Gaon of Vilna’s disciples, and
so forth. Scholars, for their own reasons, adopted this fundamental view on continuity.
This dispute, however, should not hinder the typological division I present here. I will
argue that R. Mohiliver denotes a defined type with distinct features, whereas R. Reines
points to an entirely different one, as follows:
(1) Performative v. political: Mohiliver represented the type who finds self-expression
in action and significant behavior, whereas R. Reines represented the political type, whose
power lies in rhetoric and in the means of communication.
(2) Focus v. generalized vision: Mohiliver represented the goal-oriented type, who
holds that expanding and generalizing could be disruptive, while Reines represented the
type aware of the national idea as wide-ranging.
(3) Identity: Mohiliver represented the type lacking a well-defined identity except for
the goal v. Reines, who represents a distinct establishment identity.
The differences between them are, in my view, among the central reasons for R. Reines’
lack of support for the endeavor of R. Mohiliver, who had desperately needed it.
In the process that unfolded, both versions develop in the course of the historical
events into similar models adapted to the times. When these models are eroded by the
establishment and lose their vitality, new similar ones appear, and so time and again. My
claim relates to the following variations:
(1) R. Mohiliver and R. Reines as historical figures and personality models.
(2) Hapocel Hamizrachi (Mohiliver’s model) and the Mizrachi (Reines’ model)
(3) Gush Emunim (Mohiliver’s model) and the NRP or Mafdal (Reines’ model).
These, as noted, are general and ideal models. Obviously, currents and sub-currents
make the actual political reality more layered and complex. Moreover, and as shown below,
these three variations, though separated by decades, are not random but tied together by
concrete historical lines.
2. The Development of the Patterns
The beginning of the typological patterns in national religiosity is rooted, as pointed
out above, in the concrete figures of R. Mohiliver and R. Reines. Both of them have been
studied broadly and in depth, and I do not mean to engage again in a description of their
work and their historical and political contribution. I will now dwell at length on the
differences between their personalities as archetypes of the religious national reaction to
the events at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth.
2.1. The Purpose
The distinction between R. Mohiliver and R. Reines has its roots, above all, in the
purpose of their endeavor. R. Mohiliver worked to realize one focused and defined goal:
settling the Land of Israel. He did pin hopes on this settlement—such as bringing people
together as well as spiritual and religious exaltation—but these were not the declared goals.
He was also involved in political moves, but these were not central to his enterprise.
1
By
contrast, R. Reines set himself as a goal an ideological, religious, and cultural renewal. His
purpose, then, spreads out in several directions, of which settling the land is only one.
For R. Mohiliver, the struggle against exilic traits is solved simply by leaving exile behind
and going to the Land of Israel, whereas for R. Reines, the struggle is against the exilic
type. Giving rise to a new non-exilic type requires an all-inclusive adjustment, including
a redefinition of the foundations of Jewish faith in the generation of renewal (Schwartz
2002). R. Reines also created a new style meant to grapple with the new reality. A glance
at a book that was published after his death, Sefer ha-Arakhim (“The Book of Values”, of
which only the first volume appeared), shows the new terminology he created, which is
paradoxically laced with terms from medieval literature. Going to the Land of Israel will
not suffice to create a new type. In sum, R. Mohiliver struggled against the exile while R.
Reines struggled against the exilic mentality.

Religions 2024,15, 882 4 of 15
It merits note that, to divert the balance to the human activity that is somehow
connected to the redemption of the people, an orientation of renewal is needed. During his
term in the rabbinate, R. Mohiliver spoke and wrote about the need to integrate secular
with religious studies, as Rav Kook would later speak about the inclusion of philosophy,
aesthetics, and physicality in the figure of the new man. It is impossible to engage in a
serious struggle against exile without understanding that a new era and a redeemed human
are in the offing. But R. Reines did not confine himself to words and was an entrepreneur
before turning into a politician. The yeshiva he established in Lida implemented the new
orientation. He understood that, without facts, the redemptive interpretation of current
events would remain an unrealized dream. R. Reines re-examined the foundations of
Jewish faith to locate nationalism within them. In other words, he claimed that nationalism
compels a renewal and examination of Jewish faith holding that, henceforth, the concern
should not be with the divinity as such and with issues such as creation and beginnings
but with Divine Providence and its ways in history. R. Reines’ activity in Russia had a
parallel in the Land of Israel in the activity of R. Haim Hirschensohn (1857–1935). Both
began with education and moved to politics. Neither one was tremendously successful
in his educational activity, but it is clear why both of them established the Mizrachi and
understood that religious Zionism is a faction that must join a broad Zionist body to attend
to the interests of observant Jews.
2.2. The Endeavor
R. Mohiliver founded the Mizrachi (Shayovitz 1989, pp. 155–68). This body was
indeed called “spiritual center”, but its goal was organizational. It was meant to restore
the Hibbat Zion movement from the crisis of apathetic supporters and from the ban on
land purchases imposed by the Ottoman rulers. Even if, for the moment, we disregard
the specific considerations of strengthening the Bnei Moshe movement founded by Ahad-
Haam and the Odessa Committee and their opposition to the Byalistok Center, this was
still an organizational body that would concentrate the settlement activity without actually
setting spiritual goals. Officially, the center was responsible for national propaganda, but
its main activity was settlement in the Land of Israel.
The Mizrachi founded by R. Mohiliver was not confined to observant Jews. Quite
the contrary. The center intended to continue the joint activities of secular and religious
Jews started by Hibbat Zion or, more precisely, to restore them after the big crises, among
them also a crisis of distrust between the movement’s blocs (Luz 1988). At first, R. Reines
did open up the Mizrachi’s ranks to all those opposed to cultural activity in the Zionist
movement, but it soon transpired that the newly established faction was meant only for
observant members.
R. Reines’ aim in establishing the Mizrachi was distinctly political. The organization
he founded had no performative goal like that of the “spiritual center” and, instead, was
meant to play in the political turf of the WZO and even influence it. From the outset, the
Mizrachi was not established to promote a goal but to curb the WZO’s inclination to engage
in educational activities planned to be secular. In other words, R. Reines established the
Mizrachi for political reasons and the ethos of the faction’s leadership was political, too,
which is also the reason for its far-reaching support for the Uganda proposal.
As a political leader, R. Reines resorted to political ploys. He did not hesitate to say
one thing and its opposite if it fitted his purpose. In Or Hadash
c
al Zion (A new light on Zion),
the apologetic treatise intended to bring the Haredi masses into the Zionist movement,
R. Reines argued that Zionism merely aims to solve the problem of the Jews and has no
links to redemption. Zionism is solely about a “safe haven”. In other writings, however, he
claimed that Zionism is linked to redemption and even wrote several books in this style.
Mohiliver did try to legitimize the goals of settlement at the propaganda level but did not
endorse such statements too often.

Religions 2024,15, 882 5 of 15
2.3. Praxis v. Politics
R. Mohiliver represented the figure whose consciousness focuses on praxis and its
meanings, whereas R. Reines represented the political figure. For Mohiliver, what is
significant is the concrete achievement. Action creates a worldview. The approach of
Peter Winch (1926–1997), who argues that action is what confers meaning on principles,
commands, definitions, and formulations, merits mention in this context (Winch 1990,
p. 57). Max Weber (1864–1920) had already dealt with meaningful behavior, but Winch
argued that meaningful action is bound by rules and, therefore, any meaningful behavior is
social because rules presume a social framework (ibid., p. 116). Meaningful and intentional
action conveys rational principles and concepts but not only rational ones. Often, a person’s
deed is not fully understandable in logical rational terms. Be that as it may, action conveys
the relevance of the past to the present, at least when truly significant actions are at stake.
A theology founded on the meaning of the deed appears in Jewish thought in, for example,
the teachings of R. Judah Loew, known as the Maharal of Prague.
R. Mohiliver, as noted, saw full significance mainly in action. He held that significant
action will have a strong social impact and will draw secular and religious Jews closer,
unbound by labels, while also preventing struggles and identity crises. Other rabbis in
Hibbat Zion, such as R. Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), largely agreed with this view
(Schwartz 2017, pp. 7–40). Pertinent in this regard is the story about Mohiliver’s meeting
with Baron Edmond de Rothschild. Mohiliver reports that he asked the Baron why Moses,
who was slow of speech and tongue, was chosen to lead the people of Israel:
Moses was chosen to be not only a leader in Israel but also the giver of the Torah.
He was chosen by God not only to take the children of Israel out of Egypt but
also to lead them to Sinai and give them the Torah. Had Moses been eloquent,
had he known how to influence people with the power of his words and his
speech, heretics would have told Israel that the Torah is not from heaven and that
Moses, through the magic of his tongue, had swayed them when leaving Egypt
and, affected by the moment, they accepted his words. But since he was slow of
speech and tongue and the children of Israel did nevertheless accept the Torah
from him, that is proof and evidence that the Shekhinah spoke through Moses,
who was merely an emissary to deliver the Torah to Israel. (Yavneli 1944, p. 34)
Mohiliver’s rhetoric was meant to mark him as a man of action, judged by his achieve-
ments, not by his discourse. Emerging between the lines is an approach claiming that the
aim of imparting the Torah to the people will be attained in the wake of deeds and not
through the art of dialogue.
By contrast, R. Reines saw writing, propaganda, and political involvement as the
secret of performance, favoring lobbying and political organization over action. He held
that an association of religious Jews helping Herzl to realize his diplomatic and political
initiatives would bring secular Zionists to recognize the power and singularity of religion.
R. Reines deeply believed that words and rhetoric could influence the nations capable
of granting the charter for settling Jews and affect the non-Zionist Haredim whom he
expected to join the Zionist movement as well as its secular members. His book Or Hadash
c
al Zion, for example, is a kind of scholarly and homiletic propaganda platform in support
of the Mizrachi meant for a Haredi readership. He genuinely believed that the book could
change views and influence a broad public. The power of a sharp argument is in its clarity.
Whereas R. Mohiliver was convinced that power lies in ambiguity, that is, in preferring
action and keeping away from issues of identity, R. Reines was convinced that power lies
in versatile formulations, distinctiveness, and uniqueness. He held that the various esoteric
and exoteric meanings create reality and the discourse of identity is the key to action.
2.4. Polemic
R. Mohiliver was committed to the expansion of settlement in the Land of Israel and
was devoted to these activities the last three decades of his life. His defense of the settlers

Religions 2024,15, 882 6 of 15
derived from this view, meaning that he developed a polemical discourse to protect the aim
he had set himself. After a trip to the Land of Israel in 1890, he wrote a well-known piece:
I have greatly wondered about several of our most distinguished Torah scholars
and Hasidic leaders who have opposed the principle of settling the Holy Land
through the purchase of fields and vineyards and the settling of Jewish farmers
in them, claiming that the farmers, and especially the young ones, do not observe
the Torah. But even if this were true, we have already written that the Holy
One, blessed be He, prefers his children to settle his land even if they fail to
observe the Torah as they should, to their living abroad and observing it properly.
Particularly, when even the greatest enemy of the Yishuv will not say, God forbid,
that they became worse in the Holy Land than they had been abroad. Indeed,
everyone admits that even the worst of those who went there repented and
improved their ways and, if so, even if the slander that they are still sinners and
have not entirely abandoned their bad ways were true, they have nevertheless
done better in two ways: (1) They have fulfilled the important commandment
of settling the Land of Israel, and (2) They have also greatly improved their
observance of the Torah and the commandments. After God granted me the
favor and I myself went to the Holy Land and visited most of the colonies,
2
almost all of them, I can definitely say that all that was said about their licentious
deeds are lies and defamations. Some of them are true tsaddikim [righteous]
because they were granted the favor of settling the Holy Land and observing the
commandments that depend on the Land of Israel (ha-teluyot ba-Aretz), enjoying
the fruit of their labor without fraud or manipulation while also reverently
observing the Torah and the commandments and giving as much charity as
they could afford. Some are beinonim [intermediate] in their observance of the
Torah and the commandments, like the beinonim among us, but at least they have
the following three qualities: they dwell in the Holy Land, they settle the land,
and they observe the commandments that depend on the Land of Israel. And if
there are perhaps also some geru
c
im [worst] among them, that is so in every city
since nature compels that some geru
c
im will also be found among them, but there
they are only a few, and you will not find among them, as you find among us,
anyone that will desecrate the Sabbath or commit another transgression in public.
His outlook on action drove R. Mohiliver to apply the concept of the tsaddik to honest
people who live simply from the fruit of their labor and whose religious practice reveals a
basic level of observance. They are the “true” tsaddikim. R. Mohiliver indirectly criticized
the Hasidic courts who adamantly opposed aliyah, as evident in his opening statement,
“our most distinguished Torah scholars and Hasidic leaders.” R. Mohiliver shifted the
concept of the tsaddik from the leader of a Hasidic community and a Hasidic court to the
members of the moshavot, who translate this notion into praxis rather than into scholarly,
kabbalistic, or magic expertise. The notion of beinonim, described by the author of the Tanya,
R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745–1813), as individuals of high spiritual level, he now
applies to moshavot farmers.
Mohiliver’s words did not reflect the reality of these settlers’ lives and, quite plausibly,
he was well aware of this (Salmon 2014, pp. 161–91). Deep-rooted socialism did not
enable the simple piousness that Mohiliver was after, but he presented an apologetic image
intended to promote Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.
Once again, we confront the distinction between Mohiliver’s and Reines’ models.
R. Reines was a politician. He fostered the hope of carrying the Haredi camp with him
and, on those grounds, developed a discourse aimed at defending the Zionist idea. In
Or Hadash
x
al Zion, he clarified at length that Zionism does not seek to hasten the end
and that cooperation with secularists has no essential implications beyond striving for a
mutually beneficial end. Although he did acknowledge Zionism as a secular organization
and joined it, this union was meant solely for a limited purpose. Reines did not criticize the

Religions 2024,15, 882 7 of 15
Hasidic courts because he held that he would be able to recruit them into the faction he
had founded.
Three decades later, after the hope of enlisting the support of the Hasidic courts for the
Zionist ideal had been defeated, religious Zionists would bluntly criticize Hasidism—for
example, R. Yehuda Leib Zlotnick-Avida (1887–1962) at the Mizrachi conference in Poland
(Schwartz 1999, pp. 24–25). Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi members endorsed this critical style,
even though some of them clung to their Hasidic sources. Moshe Krone (1913–1993), from
Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi, wrote about the limited activity in favor of Zionism among Hasidim
and mentioned, in particular, the followers of R. Yeshayahu Shapira (1891–1945), known as
Ha-Admor Ha-Halutz:
Except that all these were but a minority among hundreds of thousands of
Hasidim. All those who watched and saw how the bold ones who had dared
were weakened by the troubles and exertions they experienced in the Land
of Israel, remained in their place, and continued their routine. Hasidic rabbis
strengthened their followers’ faith and their way of life, furthered love for the
people of Israel and the study of Torah, and most of them helped in the various
activities of Agudat Yisrael. Generally, Hasidic circles “tolerated” the Mizrachi,
but Mizrachi rabbis and activists were often persecuted, its members were thrown
out of the Hasidic shtibel and were unwelcome in Hasidic courts. (Krone 1987,
p. 37)
One group in Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi, as noted, had been members of Hasidic sects
and are discussed below. Their Hasidic approach, however, came forth in their style
and the immanent outlook typical of Hasidism. They claimed that a person committed
to manual labor wrests from it hidden forces, analogous to the sparks in Kabbalah and
Hasidism. This Hasidic trend, however, which included thinkers such as Shmuel Hayyim
Landau (ShAHaL, 1892–1928), Ha-Admor He-Halutz, Shlomo Zalman Shragai (1899–1995),
Yeshayahu Bernstein (1902–1987), and others, knew it had no place in the Hasidic courts.
Hasidic influence on them was only conceptual and stylistic, and they had adopted the
meaningful action model, as shown below.
3. Between the Mizrachi and Hapocel Hamizrachi
The second stage of the two patterns represented by R. Mohiliver and R. Reines is the
creation of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi. We are no longer dealing with specific types but with
personality shifts toward an ideological course that includes many others. I will argue that
R. Reines’ model created the Mizrachi and R. Mohiliver’s model ultimately created Hapo
c
el
Hamizrachi. Reines was the founder and the precursor of religious Zionism. Mohiliver
created the model of meaningful action and behavior, thereby laying the foundation for the
emergence of Hapocel Hamizrachi.
3.1. The First Twenty Years
The Mizrachi was consistently a political movement. The faction viewed itself as a
pressure group meant to promote the interests of the religious public and acted always
within the context of the WZO. It endorsed flexibility in support of WZO policies, as
prominently evident in its position with regard to the Uganda proposal. As a politician,
R. Reines supported Herzl and his views and did not confront him even when the Land
of Israel was replaced by Uganda. The political image of the Mizrachi was also the one
endorsed by the national religious public. The Mizrachi was a faction that dealt with issues
of policy and education but showed no care for people of action. To members interested
in creating facts on the ground through their action and their manual labor, it appeared
that Mizrachi politicians entirely ignored them and that the standing of religious workers
was an issue of no concern to them. This was the background to the emergence of Hapo
c
el
Hamizrachi. Incidentally, like Hibbat Zion, the idea of Torah va-
c
Avodah also emerged
through associations and spontaneous cells such as “Tevunah”, “Tse
c
irei Mizrahi”, and

Religions 2024,15, 882 8 of 15
“Zikhron Yaakov (Aminoah 1931)”. By the early 1910s, then, the model of the person of
action had already appeared.
Until the appearance of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi (1922), a certain reflection of the Mo-
hiliver model had emerged in two modes: (1) local associations of religious workers, as in
Jerusalem even before the First World War (ibid., pp. 2–3), and (2) the work of R. Abraham
Hacohen Kook. Hibbat Zion had not required identification and, unlike Zionism, had
not set up a broad secular organization. Nor did Rav Kook ever officially identify with
the Mizrachi or with Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi. When Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi was established,
however, many characteristics of the Hibbat Zion activist were poured into its founders
and leaders (Aminoah 1931;Fishman 1979;Alfasi 1985,1992;Salmon 1990, pp. 340–52).
This faction had already been active in the Land of Israel in local political establish-
ments and in the Zionist movement and had gone beyond the stage of spontaneous cells.
Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi, however, adopted Winch’s approach to meaningful action. For the
religious labor movement, deeds redeem the spirit, be it the spirit of the nation or that
of the hidden divinity that had disappeared in exile. A constitutive treatise for Hapo‘el
Hamizrachi is the anthology Yalkut, published in 1931. Yitzhak Gur Arieh (1902–1979)
wrote:
The social dimension we endorse is irrefutable and is itself a noble aim. This
social dimension, which we draw from our Torah, is unconditionally compelling.
We would affirm it even if there were no pressure or suffering in the world and
all were “firm and established”.3
For us, it is compelling as an end in itself. The social dimension, in our view, must
redeem the Jewish spirit.
The redemption of the spirit is for us the highest rank of human purification and
hence preferable to the redemption of the land, which is supplementary. Without
the redemption of the spirit, we lack all of them, even if other redemptions—the
redemption of the land and the redemption of society—were to occur. When we
seek to redeem the land, we also seek the redemption of the spirit, which is above
all and before all. Concerning the redemption of the land without the redemption
of the spirit, it would be better for it not to be than to be. “And let not Europe
be like Jerusalem”
4
—as in the witty saying of the holy eminent R. Kalisher, of
blessed memory. Our entire endeavor is hidden here.
Because we assume that the redemption of the spirit is supreme and because
we affirm the social dimension because we hold it will be one of the redeeming
features of the Jewish spirit, we also add the following: This social dimension,
whose holy role is to redeem the Jewish spirit, must flow from one source of the
Torah, from the innermost source of Judaism, from the innermost source of each
individual. It must flow from the spot singled out for religious feeling. This spot
is holy to us and, from it, we draw all the sources of our vitality, which rests on
and follows the Jewish spirit. A social dimension borrowed from others will not
redeem our spirit. The supreme aim is absent here. The Jewish spirit is missing
here. (Aminoah and Bernstein 1931)
For Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi, then, the spirit is redeemed through socialist ideals. Values
such as work, equality, and social justice are the true redemption of the Land of Israel. The
Land of Israel is built through manual labor, but the deed is a faithful reflection of the
spirit’s power.
One text that deeply influenced the members of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi and eventually
also the members of Bnei Akiva was ShAHaL’s article in this anthology, “On Our Method”.
This insightful piece, clear and succinct but also poetic and hinting at spiritual Hasidic
approaches, explicitly states, “Work—it is here that the destruction of the people begins its
rebuilding (Ibid., p. 6)”. And more: “Work is thus the beginning and the foundation of the
renewal (Ibid., p. 7)”.

Religions 2024,15, 882 9 of 15
Another article in the anthology that had a similar effect was that of Ha-Admor
He-Halutz, “And You Shall Do What Is Right and Good”. R. Shapira writes:
Work and manual labor are among the goals of Judaism. Besides the value of
work for the amendment and improvement of the world, Judaism finds only
in work a possibility of living a full just life and about that, about the goal of
Judaism, we can learn not only from Halakhah but also from Aggadah and from
our entire ancient literature. (Ibid., pp. 38–39)
Shlomo Zalman Shragai added that work is “a life of honesty and goodness, beauty
and perfection,” so that this form is not just opposed to but is also a protest against
workers’ exploitation (ibid., p. 36). Nehemiah Aminoah (1896–1966) argued that work is
the “problem of life” and “a basis for the renewal of the nation’s life, for the liberation of
society, and for personal freedom (Aminoah 1931)”.
Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi also pondered its closeness to the Mizrachi and to the “Histadrut”
(the General Federation of Labor in the Land of Israel). In its own consciousness, Hapo
c
el
Hamizrachi thought of itself as the body responsible for meaningful action and behavior,
meaning settlement and the value of work. It did try, however, to distance itself from
socialist ideology to avoid being tainted by the socialist opposition to religion. The Hasidic
groups within Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi, led by thinkers such as ShAHaL, Ha-Admor He-Halutz,
Shragai, and Bernstein, set up a countervailing power to socialist ideology but also sought
to return to the value of work as such. Mohiliver’s model of action and of the value of
settlement assumed a socialist religious garb.
3.2. The Messianic Discourse
Both R. Reines and R. Mohiliver contended with the same dilemma—how does the
national renaissance fit the redemption idea? Precisely here, however, lies the difference
between them. As someone in whose type the main component was action, R. Mohiliver
was more concerned with the negation of exile than with redemption per se. In the
statements of such a type, we will hardly find deep discussions and theological sophistry
when dealing with messianic interpretations of contemporary events. By contrast, R. Reines
presented a series of discussions on the link between Zionism and redemption. Mohiliver’s
type did not seek hidden layers in the call for realization because the political discourse
was itself foreign to him. In fundraising calls to donors and to the general public, he did not
resort to political rhetoric and held that traditional homiletics would suffice. The politician’s
type represented by Reines drew distinctions between different publics and successfully
hid his full intentions when addressing a non-Zionist Orthodox audience. Reines could
also assume a modern style, adapted to the discourse of the Zionist movement.
The implications of the messianic approach emerge against this background. Mo-
hiliver’s type did not speak of redemption but behaved accordingly, in line with the Winch
theory described above. He did not need to trace an explicit link between the redemption of
the land and biblical redemption. And indeed, this is the approach we find in the Hapo‘el
Hamizrachi type, as illustrated by Moshe Krone’s statement below:
In recent years, several researchers of religious-Zionism have begun to deepen
their study of this movement’s conceptual roots, and particularly its religious
roots. Attention focuses on the following question: did religious-Zionist thinkers
take as their starting assumption that political Zionism is mainly concerned with
the physical rescue of the Jewish collective, or with the fulfillment of redemptive
longings?
. . .
It should be noted that, throughout our active engagement in the
religious-Zionist movement for over half a century, this question never arose
either in theory or in practice. It never bothered us and we would not have
discussed it. The border between the concepts of “rescue” and “redemption” was
entirely blurred, and these were as “two that come as one”,
5
and as two sides
of a coin. Homilists, preachers, speakers, and plain debaters and sermonizers to
whom we often used to listen—all would mix these concepts and deal with them
together. (Krone 1987, pp. 11–12)

Religions 2024,15, 882 10 of 15
Krone presented the view that action on behalf of a “safe haven”, especially one meant
to save Jews from European antisemitism, cannot be separated from the messianic conno-
tation rather than vice versa. This model fits Mohiliver ’s endeavor. Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi
members spoke about the redemption of the individual, the redemption of nature and of
the land, and the redemption of society.
While some Mizrachi members carefully attempted to locate this period within the
messianic saga (“the initial sprouting of our redemption”), and some grappled with apoca-
lyptic and naturalistic views of redemption, Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi members lived and acted
the redemption. Their behavior expressed the new era.
Note that the difference between these two models does not lie in the messianic
interpretation of contemporary events but in the balance between action and discourse.
Whereas one model operates within the messianic meaning, the other plans its political
and conceptual moves, including the rhetoric and the discourse, according to a messianic
interpretation of current events.
4. Action and Politics in “Gush Emunim”
The next stage touches on the stormy events that began at a slow pace after the Six-Day
War and then erupted in a powerful outburst that began in the mid-1970s and lasted for
about a decade. The settlement project in the Golan, Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip
is tied to Gush Emunim. I will argue that Gush Emunim created a model of meaningful
action as founded by R. Mohiliver. Facts and concrete achievements determine identity
more than the personality behind them. Facing the actions of Gush Emunim were the
political activists of religious Zionism representing R. Reines’ model, and I outline below
the confrontation between these two patterns.
4.1. The Settler
The Gush Emunim type or the settler type is a variation of the model set up by R. Mo-
hiliver. The settler does not identify with the perspective of the political establishment and
focuses entirely on action. This type, a product of religious-Zionist educational institutions,
has a charisma that R. Mohiliver apparently lacked and is convinced that these deeds entail
a direct or indirect divine meaning. Contrary to R. Mohiliver, however, settlers do engage
in a dialogue with legislators and can be found in the halls of power of Israel’s parliament.
They, however, trust only facts and suspect politicians. They hold that only deeds, meaning
settlement of the territories acquired in the Six-Day War, are truly meaningful. Again,
some Gush Emunim members, contrary to Mohiliver, carry heavy messianic baggage and
endorse strong messianic interpretations. Instances of such a type are Benny Katsover,
Menachem Felix, and Hanan Porat (1943–2011, though he later became a distinctly political
type). They are far, however, from a convoluted political discourse and are entirely focused
on the supreme goal. After he was persuaded to lead the struggle for the land, R. Zvi
Yehuda Kook (1891–1992) excelled at representing the rhetoric of action: direct, sharp, fiery,
defiant, and demanding facts on the ground. Incidentally, R. Zvi Yehuda indeed held that
the politicians’ character can be changed by replacing them with Torah scholars. Until
today, the “Degel Yerushalayim” idea of R. Abraham Kook that was developed in the
1910s is used as a codename among his disciples and their followers for the ideology of
Torah scholars serving as politicians. R. Moshe Zvi Neriah and R. Haim Druckman served
as landmarks in the path of this ideology. Reality, however, prescribed entirely different
politicians, who did not adopt R. Zvi Yehuda’s style and were perceived as weaklings
and self-interested. To reiterate: settlers do not believe in politicians, who appear to them
as fixated on words and delaying action. They suspect not only secular politicians—first
the Labor party representatives and later Menachem Begin, who soon discovered that
the government’s perspective on reality is essentially different from that visible from the
opposition benches. Settlers suspect national religious politicians as well, viewing them as
engaged in juggling words and avoiding practical decisions.

Religions 2024,15, 882 11 of 15
Gush Emunim members did not trust NRP representatives. Gershon Shafat, a member
of the Gush, described in his memoirs a crucial meeting in early 1974 that was also attended
by two members of the NRP’s “Young Guard” (mishmeret tse
c
irah), Zevulun Hammer (1936–
1998) and Yehuda Ben-Meir “who were trying to lead an activist vanguard within the NRP,
whose leaders had shown absolutely no interest in the struggle for Greater Israel (Shafat
1995, p. 14; Inbari 2019, pp. 135–54)”. Hagai Huberman noted that already during the
Six-Day War,
[Michael] Hazani had been almost the only one in the NRP leadership who
vigorously and tirelessly acted to realize the idea [of returning to Kfar Etzyon]
when we were still fighting in the Six-Day War. The indifference, however strange
it may sound, was not only prevalent in the NRP but also in the Religious Kibbutz
Federation and in Bnei Akiva. (Huberman 2008, p. 27)
Zevulun Hammer attested himself to the attitude toward veteran politicians:
Gush Emunim—means graduates of the NRP and its school. But what happened?
They became opponents of the NRP—in its decay or its corruption, first politically
and also normatively. The NRP as well appeared to me as a party unable to sense
what is important today, and lacking the power to lead the people to what is
important. The entire NRP declares that it does not care only for its sectorial
interests. Rather, it maintains that “Israel are sureties for one another” and hopes
to influence the character of the state as a whole. So the declaration. In fact, over
the last ten-fifteen years [1960–1975] the NRP has turned inward, like the other
sects, and has built its own world. Although perhaps an inevitable imperative,
this is what gave rise to this young generation. (Raanan 1980, p. 190)6
Hammer defined the party’s withdrawal as its focus on religious services and on the
status of the rabbinate. He tied the revolution of the NRP’s Young Guard, quite justifiably,
to Gush Emunim. One consciousness struggled against the other. Hammer held that he
represented a different kind of politician who, as it were, creates a new and seemingly
impossible hybrid combining a man of action and a politician. Outwardly, he engages in
meaningful action, and inwardly he is a politician (Kampinski 2021).7
Hammer and the Young Guard believed that they were different, but they did not
appear so to Gush Emunim activists. Shafat wrote about the attitude toward politicians in
the late 1970s:
The NRP’s support was always non-committal. Yehuda Ben-Meir and Zevulun
Hammer did indeed support us and pressured the government to approve our
settling on the land, but they also tried to temper our stance and persuade us
not to push too hard, not to resist soldiers, and remember that we are part of our
country, our government, and our army. They never stopped warning us not to
go too far. (Shafat 1995;Schwartz 2018, pp. 73–74)
People of action related to politicians as decadent, captives of the political discourse
and of day-to-day pursuits, and, therefore, also fearful of creating facts. The texts show
that, just as Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi members suspected that the Mizrachi had been tainted by
remnants of their exile lobbying activities, Gush Emunim members suspected that NRP
representatives were afraid to act.
4.2. The Parliamentarian
Confronting the settler model is the type who, in a way, is a variant of R. Reines. This
is the NRP politician, purported to create the parliamentary layer that will supply the legal
and official basis to the settlement activity. Usually, these individuals do not come from
a distinctly rabbinic background. Politicians are above all cautious. They display verbal
support for the settlers, release suitable declarations, but are aware that the legal basis is
not simple and the surrounding considerations are problematic. The significant fact is that
these characteristics relate not only to the veteran generation, which includes figures such
as Yosef Burg and Yitzhak Raphael, but even to the younger members led by Hammer and

Religions 2024,15, 882 12 of 15
Ben-Meir, who underwent a moderating process. Hammer, for example, was influenced by
R. David Hartman (1931–2013), who supported a sober political approach. Yehuda Azrieli
commented:
A new spirit has blossomed in Zevulun Hammer’s beautiful speeches, opening
up for him new and appealing options among the broader public and particularly
among intellectuals and media people. A kind of modern Torah im Derech Eretz
placing humans at the center of creation and not necessarily the Land of Israel,
which did not precede the Torah and humankind. The minister’s secret advisor
has become a hindrance to him among his comrades and a source of ideological
perplexity, beside malicious rumblings about the minister having been caught
in the web of the man of the world, the professor who enjoys substantial and
conceptual “cover” for his views as a disciple of Rav Soloveitchik. (Azrieli 1990,
p. 146)
The politician indeed stands before a complex mosaic and tries to do his duty by the
electors and the various publics he represents. People for whom action is significant hardly
change their views diametrically. Adopting more temperate views at most reflects the fact
that action proved less successful than expected. For Mohiliver, this was the plunge in the
donations to the settling of the land in the 1890s, and for the settlers, it was developments
such as the Jewish underground and the intifada, which changed public opinion and Israeli
society’s tolerance toward the settlement enterprise. Politicians, by contrast, do change
their views, are attentive to moods, and their public image is a fundamental consideration.
Just as R. Reines had strongly opposed cultural involvement at the beginning and then
supported a religious educational stream in the context of the WZO, so politicians who
had enthusiastically supported the settlement enterprise in the mid-1970s disavowed it a
decade later.
To reiterate: Gush Emunim was made up of different groups. Tracing one clear-cut
profile from all its various components (religious settlers, students of Merkaz Harav and
its extensions, former underground members, and so forth) is not easy. The model of
meaningful action, however, creates a shared underpinning between Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi
and Gush Emunim. Note that, historically as well, links tie these two bodies together:
Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi played an important role in organizing the settlement endeavor and,
for example, chaperoned the founding of Moshav Keshet in the Golan Heights until it
became established (Shemer-Schirman 2011, p. 226). Generally, Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi was
“among the leaders of settlement beyond the Green Line (Ibid., p. 224)”. Just like R.
Reines, who was an astonishingly revolutionary personality, is considered a “grey” and
non-charismatic figure, NRP politicians were also perceived as lacking charisma, drawing
strength from their adulation of the government in power and from their avoidance of
fateful decisions. Just as R. Reines’ revolutionary character at times came forth in the
fact that he was attentive to the public moods and did not oppose the changes in Eastern
European society, so the elected representatives of religious Zionism did not oppose the
settlement enterprise and, at times, even created an impression of support. The response,
however, was already suspicious. The poor image of politicians at a time that some of
them—such as Begin and Dayan—were still objects of admiration had already begun to
leave a mark.
5. Summary
One of religious Zionism’s great thinkers was R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Even if,
according to some scholars, he cannot be called a “religious-Zionist thinker,” his support
for the religious-Zionist idea is undeniable. R. Soloveitchik chose to convey constitutive
ideas in his teachings through ideal types (halakhic man, man of faith, homo religiosus,
praying man, and so forth). He held that the personality reflects the idea in the most
faithful way. For example, the loss of the yeshivot during the Holocaust and the need for
continuing the scholarly tradition in the United States he poured into the figure of the
halakhic man.

Religions 2024,15, 882 13 of 15
Soloveitchik’s approach enables understanding of the national religious dynamic. I
have also approached Mohiliver and Reines as ideal types, who can be described as follows:
(1) A man of meaningful action v. a political man.
(2) A man of facts v. a man of discourse, rhetoric, and persuasion.
(3) A goal-focused man, thus in some sense also limited, v. a man with broad horizons
and considerations.
(4) A man turning to life itself v. a reflective man.
(5) A man who behaves according to his messianic interpretation v. a man who openly
discusses this interpretation.
The interaction between the two types could act as a creative and driving force but
could also lead to a hidden or open confrontation, delaying the dynamic of social and
national processes, as was the case, for example, in Gush Emunim. The events related
to Gush Emunim suggest that, factually, actions showing a lack of broad and moderate
judgment might be reversible.
In the past, I distinguished two other types—a charismatic leader v. a rational leader—
pointing out that this distinction helps to understand the decisions of religious Zionism
(Schwartz 1999). This split does not seem useful regarding R. Mohiliver and R. Reines
because neither of them were a charismatic type. Mohiliver might have come close to
charisma, given the absence of any establishment features in his activity. According to the
nature of his endeavor, however, he does not emerge as a charismatic figure. Nevertheless,
the two types discussed in this article are not two versions of the same type but two
different types.
I traced the variations of these ideal patterns in the establishment of Hapo‘el Hamizrachi
and the foundations of Gush Emunim. The tension between the types affords an under-
standing of the events and of the linking seams in religious-Zionist existence. I conclude
with two examples.
In the early 1960s, the “revolution of the Young Guard” shook the NRP. This event was,
in my view, the key to the establishment of Gush Emunim, compensating for the frustration
of religious Zionists who lacked settlement myths and had feelings of inferiority vis-à-vis
the secular socialist society. But the revolution was made by politicians and, therefore, they
wove rabbinic authority into it, that is, subordination to national Torah scholars headed
by R. Zvi Yehuda Kook. The result was friction between the activists, the settlers, and
the politicians. Note that, at first, R. Zvi Yehuda had reservations about the activity of
Gush Emunim and the confrontation with IDF soldiers. His starting point was as that of
the politicians, and his reaction resembled that of Menachem Begin. When Hanan Porat
and his friends swept him into unconditional support for the settlers, he abandoned the
political model and fully adopted that of meaningful action. He held then that the settlers,
who were graduates of the yeshiva, would reinstate the model of the Degel Yerushalayim
politicians. His initial reaction, however, fit the political pattern from which he drew his
authority, as it came forth in the NRP’s Young Guard.
Another example dates back to the mid-1970s when the board of Bnei Akiva took a
fateful decision after the movement’s branches throughout the country discussed it and
ratified it: adding service in military yeshivot to the ways of realizing the movement’s goals.
Until then, the only option had been service in religious military units (Nahal). Henceforth,
combining Torah study with army service was viewed as a realization of the movement’s
goals. Through this move, the pattern of meaningful action made room for a pattern of
discourse and expression of values through an intellectual medium. Gradually, the pattern
of meaningful action faded, Hapo‘el Hamizrachi declined, and, ultimately, whatever was
left from this pattern is the religious kibbutz.
In sum, the typology and the various profiles it shapes and draws help to clarify the
forces active in the religious national field.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Religions 2024,15, 882 14 of 15
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The article was translated by Batya Stein.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Notes
1
Cf. the romantic attempt of Ahiezer Arkin, R. Shmuel Mohiliver: The First Political Zionist—Landmarks (Mazkeret Batya: The R.
Mohiliver Center, 2019) [Heb]. Naturally, the interest was to present Mohiliver as a statesman, but these attempts were not too
successful.
2The moshavot.
3See Bava Bathra 160b–161a.
4
Gur Arieh also cites this saying in his book about R. Kalischer in the context of his struggle against assimilated Jews. See (Gur
Arieh 1928).
5See TB Shabbat 91b, Pesahim 26a, 45a, and more.
6Interview conducted by Zvi Raanan and cited in his book Gush Emunim (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Hapoalim, 1980), 190 [Heb].
7
Hammer’s personality was studied extensively in Aharon Kampinski, Zevulun Hammer: A Political Biography (Ramat-Gan: Bar
Ilan University Press, 2021) [Heb].
References
Alfasi, Yitzhak. 1985. Torah Va‘Avodah in Vision and Action: The History of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi and its Founders 1922–1932. Tel Aviv.
(In Hebrew)
Alfasi, Yitzhak. 1992. Torah va-Avodah in Vision and Action: The History of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi and its Endeavors on Its 70th Avnniversary.
Tel Aviv. (In Hebrew)
Aminoah, Nehemiah. 1931. A Religious Labor Movement. Jerusalem: Torah Va‘Avodah, p. 1. (In Hebrew)
Aminoah, Nehemiah, and Yeshayahu Bernstein, eds. 1931. The Hope of Generations (Outlines). In Yalkut: An Anthology On the Idea of
Torah Va‘Avodah. Jerusalem. pp. 48–40. (In Hebrew)
Azrieli, Yehuda. 1990. The “Knitted Skullcaps” Generation: The Political Revolution of the NRP Youngsters. Jerusalem: Avivim, p. 146.
(In Hebrew)
Fishman, Ariey. 1979. Hapocel Hamizrachi, 1921–1935. Tel Aviv. (In Hebrew)
Gur Arieh, Yitzhak. 1928. The Late R. Zvi Hirsch Kalischer. Gur Arieh Also Cites This Saying in His Book about R. Kalischer in the
context of His Struggle against Assimilated Jews. Jerusalem: p. 38. (In Hebrew)
Huberman, Hagai. 2008. Against All Odds: 40 Years of Jewish Settlement 1967–2007. Ariel: Netsarim, vol. 1, p. 27. (In Hebrew)
Inbari, Motti. 2019. Avraham (Avrum) Burg Between Religious-Zionism and Post-Zionism. In The Making of Modern Jewish Identity:
Ideological Change and Religious Conversion. London: Routledge, pp. 135–54.
Kampinski, Aharon. 2021. Zevulun Hammer: A Political Biography. Hammer ’s Personality Was Studied Exstensivley in Aharon
Kampinski. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. (In Hebrew)
Krone, Moshe. 1987. Memoirs. Tel Aviv: Moreshet, p. 37. (In Hebrew)
Luz, Ehud. 1988. Parallels Meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement. Translated by Len J. Schramm. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society.
Raanan, Zvi. 1980. Gush Emunim. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Hapoalim, p. 190. (In Hebrew)
Salmon, Yosef, ed. 1990. Integrating Socialism and Religion: Notes on the History of Hapo
c
el Hamizrachi. In Religion and Zionism:
Initial Confrontations. Jerusalem: Zionist Library, pp. 340–52. (In Hebrew)
Salmon, Yosef. 2014. Do Not Provke Providence: Orthodoxy in the Grip of Nationalism. Boston: Academic Studies Press, pp. 161–91.
Salmon, Yosef. 2018. Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines: Profile of a Religious Zionist Leader. Religious Zionism 1: 9–32. (In Hebrew).
Schwartz, Dov. 1999. Religious Zionism between Logic and Messianism. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, pp. 24–25. (In Hebrew)
Schwartz, Dov. 2002. Faith at the Crossroads: A Theological Profile of Religious-Zionism. Translated by Batya Stein. Leiden and Boston: Brill,
chp. 1.
Schwartz, Dov. 2004. From Beginning to Realization: The History of Religious-Zionism and Its Ideas. In The Era of Changes: Studies in
Memory of Zevulun Hammer. Edited by Asher Cohen and Israel Harel. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, pp. 24–134. (In Hebrew)
Schwartz, Dov, ed. 2017. Was the Netziv a Pioneer of Religious-Zionism? In Religious Zionism: History, Thought, Society. Ramat-Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press, pp. 7–40. (In Hebrew)
Schwartz, Dov. 2018. Walking a Tightrope: Religious-Zionism and Democracy. Jerusalem: Carmel, pp. 73–74. (In Hebrew)
Schweid, Eliezer. 1986. The Beginnings of a Zionist-National Theology: The Philosophy of R. Isaac Jacob Reines. In Studies in Jewish
Mysticism, Philosophy and Ethical Literature Presented to Isaiah Tishby on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Joseph Dan and Joseph
R. Hacker. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, p. 696. (In Hebrew)
Shafat, Gershon. 1995. Gush Emunim: The Story Behind the Scenes. Bet El. p. 14. (In Hebrew)

Religions 2024,15, 882 15 of 15
Shayovitz, Ayala. 1989. The Mizrahi under the Leadership of R. Shmuel Mohiliver (1893–1898). Bishvilei Hatehyiah 3: 155–68. (In
Hebrew).
Shemer-Schirman, Shraga. 2011. Have Faith, Israel (Psalms 115.9): A Personal Story about the Holocaust and the Revival. Nir Galim:
Moreshet, p. 226. (In Hebrew)
Winch, Peter. 1990. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge and Paul, p. 57.
Yavneli, Shmuel. 1944. The Era of Hibbat Zion. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute/Dvir, vol. 2, p. 34. (In Hebrew)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.