The Shmita controversy can be seen as an archetype of the perennial and many-sided polemic that pits the ultra-Orthodox against the national religious camp. (The Israeli non-Orthodox population remained largely bystanders to the 2007-2008 Shmita polemic because the issues it raised were largely irrelevant to them - unless, of course, the disqualification of the sale dispensation would lead to a jump in prices or economic hardship for farmers.) But the intra-religious polemic must not be seen only in the context of hard-line versus more lenient positions on the Shmita issue. Over the course of the last generation, a novel socio-religious phenomenon has arisen within the national religious camp: a new group has appeared on the scene. They are known as "Haredi-Leumi" (national ultra-Orthodox-Hardelim in popular parlance) and characterized by hard-line approaches to Halachic questions alongside a commitment to the Land of Israel (often missing among the ultra-Orthodox) usually the Greater Land of Israel. Many of them are graduates of Rabbi Kook's yeshiva, Merkaz Harav who are most opposed to buying Arab products. A decisive majority of the national religious rabbis, including those identified as national ultra-Orthodox, joined the struggle against the Chief Rabbinate and demanded a return to the sale dispensation. The Haredi-Leumi camp, who were often settlers in the occupied territories and their followers, felt that their attachment to the Land precluded any weakening of the Jewish hold on the "territories" and recoiled from a halt in its cultivation. This divide was clearly expressed in a public conference that took place in the wake of the Shmita polemic. The conference's chairperson Rabbi Daniel Sperber, a notable Talmudic scholar and academic who belonged to the national religious camp, declared that "all those who religiously and politically ridicule, dismiss, prohibit [the sale dispensation] do not take into account the needs of the entire people as well as causing the general public in Israel to fall into sinful behavior." In his mind, "it is an irresponsible act on the part of those rabbis who rule this way, one that does not consider the Israeli public." This approach encapsulates the position of the national religious who have consistently argued that Halachic discourse was obliged to pay maximal attention to the Israeli public and to the reality in which it lived. Public acceptance as well as the practical concerns imposed by objective circumstances ought rightly to have a significant impact upon Halachic rulings - especially so when these considerations involve significant implications for the Zionist project, such as holding on to the land and the well-being of Israeli agriculture. This argument is practically identical in import to the ruling of Rabbi Kook as well as to the debate over Shmita in the late nineteenth century - one hundred and twenty years ago. Once again, the exigencies presented by reality were seen by the national religious camp as an integral part of the Halachic decision-making process. The ultra-Orthodox representative to the conference rejected all these arguments. He argued that "there is no such thing as a new Shmita - Israeli, culturally attuned, aimed at social welfare - without accepting the actual commandment of Shmita. This is a hollow idea without any relation to reality or logic. . . . We cannot play a part in this radically new agenda." Beyond summarizing the ultra-Orthodox's hard-line position on Shmita, he went on to present ultra-Orthodoxy's conception of authentic responsibility to the Jewish people. "We are very responsible in that we preserve the Torah in its purity and completeness. This is our historic duty toward the Jewish people." One might say that the ultra-Orthodox are not relating to the Jewish people in its actual present circumstances; rather their perception focuses upon an ideal, paradigmatic Jewish people.42 One thing is certain, that we will be witness to another skirmish or outright battle when the next Shmita year occurs in 2014-2015. The question that remains open is to what degree this new and aggressive behavior by the national religious camp is a portent of things to come? Has the chief rabbinate been weakened to the point when its authority no longer carries decisive weight? Are Tzohar's agenda and energy sufficient to continue the battle they began in 2007-2008? Will the secular courts once again intervene in the Shmita controversy? Clearly, the national religious camp, or at least a substantial part of it, has gained confidence and is more prepared to clash with the ultra-religious camp and its rabbis than in the past. Still, it is as yet uncertain how far the national religious will be willing to press on with their struggle against the ultra-Orthodox in the name of a Halachic approach that remains loyal to the Zionist vision. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. All rights reserved.
