Against Method 65

hador. That this element, so prominent in HTM, is missing from Techumin suggests that by 1980 the Zionist halakhists had long since realized that they were speaking exclusively to observant Jews who shared their ideological perspective.

44. See Una, note 15, above, 95 45. See Una, note 15, above, 102. 46. See Yitzchak Englard(above, note 40).

47. For a collection of such opinions by the leading Orthodox rabbis of recent times see A. Rosenberg, Mishkenot Haro im(New York , 1983).

48. This was not a purely formal necessity. Some Orthodox Zionists, such as Yeshayahu Leibovits(see note 23, above), who perceived more clearly a revolutionary element in the Jewish national movement, called for a“new” halakhah or approach to legal thinking that would accommodate itself to the radically new condition of Jewish life portended by the approach of statehood. This was especially true of Rabbi Haim Hirschensohn, a Zionist activist whose book Malki Bakodesh(St. Louis: Moinester, 1919-1928, 6 vols.) developed pioneering new approaches to halakhic reasoning precisely because the new world of approaching Jewish statehood demanded such revolutionary innovations. On Hirschensohn, see Eliezer Schweid , Democracy and Halakhah(Lanham , MD : University Press of America, 1994). Schweid contrasts Hirschensohn to Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook, who though audacious in his theology manifested a much more conservative approach than did Hirschensohn to halakhic interpretation. Schweid , for his part, is exceedingly critical of Kooks halakhic conservativism on matter affecting the settlement of the land of Israel ; see his Hayahadut Vehatarbut haHilonit (Tel Aviv : Hakibutz Hame’uchad, 1981), 136. The halakhic thought of Rav Kook is a distinct subject of research. For contrasting views as well as bibliography, see M. Z. Nehorai,“He‘arot Ledarko Shel Harav Kook Befesikah,” Tarbiz 59(1990), 481-505, and Avinoam Rosenak , “Hahalakhah Hanevu it Vehametzi‘ut Befesikato Shel Harav Kook,” Tarbiz 69(2000), 591­618).

49. Mare B. Shapiro,“Sociology and Halakhah,” Tradition 27(Fall, 1992), 83, n. 7.

50. See, in addition to the article cited in the previous note, Marc B. Shapiro , Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966(London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999). Shapiro makes much of this distinction in his consideration of Weinberg’s responsum on the“humane slaughter” issue(117-129) and of his rulings concerning the observance of bat mitzvah(206-221). In each case, Shapiro stresses that the dispute between Weinberg and his opponents was in essence “meta-halakhic” rather than“halakhic,” so that both positions could claim to be correct as a matter of Jewish law.