The Intellectual History of the Maapilim By Akiva Weisinger

If you were to Google the , intending to do research for a bible paper, you would have to dig deep into the results to find anything about the tragic subjects of Bamidbar 14-39-45. Instead, the top result would be for the Hebrew Wikipedia page about ", the wave of immigrants to Israel between 1934 and 1948. The fact that Israeli society has decided to refer to Sefer Bamidbar in describing this movement is only surprising on the surface. Both the and the decided to make their way into the Land of Israel against the wishes of powerful authorities. For the it was the British Mandate, for the it was the word of God and his appointed messenger. Even more interesting is the parallels between the of Bamidbar and the Zionist movement as a whole, as both decided to go and conquer the Land of Israel without express divine permission. Small wonder, then, that some 20th century interpreters of this story saw the Zionist movement as modern-day . This, in turn, raises an important issue for discussing biblical interpretation. What role does the surrounding world of the interpreter play in biblical interpretation? To what extent are interpreters of the biblical text influenced by the world around them, in addition to the text in front of them? In this paper, we will use the interpretation of this story in the 20th century as a case study to see how biblical interpretation uses or ignores the world around it. In order to understand the different paths taken by those 20th century authorities, we need to understand the story itself and the essential questions for understanding the story, which will become the paths of departure for differing interpretations. Our story comes on the heels of the sin of the spies, who come back from scouting the Land of Israel to tell B'nei Yisrael that the land cannot be conquered, for its inhabitants are too strong for the Israelites and their grasshopper-like dimensions. The people believe them, and God decrees that they spend the next forty years dying out in the desert. As our story begins, the people are rather sad about this development (14:39).

Suddenly, though, the people are no longer afraid. They are going up to the mountain, saying that they will go up to the place that God told them about, (the same place they believed the spies about), for they have sinned (14:40). But Moshe is not impressed, and asks incredulously why they are transgressing the word of God, warning them that it will not succeed (14:41), that the Amalekite and Canaanite, the same nations they were terrified of in 13:29, will defeat them, because God is not with them (14:42-43). But they ignore him and go up the mountain anyway, even though Moshe and the Ark of the Covenant do not move (14:44), and indeed, the Amalekite and Canaanite rout them (14:45). There are a number of questions to be asked about this story that an interpreter can choose to focus on. Just a moment ago, these people were terrified of going into the land, and now they are storming the mountain against the dire warnings of their leader. What prompts the sudden and complete change of outlook? The text says that they admit to having had sinned ( ), and that somehow provides sufficient reason to storm the mountain, but we do not know what sin they are speaking of or how storming the mountain will address that sin. Having acknowledged that this was prompted by recognition of sin, were their intentions prompted by a desire to repent? Were their intentions possibly noble? If so, why were they defeated so thoroughly? Their defeat seems to present us with two possibilities, both of which prompt further questions. If their repentance was flawed, what was the flaw? And if there was no nobility to their intentions, what is the meaning of this admission of sin? Not all biblical interpreters will address every single one of these issues, but fundamentally, all of the above questions boil down to two questions every interpretation must account for. Number one, what was the motivation for the 's fateful last charge? Secondly, how can we account for their crushing defeat? Asking those questions will enable us to see the fundamental differences between each interpreter. Additionally, for the purposes of this paper, we will ask what relationship the interpreter sees between the Zionist of his day, and the of Bamidbar. The first interpretation we will look at is that of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira (1868-1937) known

aweas the Minchas Elazar, after the title of his responsa. R. Shapira, the Rebbe of the Munkaczer Chassidim, was a virulent anti-Zionist, and that may be guilty of understatement, as he was also a sworn enemy of the Aggudists and Yishuvniks who did not condemn Zionism strongly enough for his liking1. It therefore should come as no surprise that he sees our story as prophetically foretelling of the Zionist movement, explicitly making that comparison. He compares the actions of the and the Zionists side by side; the stormed the mountain against God's command to go fight against the nations and the Zionists went against the will of God as expressed by Chazal to go take up arms against the nations.2 The left the Ark of Covenant behind in the camp, and the Zionists were heretics who did not care for Torah. The ignored Moshe, and the Zionists ignored the rabbinic authorities of their generation. The were routed by the Amalekite and the Canaanite, and the Zionists were decimated by the 1929 riots3. Beneath this comparison to current events lies a coherent explanation of the story. The implication of the Minchas Elazar's peshat is that he sees the sin of the as disobedience to authority. The , despite whatever intentions they may have had, possibly motivated by ignorance (implied by connecting the Ark of the Covenant to Torah), possibly out of a desire for violence (implied by stating that they want to go fight against the nations) disobeyed God by assuming that they could reverse their punishment, and then compounded their mistake by disregarding Moshe, their religious authority. Thus, the Minchas Elazar does answer our two fundamental questions. They storm the mountain out of a mixture of ignorance and violence (The Minchas Elazar is no fan of either or Zionists), and they are punished for disobedience of religious authority. However our main concern is the relationship the Minchas Elazar sees between the Zionists of

1 Allan Nadler, The War on Modernity of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz, Modern Judaism 14:3 (1994) 239 (jstor.org) Somewhat unsurprisingly, his son-in-law and successor became a Zionist, to the chagrin of his followers. See Akiva Weisinger, Miracles in the Life and Thought of R. Baruch Rabinowicz, Kol Hamevaser 6, 1 (2012): 16-17, also available at: www.kolhamevaser.com. 2 He may be referring to the Three Oaths, but does not say so explicitly. 3 Hayyim Elazar Shapira, Sefer Hayyim V'Shalom, (Brooklyn, NY: Emes Publishing, 1999), 365 (Hebrew) available at munkatcherseforim.org

his day and the . He clearly sees them as extremely similar, and takes pains to paint those similarities as obviously as possible. Yet, doing so involves emphasizing certain points in the story above others. He does not pay much attention to the penitential intentions of the , ascribing their motives to ignorance and violence rather than any sort of desire for repentance. He instead plays up the disobedience of the and their fate, both of which he saw as represented in the Zionist movement. Thus, his main goal is to fit the narrative of his day on top of the biblical narrative and show the points of similarity, even if that means shifting the focus away from other aspects of the story. Even though the Minchas Elazar answers both our fundamental questions, his main focus is on why they were punished, and his understanding of their motivation derives mostly from his understanding of their punishment. The anti-Zionist Minchas Elazar is not the only interpreter to use this model. The same similarities that the Minchas Elazar saw between the secular Zionists and the were noticed by the secular Zionists themselves. A song written in 1919 by Levin Kipnis implicitly compares the Zionists to the of Bamidbar4. The chorus of the song goes: ! ! ! ! ! ! Being as the root only occurs in Tanach as a verb in our story, which prominently features a mountain, there can be no doubt as to what he story he is referring to. And though the author assures us that victory is imminent ( , ), the constant mentions of casualties ( ., followed by . ?) is not very reassuring, making it
4 Shir HaMa'apilim, available at http://www.zemereshet.co.il/song.asp?id=116

clearer that it is the 's doomed mission being referred to and that the allusion to imminent victory is more bravado than statement of fact. Yet Kipnis focuses on the casualties only to underscore the bravery of these , storming the mountain on a suicide mission to conquer the land of Israel. The main point of Kipnis's song, like the Minchas Elazar's drasha, is to highlight the similarities between his current situation and the one described in the text, while downplaying other elements. For the Minchas Elazar, this meant focusing on the misdeeds and fate of the , ignoring any thought of whatever bravery and good intentions they may have had. For Kipnis, it means focusing on their love of the land and bravery in the face of death, and not focusing on their misdeeds and ignonimous fate. Just like the Minchas Elazar, Kipnis focuses on one of our fundamental questions, their motivation, at the expense of the other, their misdeeds and punishment. This model, one of comparing similarities and downplaying differences, represents one way in which biblical interpreters relate the world around them to the biblical text. With that in mind, let us look at the interpretation of R. Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar (1887-1979) in Divrei Yoel5. R. Teitelbaum, as one of the foremost anti-Zionists in the era of the State of Israel, certainly did not lack for motivation to interpret this story as condemning Zionism6. He starts off by delineating two ways that the Yetzer Hara causes people to sin regarding settling the Land of Israel. The first is by refusing to settle the land when they are commanded to do so, which is what the entire generation of the desert were guilty of, and for that sin they died off over a period of forty years. The second, however, is by desiring to settle the land when it is forbidden to do so. Connecting this episode to the Three Oaths, he concludes that storming the wall, to borrow the Talmud's expression, is a much worse sin than not settling the land when commanded to7. For this most grievous sin, they are
5 R. Yoel Teitelbaum, Divrei Yoel (Brooklyn, NY: Jerusalem Publishing Co., 1980), 358 (Hebrew) 6 See Norman Lamm, The Ideology of Neturei Karta According to the Satmarer Version, Tradition Vol. 12 No. 2 (1971), 38-53. Available at jstor.org 7 He goes so far as to say that God had sworn not to bring that generation into the land as soon as the request was made. In fact, God had acquiesced to their request and commanded Moshe to send spies for the express purpose of discouraging them from attempting to conquer the land on its own. While one problem with the story of the spies is solved (why God told Moshe to send spies when the result was so disastrous) it creates an almost infinite array of other problems. Let us enumerate a small portion of them. 1. God's plan fails miserably, not to mention that God is kind of a jerk in this scenario

killed immediately. He ends by calling this story a reminder for future generations of the danger of attempting to conquer the land ahead of its time. At first glance, this interpretation seems to be similar to the Minchas Elazar's, in that both explicitly compare the to the Zionists, and stress their misdeeds and punishment, focusing away from their motivations. There are, however, subtle differences. As opposed to the Minchas Elazar, who sees the sin as motivated by ignorance and violence, R. Teitelbaum sees the sin as caused by the seductive wiles of the Yetzer Hara, who tricks the into thinking that they are doing the right thing. Additionally, while the Minchas Elazar sees the sin as stemming from a lack of obedience to religious authority, R. Teitelbaum sees it purely as the attempt to settle the land when not commanded to do so. True, they were disobeying God by storming the mountain, but it is not for disobedience to God they receive their dire punishment, but for disobedience to God on this particular issue. The obvious explanation for these differences is that times have changed from the Minchas Elazar's time to R. Teitelbaum's. The State of Israel has been established, Religious Zionism is now a mainstream phenomenon, and the virulent anti-Zionism of Satmar finds itself on the fringes. R. Teitelbaum can no longer claim that religious authority is overwhelmingly on his side, and therefore he must interpret the nature of the sin differently than the Minchas Elazar. He must account for the fact that most of the Orthodox world is against him, and thus the motivation of the sin changes to the powerful and deceitful Yetzer Hara, who is capable of fooling people into "storming the wall." Like the Minchas Elazar, his understanding of their motivation stems entirely from his understanding of their sin, and both share a strategy of stressing the similarities between the Zionism of their particular era and the biblical text. A closer look at R. Teitelbaum's explanation, however, reveals another model of the role
2. It pokes a rather large hole in his own explanation of the sin of the spies as people who sinned by not wanting to go to the land when they were supposed, being as they were never supposed to. 3. If the spies were doing God's will by discouraging the nation from storming the wall, why are they punished? 4. It makes theological claims that are both outlandish and inconsistent. God is sufficiently deterministic to know that sending the spies will be disastrous, but provides enough humans autonomy to spoil his plans.

awareness of current issues have in the formulation biblical interpretation. Having said that the are killed immediately because of the grievous nature of their sin, he introduces a caveat. That was true in the era of the generation of the wilderness, who were righteous enough to be immediately punished for their sin. Our generation, however, because of its many sins, does not merit such direct divine interaction, and instead the wicked flourish and the Yetzer Hara succeeds disguised as love of the land and causes many to stumble. What R. Teitelbaum is doing here is different from what we have seen before. What we have seen previously is the tendency to emphasize the similarities between the text and current events, with the implication being that one should take the lessons from the biblical text and apply it to the current situation, even though the interpretation has been tailor-made for that purpose. What we have here, however, is R. Teitelbaum emphasizing the difference between the world around him and the biblical text. Unlike the , the Zionists are not punished immediately. Without doing so, the reader might assume that the Zionists are better than the , being as the Zionists have succeeded in conquering their mountaintop and establishing a state. Thus, R. Teitelbaum must assure his reader that this is not the case, that differences exist between the current situation and the biblical text, and that one should not make the mistake of assuming the same conditions exist. As useful as this model is for R. Teitelbaum's purposes, it is definitely a more useful model to Religious Zionists, who will emphasize differences between the and the Zionists so that they not be associated with each other. Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (1865-1935), in his commentary on the aggadic portions of Masechet Shabbat8, addresses the in the context of a passage identifying Tzelofehad, of which it is said , without specifying which sin, as one of the . He explains this identification as an attempt to exonerate Zelofehad, as even though the 's fateful charge, in its specific context, was an act of rebellion, nevertheless being as this
8 R. Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Ein Ayah, 11:1 available at https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/ %D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_ %D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95

episode is representative of the eternal and unbreakable connection between B'nei Yisrael and the Land of Israel, there is reason to judge Tzelofehad favorably. Interestingly, R. Kook agrees with the Minchas Elazar, his almost exact contemporary, in that the rebelled against authority and were punished for that reason. He merely disagrees as to their motivation. Where the Minchas Elazar sees ignorance and violence, which stems from his understanding of their sin, R. Kook sees a deep, noble, yet momentarily misguided yearning for the land of Israel. Accordingly, they view the relationship between this story and the events of their time differently. The Minchas Elazar, who saw the Zionists of the time as ignorant, violent people, sees the story of the as exactly parallel. R. Kook, who saw the Zionists of the time as souls guided by a deep yearning for the Land of Israel saw the in the same way. Unlike the Minchas Elazar, he has separate, independent answers as to their motivation and their sin. Yet, if he were to stop there, he would be saying that God will punish those who attempt to come to the land motivated by sincere love, which is obviously unacceptable. In order to preserve his positive outlook on the Zionists, he must show the difference between the and the Zionists. Though he does not make this distinction explicit here, it is relatively safe to assume that knowing what we know about R. Kook and his philosophy that he saw the difference in time period to be crucial, and he implies as much by stressing that in the 's time, their actions constituted revolt, leaving the implicit message that in the present, perhaps messianic era, the rules are different. What is implicit in R. Kook is said explicitly by R. Tzadok Rabinowitz of Lublin (1823-1900).9 In dense prose saturated by Talmudic and Kabbalistic references, he claims that the were motivated by a sincere desire to repent. When Moshe told them that they should turn back, for God was not with them, they nevertheless thought that they were obligated to repent even though God said not to do so.10 They, were, however, tragically wrong, because the time was not yet ripe for this trait of righteous rebellion. R. Tzadok then asserts that while this well-intentioned form of rebellion may not
9 R. Tzadok HaKohen Rabinowitz, Tzidkat HaTzadik, 46 10 This is a peculiar feature of R. Tzadok's ideas on repentance.

have worked during that time period, it will succeed during the era of the footsteps of the Messiah. Crucially, he identifies that time period as his own age. Even though Herzl published his first book only four years before R. Tzadok's death, and this piece was probably written long before that R. Tzadok seems to have had some sympathy for the Zionist cause, specifically the Hibbat Tziyon movement11. It is possible that R. Tzadok had Hibbat Tziyon in mind when writing this piece. However, what is more significant about this piece is the way it is used by modern-day Religious Zionists. This piece of R. Tzadok is quoted by most Religious Zionist treatments of the story of the , including pieces by R. Elhanan Samet12 and R. Dr. Benny Lau,13 and published by such Religious Zionist institutions as Yeshivat Otniel14 and Yeshivat Har Bracha15, to list only web sites from the first page of Google results for " ." What makes this piece so attractive to Religious Zionists? R. Moshe Lichtman, in his "Eretz Yisrael in the Parsha", a book of Zionist-leaning essays on the weekly parsha, quotes this piece of R. Tzadok in full, with a footnote saying "This source is a very important one to consider when studying the issue of the Three Oaths mentioned in Tractate Ketuvot (111a)"16. In that vein, let us compare this Religious Zionist interpretation with R. Yoel Teitelbaums, which prominently features those same Three Oaths. As we have said previously, R. Teitelbaum must come up with an explanation as to why the Zionists have succeeded so wildly, despite their seeming similarity to the doomed . R. Tzadok's explanation, by making an explicit distinction between the time of the and the current messianic era, goes beyond merely explaining why the condemnation of the cannot be extended to the Zionists of today. It provides an answer to R. Teitelbaum's problem which fits perfectly into the
11 Brill, Alan. Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Tzadok of Lublin. (New York: Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva UP, 2002) 47-50. 12 R. Elhanan Samet, Parshat Shelach: HaMa'apilim (Hebrew), available at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/182.htm 13 R. Dr. Benny Lau, HaMa'apilim (Hebrew) available at http://www.bmj.org.il/article/541 14 Matanya Sternberg, "On Obedience and Identity in the Episode of the Ma'apilim(Hebrew), available at http://www.otniel.org/show.asp?id=45484 15 R. Avinoach Berner, "Illegal Aliyah (Hebrew), available at http://yhb.org.il/?p=1347 16 Moshe D. Lichtman, Eretz Yisrael in the Parashah: Essays on the Centrality of the Land of Israel in the Torah : Plus Commentary on Nearly Every Reference to the Holy Land in the Torah. (Jerusalem: Devora, 2006), 265.

Zionist narrative. The reason why the 's mission failed and the Zionists' succeeded is because the Zionists are living in the Messianic Era, and from there, it is a short step to claiming that the Three Oaths that R. Teitelbaum sees as underlying the sin of the also no longer applies. Therefore, R. Lichtman is correct in his assessment that this explanation of R. Tzadok can be a crucial part of a Zionist interpretation of the Three Oaths. We see that R. Tzadok's distinction allows Religious Zionism to not just understand the text as different from their own situation, but to understand that difference as fitting, even bolstering, their own worldview. Summing up what we have said so far, we have seen that biblical interpreters use different strategies for relating the biblical text with their outlook on the issues of their times. Sometimes, they will emphasize the similarities between current events and the stories in the biblical text, which usually involves downplaying some of the elements of the story. Other times, they will make distinctions between the biblical text and the events of their time, to prevent the assumption that the two are similar. The latter approach does not need to downplay certain elements of the story, as adherents of the first approach do. They can keep all elements of the text intact as long as they show the story is fundamentally inapplicable to current events. There is not a hard and fast line between these two strategies, and interpreters may make use of both. We saw R. Yoel Teitelbaum both emphasize the similarities and differences between the and the Zionists, to accomplish the twin goals of using the biblical text to condemn the Zionists while accounting for their current success. However, it is important to note that the influence of the events of the time period is but one factor that goes into the formation of any biblical interpretation. Just as some interpretations may make heavier use of devices like gematria than others, some interpretations are more influenced by the events of their time than others. Were this not so, it would be impossible for anyone with any opinion on Zionism, or even existing in the same time period as Zionism, to put forth an explanation that is totally objective. That assumption, however, does not hold up. R. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921) is alluded to

in a number of sources as having had some degree of sympathy for the Zionist movement.17 Such sympathy, however, is not reflected in his understanding of the story of the . In his commentary on the parallel story in Devarim18, he understands the motivation of the as pure rebellion against the divine decree, and they are punished for their disobedience to the divine decree and Moshe. If anything, he is harder on the than the Minchas Elazar, who at least saw them as merely violent and ignorant instead of out and out rebellious. His explanation certainly seems to have dire implications for Zionism, even though he was sympathetic to its goals. This does not mean that we need to historically reevaluate R. David Tzvi Hoffmann's opinions on Zionism. An explanation of a biblical text is not necessarily indicative of his political opinions, and no proof either way can be adduced from his interpretation here. All it means is that Zionism was not a factor in his formulation of this interpretation of the biblical text. It is possible that if approached personally he would have provided a reason as to why the are not like the Zionists, in line with our second model. But that does not seem to form a part of his explanation of the text in question. Additionally, this does not mean that R. Hoffmann was not affected by his age at all, as his attempts to respond to biblical criticism would obviously have been out of place in the medieval period. It only means that despite his Zionist sympathies, there was no attempt on his part to make the biblical text fit within that specific worldview. This model works in other ways as well. A commentary composed of insights from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), asserts that even though the were inspired by a sincere desire to repent for their sin of listening to the spies, nonetheless, there was a necessary procedure to entering the land, which was violated by the . Thus even though the repentance for their previous sin was accepted, it is that vioation of procedure the
17 Zinberg, David S. ""Rabbi David Hoffmann, ZL" by Eliezer M. Lipschuetz." SeforimBlog. N.p., 2 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 May 2013. Alexander Marx, David Hoffmann in Alexander Marx, Essays in Jewish Biography, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947) 193-194. Available at http://www.archive.org/stream/essaysinjewishbi000988mbp#page/n205/mode/2up 18 Peirush Rav David Tzvi Hofmann al Devarim on Devarim 1:41-42

are punished for19. He goes on to apply the text to his time. No matter what events may occur, there is an established procedure for the coming of the Messiah which cannot be bypassed by human beings, and we should submit to God's will rather than attempt to hasten the redemption on our own20. At first glance, this appears to be part of the first model of seeking out similarities between current events and the biblical text. However, even though the Lubavitcher Rebbe applies his interpretation to modern-day issues, the way he interprets the text is not, in fact, exactly parallel with his time period. We have previously noted that R. Teitelbaum of Satmar is forced to address the fact that unlike the , the Zionists succeed in their goal. The Lubavitcher Rebbe makes no attempt to address that discrepancy. In fact his point seems to be that the message of this passage is still applicable despite the discrepancy with the current reality. Yet, this is not because, like other anti-Zionist interpretations, he emphasizes certain elements of the text over others. In fact, every question we have asked is satisfactorily answered and accounted for. The are indeed motivated by a sincere desire for repentance, which is even accepted, but they are punished for procedural violations. Rather, just like R. Hoffmann, the Lubavitcher Rebbe does not think the reality around him dictates how to interpret the text in front of him. The fact of Zionist success has no bearing on how he will interpret the text, because the text has the same message regardless of whatever is currently happening. It so happens that the Lubavitcher Rebbe differs from R. Hoffmann's interpretation, and sees some parallels between the text and his time period, but the text affects his understanding of the time period, and not vice versa. Thus, we have identified three different models of how biblical interpretation is affected by the events of the times. The first model we saw, exemplified by the Minchas Elazar and Levi Kipnis, is to emphasize the similarities between current events and the biblical texts, which necessarily involves
19 R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky. The Torah: Chumash Bamidbar : With an Interpolated English Translation and Commentary Based on the Works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2004.), 100. (Used this because I cannot read Yiddish.) 20 We are assuming that he is talking about Zionism here. That may, in fact, not be true. It is eminently possible that he is addressing the often enthusiastic Messianism found within the Chabad movement. If only he was alive to clarify.

focusing on some aspects at the expense of others. The second model, used by the Satmar Rebbe and the Religious Zionists tries to draw distinctions between the biblical text and current events, by limiting the scope of the biblical text so it does not contradict the interpreter's outlook on current events. This model interprets the story in all of its elements, but makes a distinction that makes it fundamentally inapplicable to current reality. The third does not see current events as having any bearing on the interpretation of the biblical text, choosing to interpret them as objectively as possible. Even if the interpreter may in fact see the biblical text as having applicability to current events, the essential point is that the interpreter's outlook is not shaping the biblical text to fit the situation. We see that the interpreter's outlook on any specific current event is one factor in the formulation of biblical interpretation, but by no means a universal one. Some interpreters are heavily affected by specific events of the day, and others are not, just like any of the other numerous factors that go into the formulation of biblical interpretation. It seems that this variety in approaches is a natural outgrowth of differences in temperament and personality of interpreters, and the world of biblical interpretation is made better by the multitude of different approaches. The same applies to the models we have outlined in this paper. It goes without saying that there is always a simple explanation of the text which should be free of the bias of the current age, but such interpretations are often inadequate for providing guidance to the Jews of that particular time. A Zionist Jew looking at R. David Tzvi Hoffmann to understand the would not come away with a satisfied answer, and an AntiZionist looking to the Lubavitcher Rebbe to understand the success of the Zionists would come away underwhelmed. Thus, the fitting of biblical texts to their time, imperfect as those fits may sometimes be, and the interpreters who make use of the models and strategies we have described, are nonetheless an important aspect of biblical interpretation.