“The Complete Matter and Not Half the Matter”: Torah and Work in the Teachings of R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel

Abstract

This article examines Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel’s concept of “Torah and Work” (Torah va’avoda) as a central tenet of Religious Zionism. Rabbi Amiel, a prominent ideologue of the Mizrahi movement who served as Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (1936–1945), viewed the integration of spirituality and materiality as representing complete Judaism. Using Hegelian dialectics, Amiel explained his approach: the thesis (spirit) and antithesis (matter) unite to form a synthesis (complete Judaism). He argued that exile transformed Jewish identity from a multidimensional biblical identity to a one-dimensional rabbinical identity focused solely on spirituality. Religious Zionism aimed to restore Judaism to its original completeness. Amiel criticized both ultraorthodox Jews who embraced only the spiritual aspect (Torah) and secular Jews who embraced only the material aspect (work), asserting that only “the complete matter, not half the matter” represents authentic Judaism. He boldly claimed that partial perspectives constitute idolatry. The article explores Amiel’s position on “Hebrew labor”, which he viewed as a national commandment without limitation, contrary to the ultraorthodox view that restricted it to charity considerations. His relationship with labor movements and socialism is also examined—he identified commonalities between Judaism and socialism while highlighting fundamental differences. In 1938, Rabbi Amiel established “Hayishuv Hahadash”, Israel’s first yeshiva high school combining religious and secular studies, as a practical manifestation of his vision of complete Judaism integrating Torah and work. Amiel’s critical stance toward various groups—including Religious Zionism, ultraorthodoxy, and secular Zionism—stemmed from his commitment to revitalizing biblical Jewish identity that harmoniously combines Torah study and productive labor.

1. Background

Religious Zionism is the continuation and realization of the theological revolution introduced by the heralds of Zionism (Mashiach 2021b) and subsequently by the rabbis of Hovevei Zion in the 19th century (Mashiach 2021a). This theological revolution called for a return to the active biblical Jewish identity, which they recognized as the authentic Jew, versus the exilic, passive rabbinical Jewish identity that transformed the Jewish value set, centering it on Torah study alone (Mashiach 2020a). The values upheld by the heralds of Zionism, Hovevei Zion, and religious Zionism consisted of an active approach to the redemption and the perception of work as a religious value, unlike those of the ultraorthodox rabbis (Mashiach 2014). It is for good reason that the slogan of the religious Zionist youth movement Bnei Akiva is “Torah va’avoda”, i.e., Torah and work. This is why religious Zionists are present in all domains within Israeli society, both spiritual and corporeal (Mashiach 2020a).

R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel (Russia-Israel, 1882–1945) was a rabbi and ideologue of the Mizrahi movement and of religious Zionism. He served as rabbi of Swieciany in Lithuania and of Antwerp in Belgium. In 1936, he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (Bat Yehuda 2001; Hellinger 2003; Rosenak 2005). Although R. Amiel had no formal general education, he displayed considerable knowledge of the philosophical world. He was proficient in many languages and authored over ten books and hundreds of articles on halakha, philosophy, and issues concerning religion and state.

This article seeks to investigate R. Amiel’s attitude to corporeal-productive work.

2. A Complete Multidimensional Judaism

R. Amiel regarded work as a religious value; to explain his method, he utilized Hegel’s dialectic, which centers on three concepts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (Hellinger 2010):

The Torah found only a synthesis between all kinds of extremities that exist in the world… between the material and the spiritual, between body and mind… between emotions and intellect… Man, created to begin with in holiness and purity by God, is the thesis, and then the primordial snake came and drew him down to the source of impurity—the antithesis. Indeed, at the end of days… the synthesis will emerge.

(R. Amiel 1943, p. 191)

The synthesis that combines spirit and matter is, as he sees it, the complete Judaism. This was the legacy of the Jewish people in biblical times; however, the exile changed the Jewish identity from biblical to rabbinical. At present, the religious Zionist movement, the Mizrahi, strives to return Judaism to its complete form, as it indeed must (Raphael 1974, IV, pp. 189–98). The ultraorthodox and the secular undertook only part of Judaism, either the thesis-spirit or the antithesis-matter, while the Mizrahi espouse a complete and comprehensive Judaism, the synthesis. This complete Judaism includes, in his opinion, three categories of religious precepts: the sacred (beyn adam lamakom, i.e., between a person and God), the interpersonal (beyn adam lahavero, i.e., social precepts), and the national (i.e., between man and his nation), which includes the values of work, the material, and the physical (R. Amiel 2006a, p. 241).

R. Amiel claimed that the path outlined by religious Zionism is not new. Orthodox Judaism has a negative perception of innovations, as the Reform Movement received the designation of “religious innovators”. In addition, R. Moshe Sofer, the “Hatam Sofer”, the most prominent 19th century Hungarian rabbi, determined that “’new’ is forbidden by the Torah” (Sofer 1965). This is a concept adopted from the halakhic literature, which was transformed into a slogan meaning that any innovation is forbidden merely for being new (Samet 2005). For this reason, R. Amiel claimed that this is not an innovation but rather a revitalizing of the complete Judaism:

By “Torah and work” we do not mean a new Torah, God forbid, but this nevertheless contains a great innovation, that of reviving the former glory. Due to the exile Torah and work become incompatible… and through the slogans of “Torah and work” we are resuming the former state.

(R. Amiel 2006b, p. 464)

Torah and work will complete each other: “The Torah will be improved by the work and the work itself shall become a complete Torah” (ibid.). This is “because our Torah is a Torah of life. A Torah that is not against life, rather it transforms all the needs of life into Torah” (R. Amiel 1943, p. 369).

To emphasize the synthesis of the complete Judaism, R. Amiel said:

And if someone were to come to me… and say, “Teach me the entire Torah while standing on one foot” (According to B. Shabbat 31a), I would say to him “the complete matter—and not half the matter”. That is the entire Torah… Aside from the Mizrahi party there are other parties… but why are they called parties, because each of them chose only one part of Judaism… only half the matter and not the complete matter… they split up… our complete Torah.

(R. Amiel 2006a, Part I, p. 369)

His criticism is aimed at the ultraorthodox and the secular. The former took the spiritual part—Torah and the latter took the material part—work, but both can claim only “half the matter”, while he embraced the outlook of the Mizrahi, the “complete Torah”, which includes the entire “matter”. The “Mizrahi upholds all sides of the coin, the complete matter, and not only the half-matters” (ibid.).

His statement concerning the “matter” and the “half matter” is reminiscent of his colleague, Tel Aviv’s Sephardic rabbi, R. Ben-Tsion Meir Khai Uziel, eventually Israel’s Chief Rabbi. R. Uziel too voiced the same criticism against the ultraorthodox and the secular, who laid claim to “half a matter”, versus those who have the complete “matter”, i.e., both Torah and work (Mashiach 2018):

Mistaken are those who think that by building the land and settling it… they will reach our ultimate goal. Purchasing the land and settling it is only half the matter… And mistaken are those who contend that by sitting in the study hall we shall fulfill our obligations to our God and our nation. Anyone who does only half a matter, will not have even half a matter. Our full revival will only come about with the harmonious joining of Torah and work.

(R. Uziel 1995–2009, Part V, p. 475)

R. Amiel claimed that the exile obliterated the complete multidimensional Judaism. “When life was devastated by the exile, this had an unavoidable negative effect on concepts of justice as well” and now “the ‘Torah and work’ movement has a major role, that of ‘I will restore your magistrates as of old’” (R. Amiel 1936, p. 131; Isaiah 1:26).

This statement of his expresses a wish to return to the biblical identity, comprising as it does several values: spiritual, i.e., Torah, prayer, religious precepts, alongside corporeal, i.e., work, military service, physical elements. The Bible depicted a complete Judaism, while the rabbinical-exilic Judaism is only partial, spirituality alone. R. Amiel saw the rabbinical identity as a temporary one, intended to allow survival in exile; however, at present, now that the Jewish people have returned to their land, the complete biblical Jewish identity should be reinstated.

In this statement, he was consistent with the approach of religious Zionism’s greatest leader, R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook, the pre-state Chief Rabbi. He too called for reinstating the complete Judaism and the biblical Jewish identity. He defined Torah study as the “spiritual Torah” and work as the “practical Torah”, proclaiming that the two should be united (Mashiach 2020b):

My great aspiration is to connect the spiritual Torah with the practical Torah. In the early days, the days of the prophets, the two Torahs were undoubtedly completely connected… the current times now demand that its appearance resume its full strength.

(R. Kook 2004, Part I, para. 834)

R. Amiel’s view of Judaism as complete, multi-dimensional, a synthesis, is not unique. He, however, was the most radical, as in his opinion remaining one-dimensional and partial is idolatry:

The very essence of idolatry is the partial outlook… and a partial outlook can only generate a partial truth, which is a false truth. Because the absolute truth is in the whole—and not in the partial.

(R. Amiel 1926, Part II, p. 211)

This is a daring statement that reflects his call to return to the complete, biblical-multidimensional Judaism, and his opinion that this is the mission of religious Zionism.

3. Attitude to Work and to the Corporeal

R. Amiel saw the return to the biblical Jewish identity as the Jewish people’s reentrance into the history of nations, namely, establishing a social and national life. “The Torah was not given to the Heavenly angels… and this Torah… is a Torah of life, and life encompasses both the secular and the sacred… and life encompasses both the body and the spirit” (R. Amiel 1998, p. 6). Combining the secular with the sacred is an obligation, and not a sign of human weakness (Rosenak 2003).

The return to history is a secular conception that viewed the immanent forces in human nature and culture as the exclusive factors in historical development (Schweid 1980). The history of the nations has an impact on the Jewish people, but they have no historical activity of their own; rather, they only take part in the open history of the surrounding nations.

In the twentieth century, Zionist ideologues began speaking about the Jewish people’s reentrance into history as a distinct nation. This idea has two facets. One is that the Jewish people must take active responsibility for their fate rather than waiting passively, as in religious thought, for miraculous redemption by Divine means. The second is that the Jewish people must resume their full creative potential in all areas of life and not only in the religious-spiritual domain, meaning engaging in economics, social issues, politics, science, technology, and others.

These figures called for revitalizing the nation’s inherent qualities. Martin Buber defined this as “regeneration”. The withered body cells will be removed, and the healthy cells will once again produce healthy body tissue (Buber 2003). The exile interrupted Jewish history; by resuming a normal national life, the Jewish people will reenter history in a framework of their own.

This idea led to intensive debate within the Zionist movement in the context of changing the exilic-rabbinical identity to an Israeli-biblical one, both among the secular and among the religious. All the secular Zionist movements rejected the exilic life and saw the need to shape a new Jew. In addition, they perceived the return to the biblical Jewish identity as a model that must be reinstated (Shapira 1997b; Conforti 2010). R. Amiel had a part in this debate, as his advocacy for combining spirit and matter, Torah and work, was part of his statement on this issue. He did not espouse the outlook whereby everything depends only on human efforts, but rather that human endeavors will begin a process from below that will then be assisted by the Divine. This idea can be found in kabbalistic thought. The itaruta diletata, i.e., awakening from below, will be answered by itaruta dile’eyla, i.e., awakening from above. This idea exists in rabbinical literature as well: “…open for Me one opening… like the eye of the needle, and I will open for you openings that wagons and carriages enter through it” (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 5:2). But the first step is up to us.

R. Amiel saw the combination of Torah and work as a basic principle, and he detected allusions to this in the Torah. One example is the Festival of Weeks (Shavuot). As we know, this festival is mentioned in the Torah as the Festival of First Fruits, in the context of labor, while in rabbinical literature, it is mentioned as the Festival of the Giving of the Torah (Matan Torah). R. Amiel called to combine the two—a festival of Torah and of work:

It is no coincidence that the Festival of Weeks represents two things together: “The time of the giving of our Torah” and “The festival of the first fruits”. It is as though this festival is specifically aimed at accentuating that Torah and work cannot be separated. And it is precisely on the day that the Torah was given that the first fruit should be offered, the fruit of work… We seek to discern the straight path… not only in Torah but rather also in work.

(R. Amiel 2000, pp. 298–99)

Hence, he called, “We shall have a complete Torah only if we insert Torah into work as well. No separation can be made in this… because this is something that cannot be divided” (R. Amiel 2004, p. 220). The combination is a complete Torah and separation is a distortion. “’Torah and work’ means—work that is guided by the Torah, where work is only part of the Torah” (ibid., p. 221). As “it is not possible to enter a holy lounge without passing through a corridor, and it is not possible to enter the spiritual world without the practical world” (R. Amiel 1943, p. 257).

Work is a religious value, the gate to holiness.

4. “Hebrew Labor”

The ideal of combining Torah and work led R. Amiel to take a stand in the debate on the “conquest of labor” or “Hebrew labor”.

Efforts to promote “Hebrew labor” began in the Second Aliya, which commenced in 1904, and continued for several decades (Shapira 1977a). Those who came in the Second Aliya, who had a socialist ideology and emphasized the value of work, discovered in time that those who had come in the First Aliya, which commenced in 1882, preferred to employ Arabs. The Arabs were better trained and demanded lower wages.

The principle of the “conquest of labor” had four underlying tenets: First, a person who works is rewarded by mental wholeness and redemption; second, work will bring the nation to a state of redemption and psychological wholeness; third, the Land of Israel will be attained not with money or blood but rather with labor; fourth, the Zionist enterprise has become a lodestone for Arab laborers, thereby containing an inner contradiction.

Prominent religious Zionist rabbis addressed the issue from a halakhic perspective. For example, R. Kook issued a call in 1920 to prefer Hebrew labor, defining work and the obligation to employ Jews as “holy work” (R. Kook 1984, Part IV, pp. 83–84). R. Uziel too called for employing Jews, as this is a “fraternal national obligation… the precept of preferring Hebrew labor is not only a precept of excellent charity, rather it is also a warning in the context of an obligation, whereby the court… obliges the merchant, the manufacturer, the homeowner, and the laborer to give preference to their brothers” (R. Uziel 1977, siman 48).

R. Amiel, too, appealed in favor of prioritizing Hebrew laborers, but he took a unique stance. It is customary to divide the biblical precepts into two categories: interpersonal and sacred. R. Amiel added a national category and included the concept of Hebrew work (R. Amiel 1936, p. 22). He criticized the ultraorthodox and one of their prominent rabbis, whose name he did not mention, for their disregard of this category:

It is also not possible to remain silent regarding the principle of “Hebrew labor”, neglected by a great many of our ultraorthodox brethren. One of our generation’s greatest rabbis was asked to what degree Hebrew labor should be preferred over non-Jewish labor. And he answered, up to one fifth. Meaning that if the Hebrew laborer asks up to one fifth more than the pay required by the non-Jewish laborer than one is obliged to give the job to the Hebrew one… if he demands more than a fifth then one is exempt.

But truly, this eminent rabbi’s honor aside… as beside the two parts of the secular and the interpersonal there is a third part, which encompasses the precepts that pertain to the relationship between the individual and the collective…

Obviously, Hebrew labor cannot be contained in the narrow framework of charity alone. One who gives charity only gives and does not receive, while one who takes part in performing his obligations to the nation both gives and receives. Hebrew labor in the Land of Israel is certainly a percept of the third type noted above, and this precept has no limit and rate. And just as it is not said of the precept “For your own sake, be most careful” [veshamartem et nafshotehem] that it is limited to one fifth and no more, thus also regarding protecting the soul of the nation there is no limit… the rabbis in the Land of Israel should take every opportunity to talk about the main tenet of Hebrew labor.

(R. Amiel 2006a, Part I, p. 241)

Elsewhere, he repeated this idea while further clarifying his criticism of the prominent rabbi and the ultraorthodox sector, who have no understanding of the importance of Hebrew labor and the national precepts:

And an eminent rabbi typically wrote… that according to halakha only if the difference between the work of the Jew and the work of the non-Jew is no more than a fifth, then the job should be given to the Jew… All this derives from the narrow outlook, where this is perceived only as pertaining to the interpersonal religious precepts, and not that it is completely subsumed under another part, that of the national precepts, which has completely different laws… If only those who are confused, the confused of this age, had not interfered and taken the wrong course.

(R. Amiel 1943, p. 281)

Though it is not customary to criticize the “Jewish leaders”, R. Amiel did so, even defining them as “confused” because, as he saw it, their opinion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Torah, as well as compromising the redemption. About this, he could not remain silent.

5. His Attitude Toward the Labor Movements and Socialism

To further understand R. Amiel’s attitude to work, it is necessary to examine the context of his words. One of the rousing debates within the Jewish settlement at the time regarded the attitude toward socialism.

The people of the Second and Third Aliya were pioneers who believed in physical work and in socialist idealist concepts that were also heretical from a traditional-religious perspective (Eisenstadt and Azmon 1975, pp. 1–18; Soyer 2012, pp. 215–34).

A major ideologue was Avraham David Gordon (Strassberg-Dayan 1995), an Orthodox Jew who over time had replaced a life of halakha with a life of work, which he saw as the path to redemption of the people, the nation, and the land (ibid., p. 8; Schweid 1970, pp. 172–85). Work was the main axis of his philosophy, and it can be summarized in three elements (Strassberg-Dayan 1995, pp. 148–53): First, work is a purpose in and of itself and not only a source of subsistence. By working the land, a person renews his link to the physical existence and to life, and this is true of both the individual and the nation (Bergmann and Shochet 1957, Part I, p. 308). The second has to do with the relationship between labor and religion, but not in the traditional sense. According to Gordon, when a person works, “he performs religious labor more than one who observes… all the religious precepts” (ibid., Vol. II, p. 123). Unsurprisingly, his doctrine received the designation “the religion of labor”. The third is the relationship between work and the nation. Work has collective, national, and human value, as it helps realize the organic relationship that connects different individuals as cells that form a single body.

Gordon often used phrases from Jewish sources and particularly from the world of Kabbalah and Hasidut, such as “In all your ways acknowledge Him”, “Whose presence fills all the earth”, “No place is clear of Him”, as well as the idea of “material work”. Gordon even spoke about devotion—not in the Hassidic meaning of human devotion to God, but rather devotion to nature and to life, which will be achieved by work (Schweid 1970, pp. 137, 181). Only work, he believed, would create anew the Jewish people who had been separated from life in nature and lived in exile, in a state of idleness (ibid., p. 194). From that physical work will come the revival and the redemption (Schweid 1982, p. 265), although his conception of redemption was different than the religious-traditional one (Salmon 2006, pp. 302–16).

It is easy to see the similarity between this philosophy and religious philosophy. Despite the similarities, however, there are many differences. Religious socialism disagrees with general socialism on several issues (Salmon 1990, pp. 340–52). Jewish socialism, for example, obligates private property and rejects the war of the classes (Zehavi 1923, pp. 6–9); in addition, Jewish socialism does not see work as all-encompassing. The Religious Socialists added to work the religious precepts and the “spirit of Judaism”. Jewish socialism does not aim to “change the orders of society as a whole” universally but rather specifically (Gardi 1923, p. 30). Their wish was to revive the ancient, biblical Judaism, as in the process of two thousand years of exile, Judaism had been contaminated by several defects. In contrast to the Judaism that developed in exile, the “pure” Judaism, that which existed in the Land of Israel in the biblical and Second Temple periods, was compatible, in their opinion, with socialist values. The Torah is socialist, and it preceded Marx and Engels by millennia (Engel 1923, p. 12). In contrast to the Marxist outlook that espouses a dialectic and synthesis, they declared: “Religion and work are to us not two separate matters that must be synthesized but rather a single matter” (Gardi 1923).

R. Amiel related to socialism, although Hellinger claimed that he only understood it superficially, identifying socialism with Marx’s materialism and Marx with Lenin’s communism (Hellinger 2010, pp. 525–52). Therefore, R. Amiel determined that socialism is corporeal and materialist and that the laborer class only cares about its own interests (R. Amiel 1936, pp. 56–58).

Nevertheless, R. Amiel saw common elements between Judaism and socialism, alongside their essential differences:

Many foundations of socialism are compatible with our justice, but socialist justice per se… is in complete contrast to our outlook. Judaism, which recognizes only complete justice… is based, as stated, on the foundation that… each human individual is a whole world; while socialist justice is a continuation of the ancient justice of primeval idolatry, which ascribed importance to the individual only when the existence of this individual is beneficial to society.

(ibid., p. 66)

As he sees it, socialism is materialist and Judaism spiritual; socialism worships power, although the power of property is replaced by the power of labor, while Judaism struggles against all power; socialism calls for a revolution against the existing social order, while Judaism strives for equality (Bat Yehuda 2001, pp. 119–22).

The very essence of socialism is aimed at generating revolutions in the world, a revolution wherein “the upper reverts to the lower and the lower to the upper”, but ultimately there remains an upper and a lower stratum, while our justice aims to bring equality to the world, equality with no distinction between upper and lower (R. Amiel 1936, p. 124).

Therefore, he concludes,

That when the Jewish state will be established and we will truly attain the Land of Israel according to the Torah of Israel, we will not have to search in the books of Marx and his compatriots how to arrange the relations between the laborers and the homeowners. Rather, we will seek and find them in our ancient treasures, “I will restore your magistrates as of old, and your counselors as of yore”.

(ibid., p. 121)

Until those days of redemption and of Torah-based social perfecting, R. Amiel counters the socialism of the “religion of labor” with the religious Zionists who espouse “Torah and work”:

“The religion of labor”… has turned labor into a type of sect, into a type of idolatry, worshipping the crude material… while for our young people Torah does not derive from work but on the contrary, work derives from Torah, as it is seen as all-encompassing. And the “Torah and work movement”… will return to all parts of life. But this designation also obligates our young people to fulfill many obligations to God: First of all, it requires them to distinguish between the holy and the secular, to distinguish between our justice and socialist justice.

(R. Amiel 2006b, p. 462)

The challenge of the religious Zionists, according to him, is to represent the true justice in the process of perfecting the world, which will overshadow all other methods of justice, including socialism:

The “Torah and work movement” must raise true sons of Torah… and these will declare the true internationale, the internationale that preceded all internationales in the world, and these will declare a fierce war against the ancient idolatry that has now assumed modern garb, like nationalism on one hand and the social struggle on the other… to perfect the world as the kingdom of Shadai. They will realize and know, all the inhabitants of the world, the differences between the various types of justice, which include socialist justice, and the judicial and moral justice.

(ibid., p. 464)

In sum, the combination of Torah and work is the complete Judaism from a specific perspective, one that bears the meaning of universal perfection of the world. “Moses, who brought us God’s words, established the first internationale, and if people had adhered to the laws of this internationale the entire world would have been like the Garden of Eden” (R. Amiel 1936, p. 72).

6. Conclusions and Discussion

R. Amiel’s attitude to work and materiality stems from his aspiration to return Judaism to its complete form. We showed above how the biblical Jewish identity included engaging in the corporeal and the spiritual, in Torah and work, versus the rabbinical Jewish identity that, due to the lengthy exile, focused only on spirituality and Torah study. R. Amiel strives to reinstate the complete biblical Jewish identity:

By “Torah and work” we do not mean a new Torah, God forbid, but it nevertheless contains a great innovation, the innovation of reviving the former glory. Via the exile Torah and work became incompatible… and via the slogans of “Torah and work” we are resuming the former state.

(R. Amiel 2006b, p. 464)

The complete Torah is a synthesis between Torah and work: “The Torah will be improved by work and the work itself shall become a complete Torah” (ibid.):

R. Amiel grounded his Torah in completeness. “If someone were to come to me… and say ‘Teach me the entire Torah while standing on one foot’, I would say to him ‘a complete matter—and not half a matter’. That is the entire Torah” (R. Amiel 2006a, p. 369). And that, in his view, is the Mizrahi party, which “upholds all sides of the coin, the complete matter, and not only the half-matters” (ibid.). The combination of Torah and work “is a whole and unique worldview.” So, as he sees it, “the ‘Torah and work’ movement has a major role, that of ‘I will restore your magistrates as of old’” (R. Amiel 1936, p. 131; Isaiah 1:26), namely, returning to the biblical identity. This is in contrast to other parties that compromised the completeness and “chose at the most only half a matter and not the complete matter… they split up… our complete Torah” (R. Amiel 2006a, p. 369).

His wish for a complete Judaism was also manifested in his literary enterprise. He strove to detect the foundations of Judaism through the study of halakha and Talmud and therefore conducted studies to determine the logical rules underlying Talmudic thought, presented in his major work, Hamidot Leheker Ha-halacha (The Attributes for the Study of Halakha) (R. Amiel 1939–1945). In addition, he collected his philosophical conceptions in his book Linvokhey Hatkufah (Light for an Age of Confusion), whose Hebrew subtitle speaks for itself: “Chapters observing the essence of Judaism”.

To realize his vision and his aspiration to return to a complete Judaism that includes both the spiritual and the corporeal, in 1938, R. Amiel founded Israel’s first yeshiva high school in Tel Aviv, “Hayishuv Hahadash”. At this yeshiva, religious and secular studies were taught, a format that exists to this day in dozens of schools both in Israel and in other countries.

Studies on R. Amiel have stressed his critical tendencies. It is now clear why he was critical. As one who strove to revitalize the biblical Jewish identity that combines Torah and work, a multidimensional complete Judaism that he made so many efforts to reinstate as the center of the reemerging Jewish settlement, both by establishing a yeshiva high school and through extensive literary writing, in both theory and practice, it comes as no surprise that he criticized anyone who blocked or objected to this ideal. For example, he criticized religious Zionism, to which he belonged (Schwartz 1997, pp. 160–71), the ultraorthodox world, including one of the “greatest rabbis”, and the secular-Zionist world. As he saw it, the latter two upheld only “half a matter” instead of the complete “matter”, i.e., the complete Torah that combines Torah and work.