דת וציונות בתקופת היישוב: סעיף שמירת השבת בחוזה החכירה של הקרן הקיימת לישראל עם ההתיישבות העובדת

The efforts of the Zionist Yishuv in the mandatory era to reach an understanding on religious matters, and thereby enable the participation of the religious Zionists in the general Zionist struggle over the future of the Land of Israel, had their origins in the general Zionist understanding of the Jewish past. Secular Zionism and the pre-state leadership were connected to the deepest layers of Jewish historical continuity, and the process of secularization had not been accompanied by hostility to religion as such. Secondly, a closing of the ranks, vital for attaining their political objectives, necessitated concessions from both the religious and secular Zionists. Lastly, religious Zionists refused to compromise on anything that concerned marital status and the preservation of the Halakhah in the public domain. One of the arenas in which efforts were made in the mandate era to come to an agreement over the preservation of Halakhah in the public domain, an agreement that would satisfy the religious Zionists and be acceptable to secular Zionists, was in the realm of agriculture. Dozens of settlements had been established in the Mandate era, mostly kibbutzim or moshavim. This was made possible by the human capital stemming from the labour movement and funding from national capital. The religious Zionists were concerned about the public image of the agricultural settlements in the face of the broadening trend of secularization in the Land of Israel. They sought to reach an understanding with the leadership that would satisfy them regarding the preservation of the Halakhah in public by the agricultural settlements. One of these agreements concerns the inclusion of a clause regarding the observance of the Sabbath in the lease contract between the Jewish National Fund and the agricultural settlers. This clause would require them to keep the Sabbath on JNF lands. It was introduced into the contract in the 1930s through the initiative of the Mizrahi party and also remained in contracts drafted by the state with land lessees in the early years of the State of Israel. And yet the current arrangement was also the result of the will to broaden the circle of donors to the JNF, so that the latter could increase the extent of its land purchases in the Land of Israel, purchases that would have a major role in expanding the potential borders of the Jewish state. For the same reason the JNF was sensitive to other religious issues such as the observance of the jubilee year, and the establishment of a special department for the ultra-orthodox. From a political standpoint the clause concerning Sabbath observance had a double role: firstly, the participation of the religious Zionists in the Zionist leadership; and secondly, an increase in financial means. However, the JNF's aspirations to increase its income was one of the factors preventing the systematic enforcement of the observance of the Sabbath clause, since such enforcement might have spurred a negative reaction from the settlers and from secular Zionism in the Land of Israel and abroad. This would have led to a reduction in the number of donors and contributions, harming the principle objective of the JNF. The JNF, therefore, had no intention of enforcing the observance of the clause and so no sanctions were enforced against offenders, as was the practice regarding other clauses in the contract. While the Sabbath observance clause remained declarative in essence, it had a triple significance: the partnership of the orthodox and secular Zionists; the increase in the donations from the religious sector; and prevention of their elimination from the secular sector. Ultimately, the religious Zionists achieved few of their objectives whereas the JNF, an institution established by the secular Zionists, attained its objective. The religious matter was subordinated to the national agenda. The protests from the religious Zionists against offenders of this clause had little impact.