Bust Statue Head

1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE

1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE
1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE

1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE   1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE

The BUST was created very likely in the 1920's. The BUST was casted in BRONZE.

Since there's no written indication on the bust , I had some identifications problems. The bust was found with a similat bust of Trumpeldor (No writing either but no identification problem :-). Any other identification suggestions will be mostly welcomed.

Dimensions around 5.5" (Height) x 3.5" x 3.5. (Pls watch the scan for a reliable AS IS image). One of the people', Genesis 26:10, was a Hebrew essayist, and one of the foremost pre-state Zionist thinkers. He is known as the founder of cultural Zionism. With his secular vision of a Jewish "spiritual center" in Israel, he confronted Theodor Herzl.

At eight years old, he began to teach himself to read Russian. His father, Isaiah, sent him to heder until he was 12. When Isaiah became the administrator of a large estate in a village in the Kiev district, he moved the family there and took private tutors for his son, who excelled at his studies.

Ginsberg was critical of the dogmatic nature of Orthodox Judaism but remained loyal to his cultural heritage, especially the ethical ideals of Judaism. [3] He married Rivke at the age of 17. They had two children, Shlomo and Rachel. In 1886 he settled in Odessa with his parents, wife and children, and entered the family business.

[4] In 1908, following a trip to Palestine, Ginsberg moved to London to manage the office of the Wissotzky Tea company. [5] He settled in Tel Aviv in early 1922, where he served as a member of the Executive Committee of the city council until 1926. Plagued by ill health, Ginsberg died there in 1927. Unlike Pinsker, Ginsberg did not believe in political Zionism, which he fought,'with a vehemence and austerity which embittered that whole period'. [6] Instead he hailed the spiritual value of the Hebrew renaissance to counter the debilitating fragmentation (hitpardut) in the diaspora, he believed that the ingathering of Jews in Palestine was not an answer. Kibbutz galuyot was a messianic ideal rather than a feasible contemporary project. The real answer lay in achieving a spiritual centre, or'central domicile', within Palestine, that of Eretz Israel, which would form an exemplary model for the dispersed world of Jewry in exile to imitate; a spiritual focus for the circumferential world of the Jewish diaspora. [7] He split from the Zionist movement after the First Zionist Congress, because he felt that Theodor Herzl's program was impractical. [8] From 1889 to 1906, Ginzberg flourished as a preeminent intellectual in Zionist politics. Ha-Shiloa, the leading Hebrew-language literary journal in the early twentieth century. It was published in Warsaw by Ahiasaf. It was a vehicle to promote Jewish nationalism and a platform for discussion of past and present issues relevant to Judaism. The name was taken from a river mentioned in Isaiah 8:6, The waters of Shiloa flow slowly, alluding to the moderate stance of the paper. They reported on hunger, on Arab dissatisfaction and unrest, on unemployment, and on people leaving Palestine. In an essay[10] soon after his 1891 journey to the area he warned against the'great error', noticeable among Jewish settlers, of treating the fellahin with contempt, of regarding'all Arabs a(s) savages of the desert, a people similar to a donkey'.

His reputation as Zionism's major internal critic has its roots in the essay "A Truth from Eretz Yisrael" published in pamphlet form shortly after his visit in 1891. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land [ha'aretz] cultivated fields that are not used for planting.

Only those sand fields or stone mountains that would require the investment of hard labour and great expense to make them good for planting remain uncultivated and that's because the Arabs do not like working too much in the present for a distant future. Therefore, it is very difficult to find good land for cattle. We who live abroad are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all wild desert people who, like donkeys, neither see nor understand what is happening around them. But this is a grave mistake. The Arab, like all the Semites, is sharp minded and shrewd. All the townships of Syria and Eretz Yisrael are full of Arab merchants who know how to exploit the masses and keep track of everyone with whom they deal the same as in Europe. The Arabs, especially the urban elite, see and understand what we are doing and what we wish to do on the land, but they keep quiet and pretend not to notice anything.

For now, they do not consider our actions as presenting a future danger to them. But, if the time comes that our people's life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily.

[14] In his book "Wrestling with Zion, " he urged the Jews not to provoke the anger of the native people by doing them wrong... And what do our brothers do?

They were slaves in their Diasporas, and suddenly they find themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only a country like Turkey [the Ottoman Empire] can offer. This sudden change has planted despotic tendencies in their hearts, as always happens to former slaves ['eved ki yimlokh when a slave becomes king Proverbs 30:22]. They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency. Our brothers indeed were right when they said that the Arab only respects he who exhibits bravery and courage.

But when these people feel that the law is on their rival's side and, even more so, if they are right to think their rival's actions are unjust and oppressive, then, even if they are silent and endlessly reserved, they keep their anger in their hearts. And these people will be revengeful like no other. At the same time, it was incumbent upon Zionism to inspire a revival of Jewish national life in the Diaspora.

Only then would the Jewish people be strong enough to assume the mantle of building a nation state. He did not believe that the impoverished settlers of his day would ever build a Jewish homeland. He saw the Hovevei Zion movement of which he was a member as a failure because the new villages were dependent on the largesse of outside benefactors. His unique contribution was to emphasise the importance of reviving Hebrew and Jewish culture both in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora, something that was recognised only belatedly, when it became part of the Zionist program after 1898. Herzl did not have much use for Hebrew, and many wanted German to be the language of the Jewish state. [16] Cultural Zionism[edit] His first article criticizing practical Zionism, called "Lo zu haderekh" (This is not the way) published in 1888 appeared in HaMelitz. [17] In it, he wrote that the Land of Israel will not be capable of absorbing all of the Jewish Diaspora, not even a majority of them. The ideas in this article became the platform for Bnai Moshe (sons of Moses), a secret society he founded that year.

Bnai Moshe, active until 1897, worked to improve Hebrew education, build up a wider audience for Hebrew literature, and assist the Jewish settlements. He eclipsed nationalists like Peretz Smolenskin arguing assimilative individualism in the west further alienated Russified Jewry, who were seeking to reduce migration: isolating it beggared Eastern European Jewry.

Even those in Hovevei seeking to restrict emigration would, he feared, bring the extinguishment of national consciousness; and atomisation of Jewish identity. Only anti-Semitism had made Jews of us. [19] Derekh argued that nations had waxed and waned throughout history, but nationalism had all but vanished from Jewish consciousness. Only a small group of nobles kept it going.

[20] Emphasis fell on moral concepts, honor of the flag, self-improvement, national revitalisation. A departure occurred in Avdut betokh herut[21] discussing pessimism about the future for independent Jewishness. Critic Simon Dubnov alluded to this but was compromised by his westernised idealizing of French Jewry. The requirement arose in 1891 for a "spiritual centre" in Palestine; Bnei Moshe's implacable opposition to his support for Vladimir Zeev Tiomkin's ideal community at Jaffa compounded the controversy in Emet me'eretz Yisrael (The Truth from the Land of Israel). In 1896, Ginsberg became editor of Hashiloah, a Hebrew monthly, a position he held for six years.

After stepping down as editor in 1903, he went back to the business world with the Wissotzky Tea Company. He emphasized that without a Jewish nationalist revival abroad, it would be impossible to mobilize genuine support for a Jewish national home. Even if the national home were created and recognized in international law, it would be weak and unsustainable.

In 1898, the Zionist Congress adopted the idea of disseminating Jewish culture in the Diaspora as a tool for furthering the goals of the Zionist movement and bringing about a revival of the Jewish people. Bnai Moshe helped to found Rehovot as a model for self-sufficiency, and established Achiasaf, a Hebrew publishing company. For the "Democratic Fraction, " a party that espoused cultural Zionism (founded in 1901 by Chaim Weizmann), he served as a symbol for the movement's culturalists, the faction's most coherent totem.

He was, however, not certainly not to the extent to which members of this group, especially Chaim Weizmann, would later contend its chief ideological influence. In this role he was engaged during the "language controversy" that accompanied the founding of the Haifa Technikum (today: the Technion) and in the negotiations culminating in the Balfour Declaration. Published works[edit] Ten Essays on Zionism and Judaism, Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon, Arno Press, 1973 reprint of 1922 ed.

East and West Library, 1946. Selected Essays, Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon. The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1912. Although his impact on Hebrew culture was extensive, his political imprint was equivocal.

Ahad Ha-Ams essays, collected mostly in the four-volume Al parashat derakhim (At the Crossroads; 18951914), remain among the most influential ever written by a modern Jewish intellectual. Generally regarded as the preeminent philosopher of Zionist thought, his influence was felt well beyond the movement itself. Many of the leading figures in twentieth-century Judaism credited him as a prime inspiration, including Israels first president Chaim Weizmann, Hebrew University chancellor Judah Magnes, poet ayim Naman Bialik, Kabbalah scholar Gershom Scholem, and theologian Martin Buber. A child prodigy, he was self-taught in secular subjects and was able to read Russian, English, French, and German as a young adult. He broke with Hasidism in his adolescence, albeit discreetly at first.

Gravitating toward the Haskalah, by the mid-1880s he had embraced the proto-Zionism of oveve Tsiyon, the central governing body of the Zionist movement. He married at the age of 17 (his wife, Rivke, was descended from distinguished Hasidic forbears), and in 1886 he, his wife, their children, and his parents settled in Odessa, where he remained in the family business with his father. He was elected to the executive committee of the Odessa Committee of oveve Tsiyonchaired at the time by Leon (Lev) Pinskerand emerged as the intellectual mentor of a small but ambitious group of young maskilim intent on gaining control of the organization and redirecting it toward cultural rather than philanthropic concerns in Palestine. Immediately he was recognized as an original, even commanding, voice in Hebrew letters. It was in this essay that he first used his pen name.

This first essay was soon followed by other widely circulated piecesdeceptively spare, often quite brief writings that spoke with authority and reflected a mesmerizing clarity of thought. These included Avdut be-tokh erut (Slavery in Freedom; 1891) and Emet me-erets Yisrael (Truth from the Land of Israel; published in installments in 1891 and 1893). Second, he served as the sequestered leader of the semi-secret society Bene Mosheh (Sons of Moses)launched in 1889 and disbanded in 1898which sought to recast Zionism in a fundamental manner. Third, he was a preeminent Hebrew writer and (as of 1896) the editor of Ha-Shiloa, the leading Hebrew journal of the day. By the time he assumed editorial responsibility for Ha-Shiloa, he had lost his fortune.

Stepping down in 1902, he was hired by the Wissotzky tea company, first in Russia and then in 1907 in London, where he remained until his move to Tel Aviv in 1921. He spoke softly in a calm, often sardonic voice. Often giving the impression of being shy, he was easily offended and avoided most opportunities to speak in public. On the whole, his public presence as a speaker was not mesmerizing, but he had the ability to persuade listenersas well as many readers over the course of several decadesof his rare, even singular, Jewish authenticity, akin (in the minds of his most devoted followers) to that of an ancient prophet.

Ahad Ha-Ams intellectual influences were eclectic and included Naman Krochmal, Herbert Spencer, John Locke, Perets Smolenskin, and Piotr Lavrov, among others. He drew on them in ways that were not systematic from a philosophical standpoint but were nevertheless deeply compelling to an eager, generally unschooled yet intellectually voracious constituency.

He formulated a philosophy of history that constituted an agenda for Judaisms future, one that, with minor alterations, was already in place by the early 1890s. Inspired by the Jewish Enlightenment and the social optimism of European liberalism, it promised Jewish authenticity shorn of theology, yet animated, as he saw it, by features even more enduring. Certain features remained paramount: a firm belief in leadership based on intellect, uncompromising honesty, and a commitment to justice.

Central was an abiding preoccupation with the land of Israel as the focal point of Jewish life. Also crucial was Judaisms belief in the centrality of ethics. Jewish history reflected a dexterous, principled series of accommodations, a successful exercise in creative integration, in which Jews absorbed the best from other cultures while emphatically making one of their own. As was true of Zionism as a whole, cultural Zionism was motivated by crisis, with assimilation, not antisemitism, looming largest. Overwhelmed as Jews now were in the Westand, increasingly, elsewhere as wellby the reality or prospect of political emancipation and its promise of integration, what needed to be addressed was this challenge without, however, rejecting modernity. However, the latter had to be absorbed in ways that would not undermine Judaism, and therefore had to be experienced in a Jewish land and a Hebrew-speaking milieu, in which the values of modernity would be absorbed into a Jewish framework. Initially intellectuals or, at the very least, culturally alert Jews, would come to Palestine to build its cities and cultural institutions. Soon other Jews would settle there, too, constructing an economically viable community and eventually a political entity. This community, in turn, would have a vigorous, salutary influence on Jews elsewhere; it would constitute a spiritual center, transforming Judaism from a moribund faith into a vibrant national culture. In one of his more influential essays dating from 1904, Shilton ha-sekhel (Supremacy of Reason), he utilized his understanding of the teachings of medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides to highlight how at the core of work and at the center of Judaism down through the ages were ongoing, persistent values: spirituality over materialism; genius over political dexterousness; a hierarchy of learning, not a leadership of the wealthy.

Such arguments became increasingly less persuasive. Younger Jews in Eastern Europe and Palestine found Ahad Ha-Ams prescriptions narrow and even arbitrary. Important writers such as Mikhah Yosef Berdyczewski and Yosef ayim Brenner criticized his insistence on stark distinctions between what was and was not Jewish, as well as his preferences for nonfiction over fiction and rationalism over irrationalism. His distant, often condescending stance toward Yiddish; his open disdain for socialism; his disparagement of the prospect of serious, longstanding political cooperation in Russia between Jews and non-Jews of the sort embraced by many Jews in 1905; and his continuing criticism of the priorities pursued by those favoring colonization in Palestineall garnered him much opposition as well. To the extent to which Ahad Ha-Ams work continued to exert political influence, it was largely with reference to ArabJewish relations in Palestine.

He was the first Zionist of importance to emphasize the darker side of this relationship, a theme that became increasingly central to his work in the last two decades of his life. Arguing that what others saw as mere skirmishes between Jews and Arabs were threats to the nationalist enterprise launched by Zionists, he maintained that this resistance had to be taken into account when formulating realistic goals.

The significance he gave to the issue placed it, at least tentatively, on the Zionist agenda. He would later serve as an inspiration for the binationalist movementheaded by Judah Magnes, Gershom Scholem, and otherswho no doubt overemphasized their indebtedness to him to lend their radical ideas a respectable pedigree.

Ahad Ha-Ams personal life was uneventful. Except for his active years in Bene Mosheh in the late 1880s and early 1890swhen his closest friends were also his most trusted allies and their involvement with one another was truly intensehe lived a rather isolated existence despite his hunger for an ongoing, substantial public role in Jewish life.

He relationship with his wife was outwardly correct and distantly affectionate; his relationship with his son, Shelomoh (later a senior administrator at the Hebrew University) was, by all accounts, chilly, and he cut off all relations for decades with his daughter, Rael, when she married a non-Jew. Perhaps his closest, most trusted friend was the distinguished Jewish historian Simon Dubnow, who shared Ahad Ha-Ams deep commitment to Jewish nationalism (itself influenced by their many discussions), but who was never a Zionist. His most vigorous period of political activity was in the years leading up to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, when he was a confidant of Chaim Weizmann.

Despite his residence in the country for a decade and a half, his relationship with English Jews was limited to a small group of young followers including Norman Bentwich and Leon Simon, who later wrote Ahad Ha-Ams biography. During his lifetime his works were widely translated into German, Russian, English, French, and other languages. He had a major impact on some of the most creative Jewish religious and communal thinkers in the United States Mordecai M. Kaplan, Samson Benderly, on public and cultural discourse in Palestine and Israel (Mosheh Glickson, the founding editor of Ha-Arets, the leading liberal newspaper, was a devotee and his first biographer), on the Federation of Hebrew Writers, and, perhaps most resolutely, on generations of schoolchildren in Israel, where he became best known as an exemplary craftsman of Hebrew.

At the same time, he provided a lucid, compelling framework for a self-consciously ethical, postliberal Jewish political terminology. His insights on the prospects for a modern Jewish culture were primarily not predicated on religion but rather on a deep, candid relationship to the past in its religious as well as secular aspects. Ahad Ha-Ams ideas continue to exert a disquieting influence. Ahad Haam (1856 1927) Asher Hirsch Ginsberg, better known by his pen name Ahad Haam, was a journalist, a Hebraic ethics philosopher, and a visionary of a spiritual center in Palestine.

He was born in the Ukraine in 1856 and passed away in Tel Aviv in 1927, five years after making Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. In his younger years, he had studied at a Cheder and was praised for his knowledge in the Talmud.

In later years, he taught himself Hebrew grammar, mathematics, literature, science, and the philosophy of Sephardic scholars. In 1884, Ahad Haam began participating in the gatherings of the Hibat Zion movement in Odessa. In the Katowice Hibat Zion Convention, he asked that the movement emphasize its national aspirations, and following the First Zionist Congress (1897) he established himself as a leading opposition to Herzl and his political policy. He was of the opinion that the central problem of the Jewish nation was not the external anti-Semitism and violence against the Jews. Rather the problem lay within the modern view of Judaism that it had lost its spiritual character and value. Already in 1889 he published an article in HaMelitz, under the penname Ahad Haam, titled This is not the way. In this article he called for a change of approach within Hibat Zion regarding settlement of Eretz Yisrael.

He wrote that the Land of Israel will not be capable of absorbing all of the Jewish Diaspora, not even a majority of them, and that establishing a national home in Zion will not solve the Jewish problem; furthermore, the physical conditions in Eretz Yisrael will discourage Aliyah, and thus Hibat Zion must educate and strengthen the Zionist values among the Jewish people enough that they will want to settle the land despite the great difficulties. Within his discussion of a national renaissance, Ahad Haam presented his idea of spiritual Zionism: By creating a spiritual center for the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael with extensive physical labor together with cultural and educational efforts the Jewish people will become unified and their national spirit renewed.

And this sentiment will emanate from the spiritual center to all directions of the Diaspora, where assimilation was a very real danger. Ahad Haam believed that even if it were possible to absorb all Jews in Eretz Yisrael, its existence will not solve their political and financial troubles, but mainly the national-spiritual aspect. However, he did believe in a future growth of Jewish population assembled in Eretz Yisrael, bringing about the establishment of a Jewish state in which cultural and national freedom will be made possible.

The national renaissance, according to Ahad Haam, begins with the persons Jewish identity, which was impaired during the nations years in exile. He contended that the practical side of the Jewish religion was no longer a unifying factor for the Jewish people.

Jewish morality, however, was a moral ethic that was engulfed and shaped by the national spirit and was established by him as a cultural asset of utmost importance to the Jewish people. Ahad Haam was among the first to point out to the Zionist movement the problems they would expect to face with the Arabs in Eretz Yisrael. In his article Truths from Eretz Yisrael, written following his first visit to the Land in 1891, he wrote that it was an error to dismiss the Arabs as desert beasts who do not comprehend what is being done in their surroundings, and predicted that if the Yishuv will try to force them out they will object.

In 1889 Ahad Haam established the Bnei Moshe association. The association was active for eight years and achieved several of its goals: In the Second Zionist Congress (1898) it influenced the acceptance of a resolution calling to hold educational and cultural activities of national character in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora.

The association established a network of Hebraic schools promoting Ahad Haams belief that a Jewish person is not necessarily one who follows Jewish Law. Rather, it is one who identifies with Jewish nationalism and expresses it by making Aliyah and speaking the Hebrew language. Despite the fierce objection to this educational approach, especially among the older Yishuv inhabitants, educational institutions were established to give nationalistic Hebraic education.

The Bnei Moshe association also took part in establishing Rehovot as an example of an independent Jewish settlement. During the years 1915 1918 Ahad Haam worked with Chaim Weizmann to retrieve the Balfour Declaration. In 1922 he made Aliyah and settled in Tel Aviv, where he served until 1926 as a member of the Executive Committee of the city council. The item "1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE" is in sale since Monday, April 27, 2020.

This item is in the category "Collectibles\Religion & Spirituality\Judaism\Images". The seller is "judaica-bookstore" and is located in TEL AVIV. This item can be shipped worldwide.

  • Handmade: Yes
  • Modified Item: No

1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE   1920 Zionist AHAD HA'AM Bronze HEAD BUST STATUE Jewish ISRAEL Judaica SCULPTURE