Rav Kook by Chaim Bornstein

8/13/2019 Rav Kook by Chaim Bornstein

1/7

1

Many Ultra-Orthodox Jews have heard of HaRav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen KookZt"l. Not many can say that they actually know much about him, let alone have anyknowledge of his halachic or hashkafic works...

When it comes to the perspective of rabbinic figures in certain circles within the Ultra-Orthodox world, the case is not much better. Men, who would be considered legitimateauthorities on these matters, have little (if any) knowledge of Rav Kook's work. Due tothis lack of knowledge, they often misrepresent his ideas. In some documented cases,rabbinic figures will blatantly misquote him 1. The result is that most Ultra-Orthodox Jewshave either a neutral or, more often, a negative stance on a giant whose views and idealsare very much in common with their own hashkafas ...

Most figures within the Modern Orthodox and Dati Leumi world argue that theabandonment and marginalization of HaRav Kook's methodology by the Ultra-Orthodoxcommunity is simply their loss... You will, however, find a small few across theOrthodox spectrum who argue that giving up on any part of the Jewish Nation is theantithesis of what Rav Kook believed in. Rav Kook, as history clearly tells us, nevergave up on anyone...

These people recognize that the Ultra-Orthodox community would find so much incommon with Rav Kook. They have set for themselves a mission to spread a moreclarified and balanced picture of who Rav Kook was and what exactly he believed in 2.The hope is that when the Ultra-Orthodox, en masse, realize how relevant Rav Kook isfor them and their vision, they will be open to introducing themselves to his Torahthought and incorporate it into their study regimens. Moreover, once Rav Kooks worksare properly distributed and studied within the Ultra-Orthodox community, thecommunity will gain many insightful ideas on how to deal with issues that are stillpresent in these times 3

Moderate rabbanim within the Ultra-Orthodox will tell you that HaRav Kook was an Adam Gadol and "should be" treated with respect 4. They will also point out that he is

1 One just has to do a little internet sleuthing and will find sites such as this: http://www.yoel-ab.com/ andthis: http://tinyurl.com/m3hufaj and more, to see the views of the extreme right wing of the Ultra-Orthodox. 2 See here for example: http://www.orhaorot.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P100.jsp 3 This holds true to studying many forgotten Seforim (a study which deserves its own essay) from the late19th and early 20th century. One of these books would be, Chomas Haddas Ve'Haemuna by Rav Shlomo

HaLevi Halprin. Within this work, There is a Haskamah from Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, Where he says "Itsa Mitzva to bring this book into ones home"...4 Sadly, such is not the case with his son Rav Tzvi Yehudah zt"l who is regarded as a " triefa" by most ofthe Ultra Orthodox world . Such is the case to the point where there are Chareidim who will study RavKooks writings, as long as Rav Tzvi Yehudah had nothing to do with the publishing process. Works suchas; Shemonah Kevatzim and Orot Hakodesh, which were published before Rav Tzvi Yehudah got involvedin the publishing process of his fathers works, are permissible(!). Anything else is like I said; Trief. .. Thereason this is upsetting, is because to any critical observer, Rav Tzvi Yehudah had a very similar outlook tohis father on many of the various issues dealing with the viewpoint of how rebuilding the land is importantto the rejuvenation of the Jewish homeland, on the format of dealing with the non religious Jews and other


2/7

2

not considered our Gadol, because he was somewhat off hashkafically ". Then they willproceed to quote the Chazon Ish, "One can study his halachic works, but not hishashkafic works 5". If one presses the issue, it is not uncommon for these moderates towrap up the conversation and say something to the extent of, "Obviously, due to the factthat Rav Kook's followers are somewhat misguided (i.e. regarding their view towards the

non-religious, the State of Israel and Chareidi Daas Torah) it must be case that RavKook 6 was misguided as well (!). This is said ignoring the fact that often talmidim do notfully represent and/or share their rebbe's point of view and/or ideals.

From this writer's perspective, this view (that todays Mizrachi are an authenticrepresentation of Rav Kook) is perpetuated by an integral flaw resonating within themany factions of the Ultra-Orthodox community. That is, the inability to appreciate othermodern day forms of traditional Orthodoxy.... Based on this reality, the Ultra-Orthodoxcommunities rather associate Rav Kook as the "Gadol" of the Religious Zionistmovement.

This association automatically makes Rav Kook and his ideals persona non grata 7 in the

Ultra-Orthodox world. It is also historically inaccurate... Rav Kook was more associatedwith the Agudah 8 than the Mizrachi. Rav Kook complained to the Mizrachi leadershipseveral times for not taking a stronger stance on religious issues in the numerous Zionist

matters. Further more, Rav Tzvi Yehudah was on friendly terms with many of the " Charaidi Gedolim"such as Rav Yechezkel Sarna and others...5 While I personally do not think that Rav Kook needs the Chazon Ish's Haskama to write and publish Orot or any of his other books, in the same vain as Rav Yonosan Aibishitz did not need Rav Yakov Emden'sHaskamah, to write and publish Yaros Devash or any other of his works.. . However, I have heard fromRabbi Daniel Eidensohn, that the quote is not entirely accurate, as the Chazon Ish was being consulted byan owner of a seforim store, regarding selling the books in his store - not studying them. The Chazon Ishreplied that there was no problem selling Rav Kook's Halachic writings. However, he should not sell hisHashkafic works (it is assumed that the reason for this was because Orot is very deep and full of Kabalahand therefore for most people, it would be hard to truly grasp his meaning). He didn't say that they wereprohibited to study.Further more, See Achiezer (Kovetz Iggrot page 265 on Otzar Hachacmah) in a letter dated 1938, whereRav Chaim Ozer clearly tells Rav Tzvi Yehuda to publish all his fathers works. He does not say that heshould only publish his father Halachic works and refrain from publishing thee Haskafic works. Just tofinalize my point, Orot was published in 1920. This would have given Rav Chaim Ozer 18 years to figureout how "off" Orot truly was and respectively, would have provided Rav Chaim Ozer with ample time todistance himself from Rav Kook. Let alone refrain from giving his backing and support as Rav TzviYehudah requests his help publishing his fathers works.)6 To an honest observer, there is little difference between Religious Zionists who consider themselves"Talmidim" of Rav Kook's derech (such as students of the famed Yeshivot Merkaz Harav and Yeshivat HarHamor, Har Bracha and a few more known as Charda"l ). There is little difference in regards to the Ultra-

Orthodox levels of observance of the entire Torah. However, the two differences would be how they regardthe state along with the non-religious, and that the majority do not wear hats and jackets unless in anesteemed rabbinic position. (Not that I agree that hats and jackets are an indicator of a person being a "BenTorah")7 This is the case, to the point where neither a hashkafic nor a halachic writing of Rav Kook can be foundin their respective libraries. Additionally, in some cases, reprints of older sefarim will be censored of anymention of Rav Kook. Recently Rav Druckman complained of this issue in an article dated 10.03.13 here:http://tinyurl.com/pb4gmwm 8 Rav Kook traveled to Europe in 1914, to be at the first of the Agudath Yisrael Convention, which was totake place in Germany. However, the Convention was canceled as WWI broke out.


3/7

3

Congresses dating all the way back to his days as the Rav of Yaffo 9. In fact, piles ofletters and historical documentation, show that Rav Kook considered himself a Rav of thecollective Jewish Nation, religious and non-religious Jews alike. The troves of stories andtestimonies make it abundantly clear that in order to influence various parts of the nation,Rav Kook tried to the best of his ability, to make them all feel as if he was theirs 10 ...

Rav Kook was first and foremost a halachic man with a truly epic grasp on all fivesections of the Shulchan Aruch . This means that Rav Kook blended his mastery of Torah,coupled with mastery over his middos and a true emphasis on the halachos of Bein Adam

Lechaviro into his format of psak... That being the case, when one sees a quote from RavKook, he can safely assume that it was well sourced from Rav Kook's gross Torahknowledge and kochos Hanefesh 11 .

However, being that Rav Kooks status is persona non grata, access to his views andideas in the Ultra-Orthodox world is virtually non-existent. Which is a shame because, atthe very least, he has a legitimate view. At most, his teachings could be the properalternative for dealing with the non-religious settlers today as much as it was in his days.

There was a purpose to the marginalization of Rav Kook, it had many factors, (too manyto discuss here) but make no mistake that it was done purposely and systematicallythrough the spreading of misquotes, lies, falsehoods and sometime even from simplemisunderstandings 12. It was a global mission set forth by the extremists of the EdahHacharadis 13 beginning from Rav Kooks early years as a Rav of Yaffo and extendingwell beyond his passing in 1935.

One classic example of misquoting Rav Kook is from a case in 1925, when Rav Kook,during his invocation for the inauguration of the Hebrew University, applied the Biblicalverse Ki miTzion tetzei Torah, udevar Hashem me'Yerushalayim , For out of Zion shallgo forth Torah, and the word of God from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3; Michah 4:22). Thiswas and still is an oft-used criticism cited by denigrators of Rav Kook who claim that byquoting the verse he proved that he viewed the scholarship that was to come from theHebrew University as the fulfillment of the Prophet Isaiahs vision of Torah going forthfrom Zion. However, Rav Kook's usage of the verse, was actually a brave exposition ofBiblical verses and Jewish history designed to sound a cautionary note regarding

9 To the point that he established "Degel Yerushalayim" a political group which he hoped would unite allOrthodox factions to properly and effectively influence the non-religious settlers.10 It must be noted, however, that this did not stop Rav Kook from criticizing various factions when thecircumstances required to do so - as I stated in the previous footnote. (See Iggrot Vol. 2 in Letter 497 to theMizrachi (Shevat 5763, 1913) where Rav Kook expresses his support and high regard of the Mizrachi butnever the less, did not fear to criticize the movement where he felt it was needed.)11

This can honestly be the case of anyone who "clocked the hours" and spent their entire life studyingTorah in all its sections, " Leshmah " for the sake of the Torah. see Orot Hatorah for Chapter II section I forfurther study of this concept... additionally, there is a quote by the Netziv's on how one becomes a Posek see footnote 9. 12 See Rabbi Eitam Heinken's amazing Article (unfortunately in Hebrew) on Rav Elchanan Wassermancomments in Kovetz Mamarim on Rav Kook here; http://tinyurl.com/lr7so2n 13 See letter by Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank which he wrote to Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn about eventsoccurring in Jerusalem in the 1920s. The letter was published in Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn, in Malki Ba-Kodesh IV (St. Louis: Moinester Printing Co., 5679 5682), Letter 10 (dated 18 Adar Sheni, 5681, 1921),you can read the translation here: http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ravfrank.html


4/7

4

potential dangers inherent in the founding of a Jewish university. His paraphrase of theverse about Torah emanating from Jerusalem did not refer to the Hebrew University atall, rather, it was part of his concluding prayer in which he pined for the Messianic era.He was expressing his sincere hope to see the rebuilding of Yeshivos and places of Torahstudy as part of the process of rebuilding of the land 14.

Another widespread misconception was how Rav Kook regarded his Heter for sellingland to gentiles during the Shemitta Year. A system, which is better known as the Heter

Mechirah .

In a well known letter to the Ridba"z (Igrot Ha'Raya Vol II No. 555 pp. 184) Ha'RayaKook wrote (free translation):

"...Is it not the case that I have stated several times that my rulingwas time specific. Only according to the dire and crucial need [did I

permit it]. Heaven forbid that I would desire to undo such a magnificently collective commandment' as the holiness of theShmittah..."

My intent here is not to discuss the current day validity of the Heter Mechirah, but ratherpoint out that the stink that was made then was for nothing. The reality of the harsh timesis historically apparent, which should make any rational thinker wonder how so many togreat Jewish thinkers opposed the heter. In this specific case, it is well documented thatthe suffering and poverty were widespread, making Rav Kook's Heter Mechirah acompletely necessary step to safeguard the future wellbeing of the settlement as he statedhimself (ibid):

"...[I gave a Hetter] so many people would not heaven forbid die of starvation from a lack of work and sustenance. [Furthermore, Iwrote the Hetter] so the holy settlement [of the land] shall not perishin its early infancy..."

Rav Kook was not the first to invoke a Heter Mechirah and his was not the first heter tobe objected. There was actually another Heter Mechirah put into place for a previousShmittah Year. In fact, the heter was sanctioned by none other than the "Gadol Hador 15"of the previous generation, Harav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (who was a supporter of

14 For further reading see R. Ari Z. Zivotofsky article on the subject here:

http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/12/2009/what/. Further more see another amazing article on the subject ofthe Hebrew University and Rav Kook, by Rabbi Eitam Heinken's (unfortunately in Hebrew) here:http://tinyurl.com/nkfnxor15 The Netziv is quoted (Sichot Ha'raya pp. 315) to say the following; "the jurisdiction of a rabbinicalreligious authority is not dependent the greatness of the man in Torah matters alone. For we find many whoare brilliant and well-known and no one turns to them with their questions. Rather, such a merit is given tothose who toiled, and were persistent and diligent in their Torah study. The one who was most diligent ourgeneration is Harav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector who toiled the Torah more than any of his peers, thereforehe merited to be the great Posek of our generation. I too have studied much, and think God - people turnme with questions to."


5/7

5

Chovevi Tzion 16). The actual heter was written up for the Shmittah Year of 5649 (1888-1889) by Rav Shmuel Mohliver and Rav Yisroel Yehosuah M'kutnah on the conditionthat Rav Y. E. Spector supported it...

There is another point made that Rav Kooks tremendous " Ahavas Yisroel " blinded himto the misguided conduct of the non-religious settlers. However, this is the furthest thingfrom the truth. True, Rav Kook had tremendous love for all Jewish people this did not,however, stop him from doing what was right. If Rav Kook, in his Halachic view, couldfind no room for a heter for a specific action or behavior, he would not try to come upwith a heter just for the sake of having a heter 17 . In fact, he would often pasken to bemachmir. 18

One such example of how Rav Kooks love did not blind him to what was going on ishis response to the lack of gender segregation in the non-religious schools of theMoshavot and the Gymnasium (HaGymnasia HaIvrit, founded 1909) in Tel Aviv-Yaffo.Rav Kook Wrote in Ezrat Kohen a teshuva on the matter (Ezrat Kohen 30, freetranslation).

" 19 Regarding the matter of the [mixed] dancing. Hush! For mentioning the break in the fence of our holy Torah... The path of modesty and purity that are held up by the God seekers, [the Jewish people] for time immemorial. God forbid! We should imitate the pathways of the rebellious, to the paths of the Torah and be lackingin fear of heaven. Heaven forbid we should fall prey, to even the

slightest accessory of the forbidden and obscene lewdness"

This was not the only time Rav Kook spoke of the Gymnasium, or expressed his negativefeelings for the lack of modesty amongst the non-religious settlers There are

many such letters. In a letter dated Adar 19th

, 5670 (Iggrot Ha'Raya Vol. I page 316 no.279) Rav Kook writes in the same vein:

"What is clear beyond doubt, that at this time the administrators of the gymnasium have permitted themselves, to join both of the sexes together, young females and malesinto one school, one sitting. Without any regard for modesty in the path of traditional

Judaism. Let alone [separation of the sexes] is the past of moral society in most

16 Chovevi Tzion was primarily a religious "Zionist" group, founded by Rav Shmuel Mohliver and othercommunity figures at the end of the 19th century. Chovevi Tzion predated the modern Zionist movementand its political a scope of settlement aspirations, differed based on the circumstances of their respectivetimes. (at the time of Chovevi Tzion, the idea of a Jewish state was a pipe dream at best.)17

One such example would be, how according to Rav Shlomo Aviner; Rav Tzvi Yehudah regarded theHaRav Y. Y. Weinberg's Heter for gender mixing in the youth group Jeshurun in France (Shu"t SeriediAish Vol II No. 8) as a Horas Shaah . (Coincidently, Beni Akivah relies on this Heter ). I have spoken tosome experts in the field on the psakim and writings of the Sreidi Aish and they believe that Rav TzviYehudah is over-simplifying the matter...18 While I'm sure there are times where Rav Kook is actually machmir , in the sense of the word, I do findthat in his halachic view was more black and white ( mutar is mutar and assur is assur) without beingpersonally biased . I have yet to find a heter for the sake of a heter, or a chumrah for the sake of a chumrah .19 I thank Dr. Marc Shapiro for the assistance in finding the proper location of these sources as the locationswhich were in my possession were incorrect.


6/7

6

cultured countries. The beginning of this travesty began in the schools of the settlements, only God knows what type of decadence [in our society] will come up from such practices..."

In Iggrot Ha'Raya alone one can find additional letters where Rav Kook clearly expresseshis dismay with the actions of the non-religious populace.

In letter to Rav Avraham Yakov Slotzki (Iggrot Ha'Raya Vol. II Page 51 no. 392) dated14th of Tishrei 5672 Rav Kook writes:

"... These are our main demands: 1) that the workers will not desecrate the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays, in any format ofwork that is for the community. Nor should they dare to desecrate

the holiness of these days in public in any matter. One can not even begin to fathom the pain in ones heart as we come to a Jewish citywhere there is a presence of working on the holy Sabbath and

holidays.... 2) with in the schools must resonate the spirit of our holy religion. It should be left unsaid, that there should be no disrespect to the holiness of our traditions. One example of such practices, is the study of the holy books with the head uncovered, this disgraceful practice should be stopped immediately. 3) The sexes, boys and girls must be divided into different departments [exclusive one sex].There is no proper estimation to the damage that comes from such"un-natural" unity [of the sexes] in our schools, for youngsters and

adults alike 4) the Bible and more specifically, the body of theTorah, Should not be studied from a critical perspective. A format of

study that has torn open the walls that protect our traditions and has mutilated the peaceful source of our holy religion and identity noless than how it has spoiled the scientific truth...."

In yet another letter to Rav Avraham Y. Slotski 20 (Iggrot Ha'Raya Vol. II Pages 62-64 no.407) Rav Kook writes 21:

"Even though the war for our religion is a burden on us, we must fight with these "dry" nationalists, these "Jews without Judaism"who have gathered together, specifically by the gymnasium [in

Jaffa]. However, you have to be very careful to not cut the link ofunity and harmony between the various groups currently settling in

the land of Israel. Are we not educated enough to know results of awar amongst brothers? Especially in infancy of our resettling of our

20 Rav Avraham Slotzki hy"d. was a prolific Author in the journals; Melitz and the Maggid, and is bestknown for his Likut "Shivat Tzion" (Warsaw 1981). He had great love for the land of Israel, and desired tomake Aliyah. However, sadly he was not able to bring his plan to fruition, as he was murdered on April 6,1918 along with 88 other Jews in the city Novhorod-Siversky, a district of Chernigov, Ukraine.21 I will not quote the entire letter but it is worth a read to get a true perspective of Rav Kook's outlook onhow to deal with the non-religious faction of the settlers.


7/7

7

holy land, as we are still very few in week. Surrounded by enemies from every direction...."

"... [regarding the people surroundings the gymnasium]... A new form of idol worship they have invented for themselves according to the recent European fashion give not much to do with the details as the whole institution in its entirety is immoral and clearly can be a devastation [to the settlements of the land]. The mixing of the sexes, the boys and girls, within all the schools, especially in the gymnasium. We are dealing here with mixing of the mature.Through this educational system they are being educated to be

freely in their minds and their spirit, we might as well handed their hands not the flag of our forefather Israel, rather the flag of ancientGreece...."

These are letters from the liberal, misguided Rav of the Mizrachi?

If one would read these letters and not know the author, they would quickly discard themas words of an extremist from Meah Shearim . To realize that these are the words of noneother than HaRav Kook, one is forced to wonder, what do I really know about himanyway?

Obviously Rav Kook did know what was going on and disapproved of it. He evencondemned it, he just chose a different method than that of the Old Yishuv. It begets thequestion, perhaps he had a outlook worth exploring? A truth seeker from any Orthodoxdenomination would find it worthwhile to explore Rav Kook's ideas and make an effortto understand his writings and the concepts within. Rav Kook was a Torah giant and apure Ohev Yisrael. At the very least, we can read about who he was and what he did, andwe just might walk away wiser.

Documents

Rav Kook by Chaim Bornstein