search
Alon Goshen-Gottstein

No, Nadler: We need to Re-own the Real Rav Kook

Misrepresenting Rav Kook in the Name of Scholarship

Allan Nadler is no fan of Rav Kook’s. In the context of evaluating present day religious Zionism, its political expressions and its spiritual roots, he points his fire at Rabbi A.I.Kook, over and against claims made previously by Tehila Friedman as to the importance of this figure for a revival and rebalancing of the ideals of religious Zionism.

Nadler marshals scholarship and his academic training, attempting a show of erudition, in response to Friedman’s more educational and public-facing, or as he describes it “naively deluded”, appeal to Rav Kook. Nadler’s perspective is not uncommon and is, regrettably, part of the bad-press that Rav Kook the father suffers from in circles that lack first hand familiarity with his person, vision and writings. The centrality of Rav Kook in shaping religious Zionism, but even more so the importance of Rav Kook as one of Judaism’s spiritual giants, requires a response.

Nadler builds an entire edifice based on a series of misrepresentations, each of which must be tackled in its own right. While there are serious issues raised in his piece and while a critical appreciation of Rabbi A.I. Kook is a much-needed task, on academic, spiritual and public, as well as political grounds, the way to achieve such a reevaluation does not pass through misrepresentation and a fundamental animus against spirituality, mysticism and the person of Rav Kook. In what follows I break down Nadler’s presentation of Rav Kook, setting the record straight and pointing out distortions and fallacies in his presentation. Only once the ground is cleared can we return to the bigger questions that have contributed to the views of Nadler and his likes. Only then can the dual challenges of understanding Rav Kook and considering his meaning for today come into focus.

Rabbis Kook: Like Father Like Son?

Nadler correctly identifies a transition point between the old guard of religious Zionism and a group of young turks (at the time they were known as Ze’irei Hamafdal). This group was inspired, says Nadler, by “Haredi-Zionist rabbinical opponents, most notably Abraham Kook and his son, Zvi Yehudah, who carried and spread his messy and militant ideology.” This is a very messy description. Applying the label “Haredi” is very problematic, as it is more of a sociological label, than a proper religious designation. Certainly in the case of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda it is a misnomer. But more importantly, the two individuals, father and son, are collapsed and both are considered “messy and militant”. While Nadler goes on to demonstrate what he might mean by Rav Kook, the father’s, messiness, nowhere does he provide evidence for his militancy. Still more importantly, if anything has been achieved by the academic study of these individuals over the past 20-30 years, it is the recognition that these two individuals should not be lumped under one umbrella. This is not, as Nadler would have it, a romantic image, but the outcome of multiple scholarly studies. There are major distinctions between them on multiple fronts. Militancy and an approach to politics are certainly areas in which Rav Kook the son took a stand, and developed his father’s views, in ways that many scholars would not ascribe to the father. This, however, seems to be beyond the pale of Nadler’s own scholarly awareness.

Did Rav Kook oppose Mizrachi?

Rav Kook is presented as an opponent to Mizrachi. Nadler recognizes this is outside scholarly consensus, but offers no proof for this, other than his claim to that effect. He then goes on to describe the failed movement/party of Degel Hatorah as being in a schismatic relationship with Mizrachi. Says Nadler: “anyone who has studied the agenda of this party will be struck by how similar its ideals were to those of Zvi Yehudah, which have been inculcated in generations of his disciples: critically, its goal of imposing halachic observance on the entire Yishuv and future state, as well as its deliberate obliviousness to any practical political considerations.” Well, I am one such “anyone” and I believe Nadler seriously misrepresents the purpose of this movement, both in its relationship to Mizrachi and by the very attempt to place them on the same level, as though they were early equivalents of Mafdal and Agudat Yisrael. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Following is a brief quote from Rav Kook’s epistles, that offers a more correct view. “Hamizrachi started out at a period when the Zionist movement was small. During the period of Hibat Zion it did not have a unique character, though two [fundamental] qualities found expression in it: natural (i.e. quest for natural homeland) and spiritual. As things evolved, it has become necessary for each of these qualities to have its own expression. (This references Rav Kook’s Degel Yerushalayim as a spiritual (not political) counterpart to the Zionist movement, introducing a parallelism between Zion (natural-political) and Yerushalayim (spiritual). If Mizrachi seeks to remain only a branch (of the general Zionist movement) it does injustice to itself; if it seeks to swallow the entire Zionist movement, it does injustice to the entire movement…the only path is that Mizrachi should ascend to a higher order, to that of “Jerusalem”, and the two forces must be strong: the worldly and the holy”. What this passage tells us, as indeed do all of Rav Kook’s writings concerning Degel Yerushalayim, is that Rav Kook sought to establish a movement of spiritual revival, as a counterpart to national revival. He neither opposed Zionism, nor Mizrachi. He sought to make a contribution on another plane. Whether this very quest is the reason for the failure of the cause is more that can be explored here.

Why is Rav Kook a Figurehead for Religious Zionism?

Nadler: Modern Orthodox Zionists revere Rav Kook, which handicaps those who are alarmed by the rapid political rise of the messianic zealotry of the Hardalim. Today’s Hardalim widely revere Rav Abraham Kook as the saintly rebbe of their ultra-Orthodox, hyper-nationalist messianic zeal.

My response: There are multiple fallacies here, but let me begin with the use of the adjective “messianic” as it has taken hold within present day Israeli discourse. “messianic” has replaced “extremist”, “fundamentalist”, “militant”, when it comes to religious Zionism. Regrettably, the categories used by Nadler the scholar are no more sophisticated than populist journalistic discourse and the currency of “messianic” as a derogatory label. One would have to accept a vision that considers forms of political militarism as a pre-condition for messianic developments to occur, in order for the use of this adjective to be appropriate. A small minority within the right wing religious world does uphold such a view. Its spiritual sources, however, are completely unrelated to Rav Kook, and are much closer to Rabbi Meir Kahana’s teachings. In fact, that latter plays a much more significant role in shaping right wing religious Zionist views than does Rav Kook, for the simple reason that he is rarely studied and even more rarely understood. While he is certainly a figurehead for the religious Zionist movement, he is, regrettably, not a major source of inspiration in a concrete and sustained way, because his writings are, on the whole, too hard to follow and are not broadly or extensively studied. My argument is that in fact a return to Rav Kook in the fullness of his personality and contribution is the antidote to many of the problems of religious Zionism. If only Rabbi A.I. Kook had been appreciated on his own terms, rather than serving as a point of projection for later ideologies, largely the work of his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda and his disciples, we would be seeing an entirely different religious Zionism.

Was Rav Kook a Hopelessly Confused and Self-Contradictory Mystic?

Nadler: Kook’s vision prevailed due in no small part to his reputation as a saintly mystic who knows the will of God, despite his vast body of writings consisting of his hopelessly unsystematic ruminations that have attracted even though his ideas came to him in heavenly flashes, which explains his literary oeuvre being notoriously self-contradictory, inspired as he was by the Hasidic mystical ideal of Ichud ha-Hafachim (the harmonization of opposites) as opposed to coherent, to say nothing of rational, thinking.

My response: one gets the distinct sense that Nadler is not a fan of mysticism; but nor is he a practitioner of rigorous academic analysis of his subject matter. That Rav Kook had an extraordinary reputation is undoubted. But it was a rich and multi-layered one. He was a foremost halakhist, leader by way of occupying the seat of the first Chief Rabbi of then Palestine, outstanding homilist, prolific commentator and scholar, a man of exceptional piety, loving capacity and ability to do good for others, and also a mystic. Why is his mysticism singled out as the only relevant factor?

Nadler makes the leap between mysticism and prophecy (knowing God’s will), a leap that is not actually substantiated in this way either in Rav Kooks’ own writings or in the multitude of writings of later generations. He is appealing because his person and his ideas are appealing, not because of special prophetic authority, ostensibly associated with his mysticism. I would venture that Nadler has read very little Rav Kook; otherwise he is blinded by some inexplicable animus against Rav Kook.

Most of his work does not come from heavenly flashes (though prophecy and inspiration are central to his view of the spiritual life) but from the same processes of study and rationalization that are the hallmark of the rabbinic culture, of which he is a paragon. Nadler’s portrayal of a confused mystic who is a political militant is not a caricature of Rav Kook; it is a caricature of scholarship, suggesting selective reliance on second hand reports, without ever having had more than cursory contact with Rav Kook’s own works (a broader syndrome of which Nadler partakes).

As to self contradictions, they are not the exclusive property of mystically inspired teachers. Consider Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whom Nadler likely admires. As I have discussed in my Covenant and World Religions: Irving Greenberg, Jonathan Sacks and the Quest for Orthodox Pluralism, Sacks’ thought is full of contractions. And if there is one thing we can say with certitude is that Sacks was no mystic. Contradiction, rather, is a function of what I term “contextual thinking”, responding to situations as they arise and draw forth a response.

With all this said there is little need to dwell on the irrelevant identification of Rav Kook’s vast oeuvre with one particular idea (union of opposites) that is by no way a hallmark or an exclusive feature of his teaching.

Rav Kook and Women’s Rights

Rav Kook was not a champion of women’s rights and was against universal suffrage. This point is perfectly correct. But what of it? Rav Kook was a man of his time and partook of discussions that were relevant to early 20th. The issue is not labelling him “liberal”. This is a wrong approach. Great figures of the past should not simply be put into boxes such as “liberal”, “fanatical”, “intolerant” etc. They must be appreciated against their time. The figures Nadler cites with appreciation fared no better in their day on this issue. Where Nadler’s argument is totally off the mark is in his citing a correct historical fact as a way of characterizing Rav Kook and thereby making him irrelevant. The argument would hold water if his followers today would adopt similar views and policies. They do not. Unequivocally. Being inspired by a figure of old does not mean buying wholesale into every position this figure held. It consists of recognizing greatness, identifying the keys to greatness and seeking to apply it under changed circumstances. These are the exercise one needs to engage in, rather than the “de-kookization” for which Nadler calls.

Did Rav Kook Espouse a Narrow Educational Agenda?

Rav Kook’s educational agenda is compared unfavorably with that of Rav Reines based on the curriculum of Yehivat Merkaz Harav. Here is the fallacy – Nadler, wrongly, assumes that the Yeshiva today (or ever) is at least a fairly reliable expression of Rav Kook’s views. He does not make allowance for the possible gap between Rav Kook’s views and what was implemented in an institution that bears his name. In other words, he makes no allowance for failure, which, alas, is often something that great individuals must cope with and that we must take into account when assessing their legacy. Sadly, there are multiple dimensions of failure or falling short of the ideal when it comes to appreciating Rav Kook. But an evaluation of Rav Kook himself must rely on his views, as expressed by himself. I believe that when Nadler reads the document in which Rav Kook presents the vision of his yeshiva, titled Harza’at Harav, intellectual honesty will prevail over and against his anti kookian animus.

Did Rav Kook Loathe Herzel?

In similar vein, I invite Nadler to read Rav Kook’s eulogy of Herzel, in which he applies to him the terminology of Messiah son of Joseph. I trust Nadler has sufficient integrity to retract the false representation of Rav Kook as someone who loathed Herzel.

Where do we go from here?

Debunking Nadler is a necessary but insufficient first step. Ultimately, the question of Rav Kook and his present-day legacy remains a pressing one. The path forward I see is one of proper, extensive and unbiased study of Rav Kook and his message. The gap between who Rav Kook was and his public perception (on a variety of issues, including his views of other faiths) is a tragic one. But it is correctable by study. This, however, is only a first step. The more pressing issue, raised by Tehila Friedman’s essay, is how we apply Rav Kook today. The answer is more complex that the solution she puts forward – adopting Rav Kook’s attitudes on a variety of issues. Rav Kook should be seen as a model, as someone who balanced multiple dimensions and multiple views within a harmonious worldview, grounded in love and drawing from a higher spiritual sense. To re-own Rav Kook is to return to the spiritual ground and to attempt its application within present-day circumstances, including political circumstances. There is plenty to draw from by way of precedent and specific teachings of Rav Kook. But more than anything, I believe, Rav Kook would want us to live, as much as possible, the very spiritual ground from which he drew. Our battle today is not simply a battle of ideas. It is an existential battle and will only be resolved, so my understanding of Rav Kook tells me, if our own spiritual-existential ground is transformed. For this, Rav Kook is a precursor and a model.

About the Author
Alon Goshen-Gottstein is the founder and director of the Elijah Interfaith Institute. He is acknowledged as one of the world’s leading figures in interreligious dialogue, specializing in bridging the theological and academic dimension with a variety of practical initiatives, especially involving world religious leadership.
Related Topics
Related Posts