Lecture #3: On the Jewish People - Letter 44, Section A
RAV KOOK’S
LETTERS
By Rav
*********************************************************
This week of Torah
learning at the Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash of Yeshivat Har Etzion is
being sponsored by Ronni & Nachum Katlowitz in honor of Ronni's mother's
birthday - Happy Birthday Mrs. Lucia Pasternak!
*********************************************************
Lecture #3:
On the Jewish People - Letter 44, Section A
In
this shiur, we will begin studying Letter 44. This is a long letter, with
many “heavy” topics, so I have divided it into sections. Our study will
accordingly be split up over many shiurim.
Through
this letter, we will be able to address several basic theological and
ideological elements of Rav Kook’s teachings, and we will thus expand on several
matters that will form the basis of further study.
Background
The letter’s
addressee
This
letter was written to R. Shmuel Alexandrov. R. Alexandrov was one of the more
unique of Rav Kook’s correspondents, and he does not fit neatly into one of the
categories of Rav Kook’s correspondents (leaders, regular rabbis, disciples,
etc.). R. Alexandrov was born in the same year as Rav Kook, 1865, and was
apparently murdered by the Germans when they arrived in his town of
This
brief description demonstrates R. Alexandrov’s complexity as well as his clear
similarity with Rav Kook in several ways – a similarity that was the source of
their relationship. R. Alexandrov saw Rav Kook as a kindred spirit and placed
great hopes in him. Their correspondence began in 1902, when Rav Kook was still
in Bausk, and continued for about ten years, during which R. Alexandrov asked
Rav Kook to help him clarify the profundity of philosophic and historiosophic
issues in Jewish thought, especially in their practical context. Only a few of
Rav Kook’s letters to him have been preserved, and they shed light on the
evolution of Rav Kook’s views on central contemplative issues during his first
fateful years in Eretz Yisrael. (According to the testimony of R. Zvi
Yehuda Kook in his introduction, Rav Kook’s earliest letters to R. Alexandrov
have been lost.)
R.
Alexandrov himself published his letters to Rav Kook (under the title
Mikhtevei Mechkar U-Vikoret), in which the views that Rav Kook discusses
in his letters may be discerned. Alexandrov raised radical views regarding the
essence of Judaism and the processes that it was undergoing, and Rav Kook’s
responses are therefore particularly interesting, as we will see in detail in
these shiurim.
The
letters that R. Alexandrov sent to Ahad Ha’am during that period are also very
important. Ahad Ha’am’s heresy seemed to R. Alexandrov, as it seemed to Rav Kook
(as he cryptically alludes), to be an expression of the positive aspects of
modern heresy, and he therefore felt particularly close to
him.
The date and
context of the letter
This
letter is dated 5667 – 1907. At that time, Rav Kook was rabbi of Yafo and the
surrounding communities, where he encountered all of the communal and
educational challenges that the new Yishuv had presented him with. The
immediate question that he and R. Alexandrov corresponded about was how
religious Judaism could practically address the spiritual and educational
challenges it faced, namely, enlightenment, heresy, and the new education. They
both believed that something must be done on the educational plane. They also
both felt that these issues could be engaged without resorting to polemic or
negation of the “enlightened” and secular positions. They further agreed that
the root of the practical response would be the rise of a new generation of
Torah scholars who would create a new type of Torah-oriented spirituality with
different horizons, a more exalted and relevant inner, contemplative world, and
that, to that end, the new Yishuv needed a suitable institution of higher
learning.
Their
dispute was about the nature of such an institution. R. Alexandrov thought that
something like a university should be established (a college for Judaism and
science, something akin to
From
this description of their disagreement, one might think that the issue was
purely pedagogical, a question of curriculum. This, however, is not the case. It
is clear that the debate about the education of Torah scholars was symptomatic
of an attitude toward education in general, and consequently to even more
fundamental issues such as the meaning of
We
will address each of the issues that emerge in the course of the letter itself,
and will, of course, point out the connections between them, which are never
arbitrary in the thought of Rav Kook.
I
have topically divided the letter into six sections:
a.
The
essence of the Jewish People; the meaning of
b.
Establishing
a rabbinical school that would include higher education; opposition; inward, not
external, education.
c.
The
difference between Jewish and gentile faith; the attitude of our faith to the
science and ethics of human origins.
d.
Historiosophy
of religion.
e.
Theology:
epistemology and ontology.
f.
The
attitude of the non-observant to tradition and Torah; the supremacy of
philosophy.
Over
the next two weeks, we will deal with Section A.
Thoughts
before reading
The
first section touches on one of the central question of Rav Kook’s thought and,
in essence, of modern Jewish philosophy as a whole. In order to better
understand the general background of the discussion, we will preface it with
several points.
Early
rabbinic and medieval Jewish thought generally perceived the confrontation
between Judaism and other cultures as a confrontation between truth and
falsehood, good and evil. The significance of
The
exception to this rule is the encounter between Judaism and Greco-Arabic
philosophy, as reflected in the works of great Jewish sages like R. Sa’adia
Ga’on and the Rambam. These giants saw philosophy as the achievement of human
understanding and human understanding as a medium for revealing the truth and
the Divine truth in its totality. Consequently, they faced the following
question: what special significance do the revelation to Israel and the
resulting chosenness of Israel have? During the medieval era, this question was
not linked to the question of national identity or social processes; exilic
Jewish existence was segregated and apart from the surrounding nations, and the
primary encounter was with the best of philosophical literature, not with
culture, which was considered low and misguided.
This
issue of the relationship between the Jewish truth and the truth of general
philosophy or culture became sharper in the modern era, especially in the
nineteenth century, due to several factors:
-
The
rapid advancement of scientific discovery and the consequent technological
success.
-
The
great works of European thought, some of which had decisive cultural impact and
whose dissemination was rapid and effective thanks to methods of printing and
transportation.
-
The
sense that
-
The
social and political opportunities that were opened to Jews, namely, the
Emancipation and all it entailed, which allowed Jews to believe that they could
be part of that culture.
The
question of
In
addition to this intellectual-cultural perspective, the ideological context
questioned the idea of
These
are the main reasons for the fact that nineteenth century Jewish thought in
Central and Western Europe dealt almost obsessively with attempts to redefine
the idea of
Moses
Mendelssohn, in his Jerusalem, had already claimed that Revelation as a
particularistic phenomenon (directed at Israel alone) was not intended to
transmit metaphysical or moral truths, since those are the fruit of
contemplation and thus, by definition, universal. The unique dimension of the
Revelation to
At
the end of the nineteenth century, with the success of the Zionist idea, this
question arose once again. Zionism is, of course, a repudiation of the Jewish
Enlightenment as a historical-political program, but its attitude toward the
question of
The
Chareidi ideology completely repudiated the Enlightenment, of course, and
sometimes Zionism as well, and therefore could maintain the classic position on
Rav
Kook faced this question in a most penetrating manner. On the one hand, he was
linked to Zionism; on the other hand, he also saw European culture and
Enlightenment as positive foundations for cultural elevation and advancement.
Finally, of course, he was completely bound up in the traditional sources of
Judaism, from the Tanakh through Chazal and philosophy, and
including Kabbala. He was therefore unwilling and unable to view
Rav
Kook’s nationalist outlook, which we will address in the next section of Letter
44, emerged from within this matrix of historical and spiritual
forces.
You are now
welcome to read the letter. Please
also relate to the explanations in the
footnotes.
Letter #44 –
Section A
By the grace of God,
the holy city of
To my friend, the
great rabbi, the wise and exalted, our teacher, the R. Shmuel Alexandrov, may
his light shine. Peace and
blessing.
Your letters reached
me a while ago and I wanted very much to reply, out of respect to you and
because of the benefit to be derived thereof, but I have been caught in a web of
constant concerns, and since I wished to respond at length, and with adequate
clarity, a task which requires free time, I delayed. When, however, I saw there was no end to
the matter, and already owing a second reply, I decided to wait no longer. I will write quickly, as much as I am
able, [answering] each of your letters in order. Even though I will have to be very
brief, I hope it will suffice for one as wise as you.
A. I must begin with
an introduction explaining the difference between those standing within the
interior of the Divine light – the light of all of mankind, revealing itself in
the light of Israel – and those whose ankles have tottered a bit, and who,
unstable and ready to fall, need strengthening, healing, and assistance to
support them,[1]
in order that we be able to enter the portal of the house of Israel with all our
being "to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to visit his Temple," and all evil
spirits that seek to draw us out of the bounds of the holiness of God, blessed
be He, who grants holiness to Israel, will thereby be driven away from
us.
The true quality of
the Jew, embedded in the recesses of the Hebrew soul, is the blessing of Avraham
our father, may he rest in peace, attested to by the biblical verse, "the seed
of Avraham, my beloved."[2] The essence of
Jewish life is contained only in the love of God – a love for his blessed name
as designated particularly in the name "the Lord, God of Israel."[3] All other conditions of life, be they
many and broad, detailed or general, are only effects or supplements of this
foundation of authentic life. This
is our most important characteristic, which prevailed within us, in the first
dewy days of our childhood,[4] and which
accompanies us forever. Although
[our love for God] is concealed at times, it is exactly for this reason that it
will again be revealed with greater intensity. This is the rule for any great and
powerful force subjected for a long period to an obstructive counterforce: when
it prevails, it does so with thunder and great strength, with an explosion and
torrent. This characteristic has
not changed and will not change.[5] The procession of life and its external
forms change at times, but not the inner content. "I remember in your favor the devotion
of your youth, your love as a bride, when you went after me in the wilderness,
in a land that was not sown."[6] This memory stays and endures forever:
"God is not man, that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should
repent."[7]
This is our
established and everlasting quality, needing no research or philosophy, nor any
preservative in the world, for its maintenance or existence. We broaden our
knowledge and awareness and make them more sophisticated, in order to give wider
space for this divine essential characteristic to expand and reveal itself more
fully. By means of its external revelations – which are not at all similar to
and are of a lesser degree than the essence of strength and clarity and the
inner quality of the love of the Lord God of Israel hidden within us – it is
this very quality of their weakness and dimness which allows us at times to
rationally verbalize them and through them to participate with those exceptional
individuals who remain[8]
in the community of mankind.[9]
Even
though there can be men of God within any nation or tongue, it is nevertheless
inevitable that every person, from whichever nation he may be, will contain
within himself completely from the framework of a nation which has already
established its own particular qualities, by the mere fact of appearing at its
inception on the rostrum of nations. [10]
The Jewish spark
within us is, therefore, truly all our strength and joy, all our spiritual
wealth and the essence of our being. All other spiritual possessions [e.g.
righteousness, kindness, Torah, mitzvot] are subordinate to [the Jewish
spark as manifest in the love of God] and serve it. Even if [the spiritual possessions] seem
to be of greater quantity than [the Jewish spark], they are null and void when
compared to it terms of its essence and quality, just as all our material wealth
– silver and gold, houses and palaces, the power and delights of kings – are
subordinate to life's essence as revealed in the inner center of our lives,
whether it is the center of our brains or anywhere else it may be according to
any of the views of biologists.
[11]
This is felt strongly
and with all the soul's might by anyone who wants to be a true son of
This inner
characteristic can be maintained in its strength and purity only by that healthy
guidance and nature necessary for its preservation. It therefore powerfully
encompasses an immense and wonderful hot burning love for all the practical
mitzvot in the written and oral Torah, mitzvot that are
well-rooted in inner love, since this is their source: "From His right hand went
a fiery law to them."
[15]Wisdom and
evaluation, pure philosophical research, refine and cleanse the ideas and
conceptions of their ethical and intellectual impurities and set them on [the
course of] their true nature, pure and healthy at its source. Therefore, a
spiritual fundamental idea which will restore the fallen Tabernacle of David can
never be constructed and established without these two interconnected
conditions: [first], the heart's perfect love of the commandments of the Torah
in its love for the Lord God of Israel, [who is] bound to them [the
commandments] according to feelings, and [second], the foundation of life on the
essence of the Divine nature implanted in us in eternal love. Anything which seems to contradict these
elements, [16]be it intellectual or
practical, be it in the life of the individual or in the life of the community,
may the most high hand of God, sent "from the clefts of the rock, in the secret
places of the cliff,”[17]
forever prevail through the strength of the [main] point of our life, to resolve
and ameliorate them in a way that will not only result in no diminution or
weakening of the knowledge of life, through this seemingly contradictory
encounter, but will even bring it [life's point] vigor through the triumph of
truth by means of its overpowering [the seemingly contradictory theories] and
which will actually come to light in the life of man and the nation, and spread
through the life of all mankind.
[1] This
convoluted sentence is not arbitrary. Rav Kook formulates here, in passing, the
proper psychological and intellectual attitude that is becoming of a Jew. The
distinction here is dichotomous, and the intent of the dichotomy is to generate
a definition. The best state is the state of those whose main nourishment is
from Jewish sources and methods, “the light of Israel” – which is not perceived
here to be a limited circle of opinions and actions but the best of the light of
humanity, revealed especially through internal Jewish creativity, literature,
and even emotion. The problematic state is that of those who seek their
spiritual nourishment outside, whose spiritual identity is prone to fall since
they have lost their rootedness in
[2] “And you,
The sentence “The true quality of the Jew [i.e., love of God]… is the
blessing of Avraham our father” is also very precise. On the verse “And God
blessed Avraham with everything [ba-kol],” Chazal offered the
following interpretation in Bereishit Rabba: “Avraham had a daughter
whose name was Bakol.” The kabbalists explained that “Bakol” is the Jewish
People, which is the Divine sefira of malkhut (Kingship), known as
a “daughter”. In other words: the attribute of love is infused into the
sefira of malkhut, of which the Jewish People is the metaphysical
embodiment. Avraham Avinu, the first to love God, thus bequeathed his offspring
– the nation of
[3] Rav Kook is not speaking here of belief as a matter of knowledge or
consciousness, but rather of love, which is a psychological-personal
relationship. Love of God is not universal religiosity, but the unique
expression of the Jewish People. The difference is in name as well, since the
Name of the God of Israel is the Tetragrammaton and reserved for
[4] This
also refers to Avraham, as stated above, and also to the beginning of
[5] This is
one of Rav Kook’s most important determinations: The principle of development
that applies to all of nature and culture does not
apply to
[6]
Yirmiyahu 2:2. See
above, n. 4. This is his intent: Love – of which the chosenness of
[7] The prophecy of Bilam, Bamidbar 23:19. The meaning is: God’s memory is eternal – it expresses essence – and therefore if God remembers this love as a bride, it means that it is embedded as a feature of the Jewish People.
[8] This is an allusion to the prophecy of Yoel (3): “Among the remnants that God calls,” namely, the individuals who call in God’s Name. Nevertheless, the simple meaning there is that it refers to Israel, and Rav Kook himself understood it that way elsewhere.
[9] This refers specifically to gentile religious
philosophy, and more generally to the value of the Enlightenment as a “foreign
import.” Alexandrov was greatly influenced by the German philosopher Friedrich
W. J. Schelling and the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, who were both
also linked to Kabbala. He even wrote to Rav Kook that the latter’s own
views were essentially Platonic (referring mainly to Rav Kook’s theological
meditations in his work Ikvei Ha-Tzon). Rav Kook responded that the
attribute of love of God – which is part of
[10] Personality is comprised of several spheres: the personal-individual sphere, the national sphere, the human sphere, and the natural sphere. These spheres nourish one another, and just as a person cannot create a work or express an idea that is not human, so, too, he his unable to create anything disconnected from the national sphere to which he belongs. National identity is something innate, not chosen, and it is even reflected in the works of the most outstanding individuals. This idea is based in Kabbala and is well-suited to the mainstream of European Romanticism that was then flourishing and that highlighted the unique-particularistic aspects of the various national cultures and saw them as facts of nature. Thus, the impression that we are expressing similar views when speaking of faith or love of God is the result of shared language (a superficial factor) and not of shared essence (an internal factor).
[11] Rav Kook avoids getting into the physiological problem of the center of personality and contents himself with “to each according to what he believes.”
[12] This refers to the ideological or metaphysical constructs of Ahad Ha’am or Gordon, for example, who attempted to define the essence of Israel with all sorts of definitions that they drew from general literature (“the Hegelian spirit,” “Tolstoyan nature,” and the like), and which are the result of failing to absorb the essence of Israel from its foundations, from those who bear it.
[13] This is an important tangential note. Rav Kook’s writings on proponents
of Jewish Enlightenment and secular Zionists are sometimes interpreted as though
he has some kind of mystical belief in a Jewish spark that will be revealed and
ultimately be victorious regardless and irrespective of the practical and
ideological path of the specific Jew. It is true that Rav Kook believed this on
the national level, and we will yet address this, but this is a mistake on the
personal level. In his opinion, heresy and abandonment of Judaism are tolerable,
and there is hope that they will be repaired, only if a strong and firm Jewish
foundation underlies them, that is, only if that person has a strong national
connection and faith in the importance and uniqueness of
[14] Mishlei
18:10. The
emphasis here is on God’s Name specifically, in the sense of
[15] “The Lord came from Sinai and arose to them from Se’ir, appeared from
Mount Paran and came forth from the holy myriads, from His right hand went a
fiery law to them” (Devarim 34:2). God’s revelation to
Several years later, the great Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig would
write in his Star of Redemption that the mitzva of loving God is the
major principle, and essentially the “only mitzva” – and that everything else is
its extension and expression. Everything reduces to one thing; the root of
Judaism is love, not just faith, and love is revealed and reinforced through
action. We have attributed this principle to both Rav Kook and Rosenzweig,
despite the differences between them.
R. Alexandrov believed that the main problem of Jewish identity in our generation is beliefs and opinions (we will expand on his comprehensive view of mitzvot in a lecture on a different letter), and here Rav Kook opposes this understanding of the problem.
[16] The raising
of this
problem is connected with one of the fundamental issues that Rav Kook and R.
Alexandrov discussed. As will soon become clear in the body of the letter,
Alexandrov believed that Judaism’s main problem was the challenge of global
Enlightenments, which was also its weak point vis-א-vis internal proponents of
Enlightenment. Response to this could only come, in his opinion, in the form of
philosophical efforts, and first of all with real familiarity with general
philosophical literature and continuing with attempts at
synthesis.
The problem is that in his earlier statement that commonalities with
general philosophy are only superficial and his advice to draw on the internal
and not external sources of spirituality, Rav Kook seems not to provide any
tools for dealing with the emerging contradictions between scientific or
philosophical conclusions and the fundamentals of our thought, and not even the
tools to resolve conflict on the practical level, such as potential conflicts
between adherence and dedication to keeping the Torah as it is and the renascent
historical and sociopolitical reality.
In fact, however, Rav Kook rejects the problem and expresses faith that by focusing on those powers that lie within the Jewish essence, everything that appears as a contradiction will not only be shown to be non-threatening to our worldview, but even serve as a source of internal clarification that will result in the truth prevailing and emerging victorious, i.e. raising our worldview to a higher and stronger point than existed prior to the contradiction and conflict. From this, the nation’s self-confidence will also be enhanced through its own sources. Dealing with Enlightenment in the manner that R. Alexandrov proposes and as many Jewish proponents of Enlightenment have done and continue to do even today causes, according to Rav Kook, loss of faith in our truth and gives Enlightenment more space than it deserves, ultimately causing more harm than good.
[17] Based on Shir Ha-shirim 2:14. In connection with this quote, note
the statement by the Zohar (84b): “’My dove in the clefts of the rock, in
the secret places of the cliff’ – ‘my dove’ – this refers to the Jewish People;
‘in the clefts of the rock’ – this is