Herzog’s column

I read the column too and I was almost laughing out loud the whole time about how an avowed anti-frum leftist has somehow come to the same conclusions that the frum oilon had been saying since the 1920s.

Avowed anti frum leftist?

I don’t think you have the right guy

R Twesky Z’L brings a story that he heard from his father that seems relevant to all group-based judgments:
a Chasidishe Rebbe was visiting Berlin. He prepared a grande kiddush, prefacing it with this speech: one really needs to make kiddush in Berlin. Kiddush is testimony, and you need testimony where there is a sofek. In our shtetl, there is no sofek, but here in Berlin, there is – and it is great to make a kiddush here!

Then, he suddenly stumbled in his speech, sat down and was quiet for several minutes. Then, he got up and finally made kiddush.

He then explained: I was ready to make kiddush but suddenly lost it. I realized that because I said inappropriate things about Jews of Berlin, my connection to Hashem got severed. So, I spent several minutes and resolved not to talk like that again, and got back the ability to day kiddush.

Dear Avira,

It’s very simple. You have not read much of the Religious Zionists. This was the core debate about Religionin Zionism. Your on the record here about knowing very little about Zionism besides for confusing it with Jewish Nationalism.

You no nothing about Rav Kook’s understanding of anything. Not how he understood Torah, it’s people, or their destiny.

This is not personal. And it’s not a debate. You just have no clue.

Here is the history. Rav Kook was a giant of giants. Not necessarily the biggest Marbitz Torah, but a man who lived up to every Jewish ideal. He personified every aspect of Torah. Seeing him, was seeing a real yid. The fact of his life led him to reach out ‘ve every segment of Jews. This brought about a lot of bizarre results. He misunderstood a lot of the problems facing the Jews living in Arab lands. His outreach to German Jews missed the target completely. He could not get his message across in America. But these were all minor issues. Basically, the local leaders felt he was unhelpful. It should be noted, that when he was asked to not get involved, he didn’t. Except for one topic. He was right on the mark with the antireligious. He knew what their issues had been in Europe and what really motivated them to invest themselves in Israel. He became the religious leader of the antireligious. Which is the dream of every gadol in kiruv today.

Traditional Jews all over the world were not pleased with this development. They say a struggle for the life of Judaism. Those who personally knew Rav Kook tried to debate with him. He was not that kind of leader. Not a debater. Not a politician. Not a care for his ego. He took all kinds of abuse as if he deserved it. His detractors write, that they would yell at him and he would say “of course your right.” As the new Zionists came in the second wave, he would take the blame for them doing whatever they wanted. Even when they gave him all kinds of guarantees to uphold the yishuv hayashan, he would personally take the blame.

So, nothing happened. The traditional leaders continued in the struggle to uphold their flock. There was nothing they could do. The amount of new oilim was drowning out their clout. Remember, that a large amount of European Jews were no longer Shomer Torah. The struggle was taking over everything. And money sent from Europe and America was crucial for the survival of the people. Yet, the frum leaders in Israel refused to denounce Rav Kook. He was That much of a tzaddik to them. Even though lives were at stake, they carefully worded letters to the diaspora, to only send money through reliable methods.

When the controversy spilled to the other continents, every Rav who knew him personally was very careful with his honor. [One exception.] Those that never really knew him, specifically those who were on the receiving end of his failed outreach were aghast. They completely misunderstood the person and his goals. Rav Kook never responded to the personal attacks. Except to remind those close to him, that these were Rabbonim and their honor is very important for klal yisroel. With regards to the controversy itself, he would say let all the ‘Torah Scholars lead the Torah People. Leave the irreligious to me.’

Rav Kook did not have a concrete vision of a State or any kind of Zionist enterprise. He strived to fit everything he saw as a constructive purpose of Hashem’s World. He had little need for communal struggle. What could be Hashem’s Purpose in that?

In sum, Rav Kook entirely understood a nation as a nation only through Torah. And he understood the depth and breadth of Torah more than all of his very, very, very, great peers. There is nothing in any of his writings about replacing the Torah chas lmaymar. All though he worried about all Jews, especially the few remaining fully observant communities, he found that they all had competent leadership and he was either not needed or unwanted. Only the agricultural communists were completely bereft of a Torah Leader. He was talking to them. His own talmidim were not planting on shemitta. The rest of his following was not keeping anything for themselves anyways.

The main point is, that anyone who really studies Rav Kook’s writings, has no need for Zionism. It’s all about Hashem. The modern day anti Zionist camp is putting together a philosophical world view, and they reverse a few points and put the words in the mouths of the early Religious Zionists. They are the ones who suffer from a lack of identity. They do not identify with the majority of Jews. Not today. And not throughout history. They do not feel their pain or see their losses. They do not realize the dilemma. All they care about is being right in a public demonstration. And the last thing they ever care about, is how the Torah thinks about these issues.

Dear Avira,

I don’t care what you or anyone think they should believe about Zionism or anything else. Personal business. And this is not a personal conversation. This is an historical discussion.

Rav Kook was not a philosopher. He was not systemic thinker. You posted about ion and philosophy in the past. This is how I knew you had no clue about him. His outlook is in the form of describing historical events. Not explaining the directives. Something like Carlebach teaching through stories. All the nationalistic essays of George Orwell would be incomprehensible to him. He was writing about the nationalistic fever that he was witnessing. I have no idea how you could confuse this. Unless you have no background in philosophy.

He was not the father of anything. He was more detached than Herzl. Almost no following. Wandered around between cities and continents.

“One who…” I meant those who try to understand the depth of his messaging are not Zionistic about the State. Their realistic.

If you need a direct quote, Your messing up your argument. Rav Reinnes is a great example of Torah talking absolute precedence over Zionism. And if was actually part of the Mizrachi Movement. Unlike Rav Kook.

“Beautiful…” Thanks! It would be great to write another hesped on a less controversial gadol.

I wasn’t trying to negate your critique, as much as I was trying to demonstrate that the controversy was about supporting the irreligious. Not what the approach of the Torah True should be to their own tasks. Nobody then was telling boys to leave yeshiva and in work for the betterment of secular society. Unlike today. By the frummest of the frum also.

Rav Shachter was discussing the halachic allowance of the State to fight wars, even though Jews will die. Maybe I have the wrong quote.

Melamed is discussing an issue of statehood. How should they accept the non religious as citizens? You could say they shouldn’t. But then there will be more assimilation in the diaspora.

Then we disagree with him. As would almost all religious Jews. What do you think Herzog’s opinion is?

“He [Herzog] quotes the famous teaching of rav saadya gaon that klal yisroel is a nation only by virtue of the Torah – this is the first time I’ve seen a zionist, religious or secular, mention it. ”

There were [and still are] many religious Zionists going back to the late 19th century who expressed similar perspectives but added a duality of needing to provide an economic and national security framework wherein those dedicated to limud torah could coexist with a secular population. In those days it wasn’t as much of a binary choice between secular and frum.

Avira > Dovid hamelech fought for Hashem. Zionists fight against Him

Ok, this makes sense. But before you were assigning guilt by association: chilonim are wrong, thus R Kook is wrong by associatign with them; Reformim are wrong, thus oilam does not need tikkun, etc, etc. The problem with this approach is that it takes you on a subjective route – you can easily accuse anyone you don’t like by association: MO are associated with Bible criticism; scientists with college parties; baalei tzedoka with communism; baalei batim with heartless capitalism; anti-zionists with anti-semites; Torah scholars with Nazarenes; etc, etc. You can choose any of the above just based on your own biases: some choose part of that list; others – the other part and none will be wiser.

“What i find ridiculous, is that frum people have become so enamored with the presence of non frum jews that some think it’s still within the parameters of “jew”. ”

They are. Get over it.

“Some think “well, if we didn’t have the Torah, we’d be like Israelis..” that’s because the zionists have succeeded in supplanting the definition of a jew with that of a nation-state.”

I disagree. There were Jews before the Zionists who were already identifying as Jews without any religion.

Avira, you are right that Zionists have their Jewishness at the center of their agenda, while other non-religious Jews did not. Still, many Bundists, Socialists considered themselves Jewish. Also, even many German Jews who converted did this out of convenience and felt some affinity to Jews and often married other Jewish converts. From Henrich Heine to Fritz Haber, they experienced their Jewish affinity at times of trouble.