First I sent the author a note via the Contact page of TorahJews.org.
I don’t recall exactly what I wrote, but I briefly offered Rabbi Yirmiyahu Cohen a chance to respond to my critical article on his book here [copied in below].
I read your post responding to my book “I Will Await Him” and the Rav Kook quote, and I think you may have misunderstood the point. There is no disputing that Jews even during exile (i.e. living within another country, whether it be Babylonia in the Gemara’s time, or the Yishuv in Mandate Palestine in Rav Kook’s time) need protection, and that if the government does not provide it, Jews are obligated to defend themselves as stated in Orach Chaim 329. And once a Jewish state is established, according to those who permit it (Rav Kook among them), that state like any state in the world needs to have an army.
But the key point is whether the establishment of the state itself takes place through a war, or by a peaceful transfer of power. Throughout my book, I make the case that no posek prior to 1948 ever permitted a state to be established through warfare, because that violates the oaths. The quote proves that Rav Kook looked forward only to a peacefully founded state, and would not have permitted what actually ended up happening, had he lived to see it.
(Of course there were some who argued post facto that the War of Independence was purely defensive, because the state had been established by peaceful transfer of power the day before. I don’t think that argument has any merit and I encourage you to read my book where I deal with it extensively.)
Had the state been established peacefully, of course Rav Kook (and all those who permit such a state) would agree that an army is necessary for the future.
I understand that my language “there shouldn’t be an army” may have been confusing. What I meant was that as it actually turned out, the state was established through the War of Independence and so it is considered a violation of the oaths; that violation is ongoing as long as the state exists and so its army – insofar as the army’s goal is to protect the state – is forbidden. The status of the army in cases where its goal is solely to protect Jewish lives, such as in the current operation against Hamas, is different.
I didn’t see a way to respond directly to your post, but feel free to post this as my response, if you wish. By the way, for your Hebrew readers, my book is now available in Hebrew as well.
Before I responded on Sunday, I did see your article stating that התעמלות is a code word for armed defense. Now I have read the marei mekomos to back this up. Interesting that Rav Kook maintained this self-censorship even during the debate with the Gerrer Rebbe, pointing to the Rambam that exercise is good for your health.
In any case, I don’t see how this disproves my argument. Yes, I agree that Rav Kook was in favor of the illegal Haganah. And yes, in the state he looked forward to he knew there would need to be defense. But there was a crucial moment in time (May 1948 through January 1949) where the non-state Yishuv became a state. That moment had to be peaceful to be permitted under the oaths.
Unless you’re claiming that not just the word התעמלות but all of Rav Kook’s words איך לזכות לזה ע”פ דרכה של תורה באהבה ושלום, שלא לעלות בחומה ולא למרוד באוה”ע are part of the censorship, i.e. he really held of establishing a state through war (perhaps revolt against the British, or perhaps against the Arabs as actually happened), but didn’t want to write that openly lest someone accuse him of anti-government activities, so he wrote the exact opposite!
I think there is a big difference between a rav or posek using an innocuous-sounding code word, and a rav or posek stating the opposite of his true opinion. If we are to suppose that poskim can write one thing and mean its inverse, then how are we to know that anyone, even the Satmar Rebbe for that matter, was against Zionism? Maybe they were all talking in “code”…
Hyehudi Editor:
Dear Rabbi Yirmiyahu Cohen,
I hope his honor is well. Thanks for writing to the issue at hand (after my pressure, but still)!
You wrote a sefer while I’m just a blogger, but thanks to your stiff neck I went and did your homework for you.
In the language that follows I won’t assume you are a Torah scholar worthy of added respect; please correct me if I’m wrong.
Let’s start with the conclusion: Since the author didn’t bother examining the source or logic of Rabbi Kook’s words in a shocking section sure to raise eyebrows, it’s safe to assume sources and arguments of lesser contention got even shorter shrift.
Unlike what you wrote, there is no commentary called “Olas Re’iyah” on the Siddur. It’s a commercial compilation, and it here borrows from Rabbi Kook’s “Ein Aya” on Berachos.
I’ll bet Rabbi Cohen was handed the source by someone else, and didn’t bother verifying even the secondary source. Bad idea. (Example: if one finds the Mishneh Lamelech for a chaburah by way of the Yad Malachi one needn’t credit Yad Malachi. But one must study the Mishneh Lamelech before giving it over.)
Fact is, “I Will Await Him” accidentally cut off the relevant (!) ending and beginning in both the translation and the footnote. Go ahead, read for yourself.
Worse still, Ein Aya was written on the Ein Yaakov. Therefore, R’ Kook’s quote, even if taken literally, can safely be categorized under Aggada. Even beyond Aggada, there are many ways many Achronim have taken the Shalosh Shevuos not practically (“I Will Await Him” page 251 begins mentioning just one of these). “I Will Await Him” calls R’ Kook a “posek”, but this wasn’t him wearing his “posek hat” indulging in “metaphor” (similar to how Rashi was a Rishon, yet still some argue his work on Shas was mostly בדרך פירוש), aderabba! I strongly recommend reading this where I explain further.
So, devising a halachic argument from R’ Kook’s writing not from shut Mishpat Kohen is baseless (and there is possible counter-proof from R’ Kook’s halachic writing, see below). The maximum one can say with confidence is that the rabbi preferred and prayed for peaceful means (not that such evidence is much needed).
[While the email exchange employs the misleading phrasing of “looked forward” it also includes talk of “posek\poskim”, and “would not have permitted”.]
Judging by what we have so far, “I Will Await Him” is a slapdash hack job, par for the anti-Zionist genre.
Now, about occasional rabbinic artfulness. I think this is worth some length, if only for others’ sake.
Isn’t it curious how Rishonim under Cursedian rule attack Mohamedanism in sharper language than they attack Cursedianity, while Rishonim under Mohamedan rule do the reverse? A Machlokes Rishonim?
Indeed, the anti-Zionist lists of Torah authorities taking their position on TorahJews.org here (I know Rabbi Cohen is affiliated in some way), even when not dishonest [as, for example, mentioning inflated rabbis, or quoting ancient rabbis speaking long before Hashem showed us His face (even ואתם הרי ישראל), like the Ohr Hachaim and Rabbi Hirsch, and\or adding nothing, quoting the Satmar Rebbe’s family or Chassidim, or omitting later changes of opinion], must still be taken with a degree of suspicion.
And no, the test lies not in the length of the quote. Here I copy a lengthy section from Rabenu Yona on Avos 2:4 in full:
הוו זהירין ברשות. כלומר להתרחק מן המלכות שלסוף מורידין את האדם מנכסיו, שאין מקרבין לאדם אלא לצורך עצמם. דבר מלך איננו רק לחקור בני אדם ואין חקר למחשבותיו ומי ירד לסוף דעתו. נראין כאוהבים בשעת הנאתן. מדברים רכות ומראין פנים של אהבה בזמן שמכירין ריוח בדבר. ואין עומדים לו לאדם בשעת דחקו. בהעצר אליהם יד הממון אף כי מחמת הדחק, לא ירחמו על העני עד יורידוהו לטמיון וישכחו הראשונות כי הכל חלף עבר, כך הוא פשט המשנה הזאת.
ואם הדבר כן הוא, מדברת בפגם המלכים, וחלילה חלילה לא יהיה הדבר ולא יקום ועל ידם מתקיים העולם כולו והם עושים דין ומשפט ואין איש בארץ שיוכל להיות אמתי כמותם שאינם צריכים להחניף הבריות כי אינם מתפחדים ואין דבר מונע אותם מלכת בדרך ישרה. על כן נראה לפרש לומר כי המלכים גם אהבתם גם שנאתם לא בידם הוא, וכאשר המלך צריך אל האיש ומקרב אותו ומראה לו אהבה בשעת הנאתו, מאת יי’ יצא הדבר ולא מאת המלך וה’ זימן לאיש להנאות למלך. וכי יחטא איש לה’ ואשם ורצה לרחקו ומי יכול לעמוד לו ואף כי יחפוץ המלך לעשות לו יקר ואין בידו אך לנקום נקמת ה’ וליסר את אשר יאהב ה’ להוכיח. וזהו שנאמר (משלי כ”א א’), “פלגי מים לב מלך ביד ה'”. ר”ל כמו שהפלג אדם מטהו לכל צד שירצה כן לב המלך ביד ה’ “על כל אשר יחפוץ יטנו”, לאיש אשר הוא חפץ ביקרו, “ומשלם לשונאיו על פניו להאבידו” (דברים ז’ י’). ואמר, “לב מלך ביד ה'” ולא דבר על שאר אנשים ואם כל הלבבות ביד ה’ מפני שאף על פי שחושב מחשבות ובידו יכולת לעשות לפי הנראה בעיניו, אך האמת אין כח בידו להרע ולא להטיב, כי אם לפי דבר אלקים חיים ומלך עולמים.
Long enough?
Now, while Rabenu Yonah keeps saying true things, it is equally clear his mussar about bitachon is not the genuine peshat of this Mishna at all. Still, he needed to write it anyway (like Rabbi Sonnenfeld bravely rewriting Arab history to reduce Jew-hatred), as he speaks straight to hostile readers: ואם הדבר כ”ה מדברת בפגם המלכים, וחלילה חלילה לא יהיה הדבר ולא יקום ועל ידם מתקיים העולם כולו והם עושים דין ומשפט ואין איש בארץ שיוכל להיות אמתי כמותם…
Even the proper expression respecting State authority, “Yarum hodo” may serve as a double entendre in several ways to those who know Hebrew, especially rabbinic Hebrew. And there are many more examples of rabbis speaking in a concealed manner (some inexcusable).
Hello, if we don’t read with wisdom, we risk more than just the matter at hand! (I fear giving more examples, lest I hand the gullible even more weapons.)
The same TorahJews.org also understands Rabbi Sonnenfeld quoting the Three Oaths in various forums regarding the Kosel and the Mikdash as no less in earnest. Likewise when Rabbi Sonnenfeld writes supporting allowing idol worship in the Holy Land (maybe he never learned about the obligation to utterly wipe out Avoda Zara from Eretz Yisrael)… Not sure how to characterize Rabbi Sonnenfeld, but I do think there’s far more nuance than his ostensible students admit (similar to R’ Kook, the Chazon Ish, and others). But I’m not a hack, so this requires prior investigation on my part.
Now, imagine someone coerced into writing something that doesn’t reflect his true beliefs. Surely the best is to insert deliberately subversive language to provide indication of such while providing plausible deniability. Well, that’s what we find here.
While I believe you misinterpret the connotation of the passuk “Lo bechayil” (same as you mistook the words comprising the very title, “I Will Await Him“. And the same for Natruna’s “Efes Biltecha Goalenu“), I am curious how to interpret R’ Kook’s insertion”even physical…” And isn’t the repetition of “Barzel” as a theme word meaningful, especially for the period?
You can’t have read the next passuk R’ Kook brings, the one linking strength and peace due to your careless work, as I have already shown, so I can’t request to clarify that one (but I doubt it would enlighten us anyway, due to the “transition” notion).
Or do you simply view false statements made for the Reshus to be nonetheless valid?
To fully grasp how far off you have gone, let’s reread the two pages from “I Will Await Him”. One of the (fictional) students in the book, “Yossi”, is a fish dying by the paw of the fox: “Wow. I have got to show this to my friends who are always talking about Rav Kook.”
So, even though the author likely never read many of R’ Kook’s words on any topic, you are bluffing there is a good chance you know better than all those devoted dupes “who are always talking about Rav Kook“. And all based on one single thing he wrote. (I, too, agree some of his students tend to assume the son’s stature and opinions match Rabbi Kook’s and “idolize” both. But I’m only talking about some of the National Religious camp.)
“I Will Await Him” sounds like the people housed in the insane asylum: “Why are we here? We’re normal, but you’re in the majority”.
What a crank!
Quoting your first email:
There is no disputing that Jews even during exile (i.e. living within another country, whether it be Babylonia in the Gemara’s time, or the Yishuv in Mandate Palestine in Rav Kook’s time) need protection, and that if the government does not provide it, Jews are obligated to defend themselves as stated in Orach Chaim 329. And once a Jewish state is established, according to those who permit it (Rav Kook among them), that state like any state in the world needs to have an army.
But the key point is whether the establishment of the state itself takes place through a war, or by a peaceful transfer of power. Throughout my book, I make the case that no posek prior to 1948 ever permitted a state to be established through warfare, because that violates the oaths. The quote proves that Rav Kook looked forward only to a peacefully founded state, and would not have permitted what actually ended up happening, had he lived to see it.
So, “I Will Await Him” claims Jews fighting the War of 5708 were in violation of the Three Oaths (moreso, that this was rabbinic consensus). Even without buying it, I imagine one can at least try and present an array of rabbis seeming to endorse the Three Oaths (up until Hashem released them to speak their minds). And then locate fewer rabbis of the same view right afterward, when somewhat freed from “עול מלכיות”! Wow, what are the odds of that?!
Not only do I disagree with your giving halachic significance to the transition from Yishuv to State, I think my understanding is the default. Rabbi Kook himself disagrees with the “transition” nonsense his honor sought to put in his mouth. And what better “sugya beduchta” location for informing us R’ Kook seriously accepted the Shalosh Shevuos than that?! [Disclaimer: I haven’t managed yet to view this in the full context.]
What moment of “transferring power”?! The land was already ours by Torah law but also recognized as such in San Remo on Vav Iyar 5680 (negating or reversing the Shalosh Shevuos if need be), and the Mandate (officially just caretaking) again ended on Vav Iyar (while the evil regime broke out on the accursed day before).
Paraphrasing myself elsewhere:
As against the anti-Zionist settlement\statehood False Dichotomy meant to counter the history and halachos of autonomous Jewish settlement in spite of the “Three Oaths”, a plurality of Jews in one place means they naturally control that place (unless they labor under some self-sabotaging anti-Zionist delusion), even without formal, political institutions (as the “Practical Zionism” slogan went, “במקום שבו עוברת המחרשה, שם יהיה הגבול”).
(By the way, the true reason for Arab aggression against the Jews is neither land nor Jew-hatred in my opinion, see here.)
As to R’ Kook encouraging insurgency training, here is the “Orot” text in more readable form.
Note: A footnote on page 21 in Rabbi Greenberg’s own essay on this supports your position on this (Orot, not Ein Aya) with other points I don’t find convincing at all (I wonder if the footnotes in the Asif journal are written entirely by the authors).
Again, since assuming “codes” on certain issues is not impossible, the oddities can’t be waved away. To recap, this time in English:
If R’ Kook meant only literal exercise, why did the self-anointed “zealots” of Jerusalem, your spiritual ancestors and comrades in anti-Zionism get so “exercised”? What forced them to lie about every aspect, forge quotes, and pretend R’ Kook was speaking of mixed-gender sports (see Rabbi M. Greenberg here, or more readably, here)?
More importantly, as Rabbi Greenberg notes, the Chazal about David and Yoav is irrelevant. Was Yoav engaged in “exercise”, or was he at war in the army? And how do we explain “ואין גילוי אור אחד עומד בלא חבירו כלל”?
True, the Imrei Emes doesn’t mention the hidden meaning (and why would he, in a public letter?!). As a foreigner, there is no reason for him to catch the added nuance by himself. Nor is there any reason for R’ Kook to enlighten him, since he refused to accept even the basic level of exercise’s value for health (in amusement: perhaps the Gerrer Rebbe was a gilgul of Rabba brei derav Huna, see Shabbos 82a). Or maybe he did get it. Shouldn’t an alleged peacenik like yourself see the value of extreme care on all sides to keep the peace with a tyrannical regime (until Hashem arranges events to enable otherwise)?
By the way, the wise rabbi in “I Will Await Him” (I take it “Rabbi Glauber” is the author’s stand-in) then adds R’ Kook would never have supported, snarl: “militaristic, settler Zionism” (Ruach Hakodesh?). So, instead of hiding your face for staying in Chutz La’aretz, you link non-State Jews doing the mitzva of “settling” in their God-given birthright and trying to defend the nation with supposedly illicit… something. Exactly which parts of Eretz Yisrael do you deny the Jewish people?
I hope to hear back before I post this.
Yours,
Hyehudi.org Editor
P.S., I don’t think you understand how state armies work, but you have bigger problems.
I’m done with this correspondence. Feel free to post my words with your response, or whatever you choose.
