[Avodah] RAYK's Orot - Criticism of RSRH?

[Michael Makovi]

>From http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-rav-kook-write-against-rav-hirsch.html

Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook says that Rav Kook's Orot contains reply to Rav
Hirsch, but a reading of Rav Hirsch makes this absolutely impossible.
(I'm sure Rav Tzvi Yehuda knew his father's views, but I don't think
he had any expertise in Rav Hirsch.)

In Orot, Rav Kook basically says: Eretz Yisrael is an end, not a
means. In Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch says the opposite. Shabang!

But wait, not so fast! Let's check the contexts! For Rav Kook, "end"
means integral to Judaism, while "means" means a utilitarian tool
which could be conceivably dispensed with. In particular, Rav Kook
criticizes those who see Eretz Yisrael as a convenient place for the
nation to be strengthened by physical gathering; if this were the
purpose of Eretz Yisrael, then conceivably a substitute could be
found, whether in Uganda or in a Hebrew University. But for Rav
Hirsch, "end" means idolatrous fascist nationalism as its own value
(see his comments on the Tower of Babel), while "means" means that it
is an essential part of Torah. Rav Hirsch's "means" is identical with
Rav Kook's "ends"! Rabbi Bezalel Naor's edition of Orot quite rightly
points out that Rav Kook is replying to cultural Zionism and the
Ugandists, that Eretz Yisrael is convenient and helpful but not
essential.

The only difference between Rabbis Kook and Hirsch here is whether the
importance of the land of Israel is rational or mystical, i.e.
Maimonidean or Kuzarian (cf. Professor Menachem Kellner's Maimonides'
Confrontation with Mysticism) - does the land of Israel contain inborn
metaphysical significance, or is its importance physical and temporal?
But that's it.

Rav Tzvi Yehuda points to a second contradiction: Rav Kook says galut
is bad, Rav Hirsch says it is good! But not so fast; Rav Hirsch never
says this! Rav Hirsch, in his essay "Av I", dwells at length on how
the galut is a tragedy, how the galut shekhina means G-d has lost His
national manifestion and vehicle for the representation of the Torah
on every level of national life. (I dare you to tell me how this
differs from Rav Kook!) All Rav Hirsch says in Nineteen Letters is
that bedieved, there is value in the galut, but the galut is a tragedy
nonetheless. And guess what? The Gemara in Pesahim seems to say the
same thing, that we were exiled for the sake of gathering gerim. So
maybe Orot is writing against the Gemara, not Rav Hirsch! And on top
of that, Rav Kook, elsewhere in Orot, says there is an inner value in
the galut, that in the Machiavellian world of Roman politics, we
didn't have to rule - Rav Kook sees good in the galut! The only other
person I've seen say this is Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits, in his
Crisis and Faith, Towards Historic Judaism, and Between Yesterday and
Tomorrow. (Rabbi Berkovits goes a bit further than Rav Kook; Rav Kook
said this positive value of galut is bedieved, a post-facto comfort
for us, while Rabbi Berkovits says it is the very reason for the galut
in the first place, that Caesaria and Jerusalem could not stand
together simultaneously, as the Gemara says.) So actually, Rav Kook
perhaps sees more good in the galut than Rav Hirsch does! Thus, Rabbi
Bezalel Naor says that Rav Kook's target for criticism is not Rav
Hirsch, but rather Hermann Cohen, who saw the galut as a positive step
upwards from vulgar nationalism and parochialism.

So much for Orot criticizing Rav Hirsch. The problem really is that no
one actually reads Rav Hirsch. The academics assume he is a German
gentile masquerading as a rabbi, and so they assume Kant is his source
even when an explicit mishnah in Avot preceded Kant. (See Rabbi Joseph
Elias's edition of Nineteen Letters, and Rabbi Shelomo Danziger's
reply to Rabbi Howard I. Levine in Tradition.) And the Haredim assume
he is haredi and holds by Daas Torah (even though Rabbi Hirsch's essay
"Jewish Communal Life" is a masterpiece of constitutional-democratic
theory that reads almost like John Locke), and so they (the Haredim)
also never read him. Everyone says the most ridiculous garbage in Rav
Hirsch's name, things that are disproven by even a cursory glance at
his own words. Rav Hirsch was a Spanish Jew - Arabic or Spanish, take
your pick - in German clothing. That's it.

Yes, Rabbi Hirsch pasqened the Three Oaths as halakhah, and said that
the galut would not end until we did teshuva for our sins. Yes, this
is a contradiction with Rabbis Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer and Kook,
absolutely. But this is something entirely else. If one wants to draw
a distinction between Rabbis Kook and Hirsch based on mysticism versus
rationalism, or based on the Three Oaths, then please, by all means.
But don't misread Rav Hirsch and then mistake Rav Kook for criticizing
Rav Hirsch when he was really criticizing Herzl, Ahad ha-Am and
Hermann Cohen.

Michael Makovi