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

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:28:33PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: >From http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-rav-kook-write-against-rav-hirsch.html

I don't get the subject line opening. One was a Zionist, the other not.
Of course they argue.

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

Rav Hirsch only has one "ends" -- a person who is as close to tzelem
E-lokim as possible, the culturally refined halachically observant
Mensch-Israel.

: 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.

Oish... The Kuzari is no more mystical than the Rambam. And the
Rambam gets pretty mystical. I dread when you sink into these empty
overgeneralizations and categories.

...
: 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.

Only if I fell for Faur's absurd rewrite of history. Recall, the
publisher of the Zohar was a Spanish Jew. The IE was an Andalusian
mytical astrologer. See above dread.

RSRH onlh had one ends, and therefore qedushas haaretz is derivative of
its ability to provide for the ideal Mensch-Israel. R' Kook, by assigning
it inherent qedushah made would be in disagreement with RAYK as much
as Achad haAam because he would be against a model of EY in which the
Achad haAm's have qedushah.

R' Kook's entire notion of hidden inherent qedushah is funamentally
at odds.

As it is with the Or Sameiach. Who was anti-Zionist, but pro-Balfour
Declaration and strogly pushed those in his sphere to move to Israel
(without political aspirations). And who also didn't believe in inherent
qedushah -- all qedushah derives from people and what they do.

And yet, RAYK's concept of the secular as only qedushah was can't perceive
(since it's all from HQBH, after all) underlies his entire concept of
Zionism and the value of secular progress.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha at aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507