Dov Elboim on the Writings of Rav Kook (Haaretz Books – 2000)
I would like to respond to Dov Elboim’s review of Dov Schwartz’s book ‘Religious Zionism between Logic and Messianism’ (‘Haaretz’ Books, 26.1).
Elboim uses the platform of a book review for a personal and pseudo-ideological polemic against a man who is not even directly connected to the subject of the book under review. His main reference to the book itself is the claim that its author did not do what Elboim himself does in the review in question; that is, attack on ideological grounds—or perhaps more accurately, on no grounds at all—the man responsible for editing Rav Kook’s principal work, ‘Lights of Holiness’.
Elboim’s central claim in that review is that the Nazir, Rabbi David Cohen, Rav Kook’s disciple and companion (who, according to Elboim, stood behind the scenes of the founding of Gush Emunim), committed a “cruel rape” of his master’s teaching when he edited his central book ‘Lights of Holiness’, in order to establish his own “peculiar doctrine” concerning “auditory logic.” This conclusion rests on a “comparison” between Rav Kook’s early book ‘Mists of Purity’ and his principal work ‘Lights of Holiness’. The former, according to Elboim, expresses “living, vibrant thought,” “poetry at its loftiest intensity,” while the latter, by contrast, is fragmented, enigmatic, affected, and nebulous (and perhaps “messianic”—Heaven forbid).
At the outset I should note that I myself do not belong to Rav Kook’s school, although I have learned many things from this great man, and certainly not to the “national-messianic” camp, as it is called today. I define myself as a religious person who is a secular Zionist, free (unfortunately?) of all mysticism, and I found the Nazir’s writings relevant דווקא against the background of fundamental problems in epistemology and metaphysics that have troubled me greatly. During the past year I taught his book ‘The Voice of Prophecy’, a profound philosophical work that for various reasons very few people study (it appears that Elboim himself is not among them, despite his decisive opinion regarding the content and quality of the book).
In light of the above, I would like to say that Elboim’s remarks testify to a fundamental lack of understanding. Precisely because Rav Kook’s writing was in the nature of “vibrant poetry,” and because it is clear that systematic thought and an ordered teaching are also hidden within it (as he himself told the Nazir), the Nazir saw fit—with Rav Kook’s encouragement and blessing—to edit his master’s teaching and present it as an ordered philosophical doctrine. It is therefore no wonder that this book contains not “vibrant poetry” but “fragmentary writing.”
True, philosophy is not usually written in fragmentary form. But anyone who truly wishes to examine the roots of the editing of ‘Lights of Holiness’ would do well to consult the Nazir’s own “eccentric” book, which discusses the philosophical and conceptual virtues of aphoristic writing (= by means of aphorisms, short maxims). That is the source of the fragmentary style found in that book as well.
Beyond that, the Nazir’s thought as expressed in his book ‘The Voice of Prophecy’ is the last thing I could imagine deserving the description “eccentric” or “messianic.” It is a highly systematic book, also written in aphoristic form (= fragmentary?), and it presents an astonishingly ordered doctrine in broad universal areas of thought and in the foundations of philosophy in general.
As someone who has invested no small amount of time in trying to understand and study the foundations of general philosophy, I can testify that it was precisely in this “peculiar” book that I found basic philosophical insights that, I believe, Elboim too would recognize as such—if only he knew how to read the book about which he speaks with such complete confidence, and if only he had even minimal acquaintance with the philosophical problems on which it is founded.
Elboim is doing here exactly what Rachlevsky, in his shallow book ‘The Messiah’s Donkey’, did according to Elboim’s own remark (in the review in question): he speaks decisively about a subject foreign to him, one about which he understands nothing whatsoever. Elboim thinks—and perhaps rightly (!)—that today it is enough to say that the Nazir stood behind the founding of Gush Emunim, or that he is messianic (Heaven forbid), in order to justify a sweeping conclusion about the meaning and depth of his method, and all this on the basis of direct acquaintance with the cover of his principal book (which contains the phrase ‘auditory logic,’ the only thing Elboim quotes from the book).
Perhaps for Elboim “living, vibrant poetry” is an ordered doctrine, and systematic thought is something fragmentary, peculiar, and messianic; but why should the readers of ‘Haaretz’ Books be made to suffer for these preferences of his? Why should I, as someone interested precisely in the ordered and systematic doctrine found in Rav Kook’s writings, not deserve to have a qualified editor work the poetic material into a form that can speak to me as well? Are only lovers of “vibrant poetry” entitled to enjoy Rav Kook’s writings?
There are quite a few books of Rav Kook before us that did not undergo the Nazir’s editing, and anyone can compare them. Beyond that, if there really is a deviation from the original intention, it is not clear to me why Rav Kook’s own students also regard ‘Lights of Holiness’ as their master’s principal and most important book.
It is worth noting, by way of background, that Rav Kook had three principal disciples: his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, who represents the national-messianic outlook (in a very rough generalization); Rabbi Harlap, who represents an almost classical Jewish type, who likewise found in Rav Kook satisfaction for his thirst, and whose successors are the “non-messianic Kookists” (again, with the same rough generalization); and the third is the Nazir, about whom anyone even slightly familiar with the world of Religious Zionist yeshivot knows that most of those who inhabit it do not accept his path or the way in which he studies his master’s teaching. The Nazir, who was a philosopher in the true sense of the word (not a scholar of philosophy), has no real school of followers who continue in his path; if such people are to be found, they are perhaps more in the academic world. Precisely against this background, it is interesting to note that the book ‘Lights of Holiness’, edited by him, is the one that came to be accepted as the foundational book of Rav Kook’s teaching. Is only Elboim capable of seeing the “violent rape” that supposedly took place here? To continue the metaphor, it seems to me that what we have here is Elboim’s own disappointment over the theft of his “beloved” (= Rav Kook’s writings), on whom he himself would like to perpetrate a no less violent “rape”—only this time in the right, politically correct direction.
Beyond that, if Elboim wanted to examine a bit more deeply his accusations regarding the editorial considerations behind ‘Lights of Holiness’, he would do well to consult ‘Eight Notebooks’, a book published recently, containing all the original paragraphs written by Rav Kook that served as the basis for the editing of ‘Lights of Holiness’. There anyone can examine the assumptions and aims of the tremendous editorial labor carried out by the Nazir, and there is no need to make do with a ridiculous comparison, chiefly and merely stylistic, between this book and ‘Mists of Purity’. This research is currently being undertaken by several different parties, and I hope it will be done in a more systematic fashion, rather than on the shallow and ideologically biased basis expressed in Elboim’s review.