Rav Kook’s Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal – The Seforim Blog (original) (raw)

Rav Kook’s Attitude towards Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal

By Rav Eitam Henkin, Hy”d

(Translated into English by Rachelle Emanuel)

This
article originally appeared
in Hebrew in HaMayan 51:4 (2011), pp. 75-90.

Today is the yahrzeit of the Rav Eitam and Naama Henkin, who were cruelly murdered one year ago. May Rav Eitam’s important writings, surely with us only thanks to Naama’s support, be an aliyat neshama for both. Hy”d.

·
“It is well known that the person
who heads the above [body]” supports Keren Hayesod

·
What is the difference between Keren
Kayemet Le-Yisrael – the Jewish National Fund – and Keren Hayesod — the United
Israel Appeal?

·
The forgery in the 1926 public letter

·
The significance of supporting Keren
Hayesod

·
The halakhic letter of 1928

·
The joint declaration with Rav Isser
Zalman Meltzer

·
Conclusion

“It is well known that the person who heads the above [body]” supports Keren Hayesod

The
philosophy of Rav Elĥanan Bunem
Wasserman, follower of the Ĥafetz
Chaim and Rosh Yeshiva of the Baranovich Yeshiva (Lithuania), and among the
most extreme of eastern European Torah leaders between the world wars in his
anti-Zionist approach, is still considered today as having significant
influence on the ideology concerning Zionism and the State of Israel prevalent
in the Hareidi community. In this respect he constitutes almost an antithesis
to the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, in
whose philosophy religious Zionism found its main ideological support for its approach
and outlook.[1]

One
rare statement made by Rav Wasserman, aimed apparently at Rav Kook, has found
resonance with part of the Haredi public, and is used by them as justification
for rejecting Rav Kook and his teachings. In fact, we are not talking of a
direct reference, but of words that appear in a letter sent to Rav Yosef Tzvi
Dushinski, who took over Rav Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld’s position as head of the Eidah Ĥareidit, on June
25, 1924:

A proposal has been made to combine the Ĥareidi Beit
Din with the Chief Rabbinate. It is well known that he who heads [the Chief
Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling on Jews to
contribute to Keren Hayesod. It is also known that the funds of Keren Hayesod
go towards educating intentional heretics. If that is the case, he who
encourages supporting this organization causes the public to sin on a most
terrible level. Rabbeinu Yona in Sha’arei Teshuva explains the verse “The
refining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold, and a man is tried by his
praise” (Prov. 27:21) as
meaning that in order to examine a person one must look at what he praises. If
we see that he praises the wicked, we know that he is an utterly wicked person,
and it is clear that it is forbidden to associate with such a person.[2]

As
far as Rav Wasserman was concerned, because the head of the Chief Rabbinate
publicized statements in which he called to support Keren Hayesod, which among
other activities, funded a secular-Zionist education system, he was causing the
public to sin and it was forbidden to be associated with him.[3]

However,
it seems that Rav Wasserman’s sharp assertion is based on a factual error.[4]
According to Rav Kook’s son, Rav Z.Y. Kook, his father supported Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael, and called on others to support them, but his attitude towards Keren
Hayesod was completely different.

… as a result of the claims and complaints about
their behavior concerning religion and Judaism, [Rav Kook] later delayed giving
words of support to Keren Hayesod, and none of the entreaties and efforts of
Keren Hayesod’s activists could move him. In contrast, even though he continued
to constantly protest concerning those claims and complaints, he never
hesitated giving words of support to Keren Kayemet. None of the entreaties and
efforts of those who opposed Keren Kayemet could change this. On the contrary, with
his sacred fire, he increased his support and encouragement for Keren Kayemet, [considering
its projects as] a mitzvah of redeeming and conquering the Land.[5]

If
these words are correct, Rav Wasserman’s protest loses ground. In light of the
above we would have to say that Rav Wasserman’s sharp statement about Rav Kook
relies on the shaky basis (“It is well known…”) of rumors that were
widespread in certain localities in East Europe.[6]
However, precise research shows that despite Rav Z. Y. Kook’s clear testimony, for
which we will bring below explicit references from Rav Kook himself, Rav
Wasserman’s words were not just based on vague rumors alone. It turns out that
even while Rav Kook was alive, propaganda attempts were made to attribute to
him support for Keren Hayesod. In one case, at least, it was intentional fraud,
upon which it seems Rav Wasserman unwittingly based himself.

What is the difference between Keren Kayemet LeYisrael – the Jewish National Fund – and Keren Hayesod – the United Israel Appeal?

Whatever
the case may be, the reader will ask: what is the difference between the Keren
Kayemet and the Keren Hayesod? Perhaps in Rav Wasserman’s opinion they both
were “abominations,” since both organizations were headed by “heretics”;
and even though Keren Kayemet did not deal with education, nevertheless it
enabled heretics to settle on its land. If that was the case even supporting Keren
Kayemet falls into the category of lauding the wicked, etc.! However, one
cannot ignore the fact that R. Wasserman was talking about Keren Hayesod in
particular, on the grounds that its funds were “going towards raising
intentional heretics” in the educational institutions – something not
relevant to the activity of Keren Kayemet. The Keren Kayemet was a veteran
institution, founded at the beginning of the century for very specific,
accepted goals – redeeming land from the hands of gentiles, whereas Keren
Hayesod was established at the beginning of the twenties in a very different
political reality, and its fields of activity were much broader. Rav Kook
himself, in a response from winter 1925 to the famous letter from four Hasidic
rebbes (Ger, Sokolov, Ostrovtza, and Radzhin) who had heard that “your
Honor is indignant over our opposition to giving aid to the Keren Kayemet and
Keren Hayesod,” and in which they explained their opposition, gave his
reasons in full for supporting the Keren Kayemet, and only the Keren Kayemet.[7] In an
earlier draft of his response, in his handwriting, preserved in his archive, he
explicitly notes the difference in his approach to the two organizations:

I myself, in the past gave credentials for aid to
Keren Kayemet alone […] which is busy transferring land from the hands of
gentiles to Jewish possession, […] and for that I gave Keren Kayemet’s activists
a recommendation over the course of several years. This is not the case with
Keren Hayesod, which does not deal in redeeming land, but rather in settling it
and in matters of education. I have never yet given them a recommendation [and
will not do so] until the matter will, please God, be put right, and at least a
significant part of the funds will be assigned to settling Eretz Yisrael in the
way of our holy Torah.[8]

There
is indeed a large amount of information about the extensive relations that Rav
Kook had with Keren Kayemet, most of which involved continuous support for its tremendous
project of redeeming land, together with constantly keeping his eye on, and immediately objecting to, any deviation
from the way of the Torah that was perpetrated on its grounds.[9] On
the other hand, in all the writings of Rav Kook published till now, there are
only a few mentions of Keren Hayesod, and they show reservations in principle
from the organization.[10] Whoever
is fed by rumors and presents Rav Kook as one who “lends his hand to
evil-doers” without reservations, will anyway assume, “as it is
known,” that he similarly called for support of Keren Hayesod. In
contrast, for someone who knows about Rav Kook’s life story, his work, and his
letters, the idea that he would be capable of calling for support for an
organization which directly causes ĥilul Shabbat, secular education, and
so on, is utterly baseless. Even his support for Keren Kayemet was not
complete, but with conditions, restrictions, and even warnings attached. The
following are some salient examples that are sufficient to prove that if Keren
Kayemet had been involved in projects opposed to the spirit of the Torah — as
was the case with Keren Hayesod — Rav Kook would not have agreed to support it
either:

In
a letter to the chairman of Keren Kayemet, Menahem Ussishkin, from February 4,
1927, concerning violations of Shabbat in the Borokhov neighborhood located on
Keren Kayemet land (by the residents, not by Keren Kayemet itself), Rav Kook
warned them “that if they do not take the necessary steps to correct these
wrongdoings that have gone beyond all limits, I will be forced to publicize the
matter in an open letter, loud and clearly, to the whole Jewish People.”[11]

In
a letter to Tnuva from March 2, 1932, that was sent following a report
concerning ĥilul Shabbat on Kibbutz Mizra, Rav Kook announced that so
long as the kibbutz members did not mend their ways, their milk would be
considered as ĥalav akum (milked by a non-Jew) and Tnuva would be
forbidden from using it.[12]

In
a letter to Ussishkin from April 3, 1929, Rav Kook complained about the fact
that Keren Kayemet had started to publish literary pamphlets, “which are
not its subject matter. Money dedicated to the redemption of the Land was not
for literary purposes. Moreover, the essence of this literature damages its
image in public, spreading false views in direct opposition to the sanctity of our
pure faith […] I hope that these few words will have the correct effect, and
that the obstacle will be removed without delay, so that we will all together,
as one, be able to carry out the sacred work of redeeming the Land with the
help of Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael.”[13]

The forgery in the 1926 public letter

However, as has been said, because of the
significant weight that Rav Kook’s position bore, over the years many attempts
were made by the supporters of Keren Hayesod to ascribe to him outright support
of the fund. The most prominent case occurred in the winter of 1926 (about a
year after the above-mentioned letter to the hasidic rebbes). Several months
previously the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael entered a severe economic crisis which
seriously hindered its development, causing unemployment of a third of the work
force, a decrease in the number of immigrants, and a steady flow of emigrants
from the country.[14] This
crisis, considered the worst experienced by the yishuv during the
British Mandate, was the first time that the impetus of the _yishuv_‘s
development, which had been increasing since the end of the First World War, was
brought to a standstill. Against the backdrop of this situation, the Zionist
leadership initiated a “special aid project of Keren Hayesod for the
benefit of the unemployed in Eretz Yisrael.” Because of the severity of
the situation, Rav Kook also volunteered to encourage contributions to improve
the economic situation in Eretz Yisrael, and when R. Moshe Ostrovsky (Hameiri)
left for Poland to help with the appeal, Rav Kook gave him a general letter of
encouragement for the Jews in eastern Europe.[15] At
the same time, on November 8, 1926, Rav Kook wrote a public letter calling for
support of the Zionist leadership’s initiative, in which he wrote, inter alia:

To our dear brothers, scattered throughout the
Diaspora, whose hearts and souls yearn for the building of Zion and all its
assemblies; beloved brethren! The hard times which our beloved yishuv in
the Land of our fathers is experiencing, brings me to raise my voice with the
call, “Help us, now.” Our holy edifice, the national home for which
the heart of every Jew holds great hopes, is now facing a temporary crisis
which requires the help of brothers to their fellow sufferers in order to
endure […] Therefore I am convinced that the great declaration which the
Zionist leadership is proclaiming throughout the borders of Israel, to make
every effort to come to the aid and relief of this crisis, will be heard with
great attention; and that, besides all the frequent donations for all the
general matters of holiness which our brothers wherever they live will give for
the sake of Zion and Jerusalem, all the sacred institutions will raise their
hands for the sake of God, His people, and His Land, to give willingly to the appeal
to relieve the present crisis, until the required sum will be quickly
collected.

Although
the appeal was made through the organization of Keren Hayesod, Rav Kook avoided
mentioning the name of the fund because of his principled refusal to publicize
support for it (as he explained in the letter to the hasidic rebbes). The
version quoted above is what was published in the newspapers of Eretz Yisrael,
under the title “For the Relief of the Crisis.”[16]
However, amazingly, it becomes apparent that in the version published some
weeks later in Warsaw’s newspapers, the words “the Zionist
leadership” were changed in favor of the words “the head office of Keren Hayesod,” and accordingly, the words were presented as nothing
less than “Rav Kook’s public letter in favor of Keren Hayesod“![17]

Even
if we didn’t have any information other than the two versions of this public
letter, there is no doubt that the authentic version is the one published by
his acquaintances, the editors of Ha-Hed and Ha-Tor in Eretz
Yisrael, close to, and seen by Rav Kook. In contrast, when members of Keren
Hayesod circulated Rav Kook’s public letter among Poland’s newspapers, they were
not concerned that the author would come across the version they had published
in a remote location. They even had a clear interest to insert into Rav Kook’s
words a precedential reference to Keren Hayesod. Even if we only had before us
the east-European version of the letter, we could determine that foreign hands
had touched it. This is not only because of Rav Kook’s words in his letter to
the hasidic rebbes sent about a year earlier, but because of a letter that Rav
Kook sent to the heads of Keren Hayesod a few weeks prior to writing the public
letter. In this letter to Keren Hayesod he informs them in brief that he is
prevented from cooperating with the management of the fund or even visiting its
offices (!) until the list of demands that he presented them with, in the field
of how they conduct religious affairs, would be met. The background to this
letter is a request sent to Rav Kook on December 7, 1926, after the
inauguration of Keren Hayesod’s new building on the site of “the national
institutions” in Jerusalem. The directors of the head office of Keren
Hayesod wrote: “It would give us great joy, and would be a great honor if
our master would be so good as to visit our office – the office of the global
management of Keren Hayesod.”[18] In
reply to this request, Rav Kook wrote a letter – which is published here for
the first time – to the heads of Keren Hayesod, (Arye) Leib Yaffe and Arthur
Menaĥem Hentke:

8th Tevet 5687 [December 13, 1926]

To the honorable sirs, Dr. Yaffe and A. Hentke,

I received your invitation to visit your esteemed
office. I hereby inform you that I will be able to cooperate for the benefit of
Keren Hayesod, and I will, bli neder, also visit Keren Hayesod’s main
office, after Keren Hayesod’s management and the Zionist leadership will
fulfill my minimal demands concerning religious issues in the kibbutzim and in
education.

Yours, with all due respect …[19]

During
the course of the years there were, nevertheless, several opportunities when
Rav Kook came into contact with members of Keren Hayesod, mainly in connection
with matters of budgets for religious needs.[20]
However, as this letter illustrates, even such limited cooperation was
dependent, from Rav Kook’s point of view, on the demand to change the way the
fund conducted its matters with respect to religion.[21] What
were Rav Kook’s exact demands of Keren Hayesod, in order for it to be
considered as having “put things right” (as he wrote in his letter to
the hasidic rebbes), and to benefit from his support and cooperation? We can
clarify this from a document which is also being published here for the first
time. This document, whose heading is “Rav Kook’s answers” to Keren
Hayesod, was apparently written after the previous letter, in reply to a
question addressed to him by Keren Hayesod concerning his attitude towards
them. It was probably written against the backdrop of rumors that Rav Kook
forbade (!) support of Keren Hayesod.[22] We only
have a copy of the document in our possession, but it is written in first
person, meaning that Rav Kook wrote it himself, and the person who copied it
apparently chose to copy just the body of the letter without the opening and
end signature:

1. I
have never expressed any prohibition, God forbid, against Keren Hayesod. On the
contrary – I am very displeased with those who do so.
2. Concerning
my attitude towards the Zionist funds: my reply was that I willingly support
Keren Kayemet at every opportunity without any reservations. However,
concerning Keren Hayesod, at the moment I am withholding my letter in its
benefit until the Zionist management corrects major shortcomings that I demand
be put right, as follows:
a.
That nowhere in Eretz Yisrael will
education be without religious instruction, not just as literature, but as the
sacred basis of Jewish faith.
b.
That all the general religious needs be
immediately taken care of in every moshav and kibbutz. For example, shoĥet,
synagogue, ritual bath, and where a rabbi is necessary – also a rabbi.
c.
That there will be no public profanation
of that which is sacred in any of the places supported by Keren Hayesod, such
as ĥilul Shabbat and ĥag in public.
d.
That the kitchens, at least the general
ones, will be particular about kashrut.
e. That
all the details here which concern the residents of Keren Hayesod’s locations,
will be listed in the contract as matters hindering use of the property by the
resident, and which will give him benefit of the land only on condition that he
fulfills these basic principles.
And because I strongly hope that the management will
finally obey these demands, I therefore am postponing my support of Keren
Hayesod until they are fulfilled. I hope that my endeavors for the benefit of
settling and building our Holy Land will then be complete.

It
should be noted that these conditions are similar in essence to those that Rav
Kook set with Keren Kayemet. However, the latter’s dealings were with redeeming
the Land, in contrast to Keren Hayesod where the areas referred to in Rav
Kook’s demands were at the center of its activity. Therefore, as far as the
Keren Kayemet was concerned, Rav Kook did not give the fulfillment of his
demands as a basic condition for his cooperation and call for support; but he
certainly did so with regard to Keren Hayesod.[23]

Whatever
the case may be, if R. Wasserman did indeed see the public letter of 1926,
without doubt he saw the falsified version published in the Polish newspapers,
and therefore he held on to the opinion that: “It is well known that he
who heads [the Chief Rabbinate] has written and signed on a declaration calling
on Jews to contribute to Keren Hayesod.”[24]
However, as has been clarified, these words have no basis.

The significance of supporting Keren Hayesod

As
has been said Rav Kook was not prepared to support Keren Hayesod, which dealt
in education and such matters “until the matter will … be put right, and
at least a significant part” of the funds activities will be directed to
settling the Land according to the Torah. The words “at least a
significant part …” seem to give the impression that if a significant part
of the fund’s activity were directed to activity in the spirit of the Torah,
then Rav Kook would give his support even if another part were still directed
to secular education. However, in practice, there is no doubt that Rav Kook’s
demand was much stricter. In Keren Hayesod’s regulations it was determined that
only about 20% of its resources would be directed to education[25] (and
only a certain amount of that budget would be allocated to
“problematic” education) — and despite this fact Rav Kook refused to
call for its support. It must be emphasized that this policy in Keren Hayesod’s
regulations was strictly applied. An inclusive summary of the fund’s activity
between the years 1921-1930, indicates that 61.4% of its resources were
invested in aliya and settlement (aliya training, aid for refugees,
agricultural and urban settlement, housing, trade, and industry), 19.6% in
public and national services (security, health, administration), and only 19.0%
in education and culture – from which a certain part was allocated for
religious needs: education; salaries for rabbis, shoĥtim, and kashrut
supervisors; maintenance of ritual baths, eruvim, and religious
articles; aid for the settlements of Bnei Brak, Kfar Ĥasidim, etc.[26] In
light of this data, it seems that R. Wasserman’s claim against those who call
for support of Keren Hayesod, and his defining them as “utterly
wicked” people, is not essentially different from the parallel claim
against those who demand the paying of required taxes to the State – a claim
heard today only by extreme marginal groups within the Ĥaredi sector.

Indeed,
not surprisingly, it transpires that there were in fact some well-known rabbis
of that generation who did call to contribute to Keren Hayesod, despite the
problematic issues of some of its activity.[27] Just
several months before the publication of Rav Kook’s afore-mentioned public
letter, another declaration was published, explicitly calling for support of
Keren Hayesod, signed by more than eighty rabbis from Poland and Russia. Among
them were well-known personalities such as R. Ĥanokh Henikh Eigash, author of Marĥeshet;
R. Meshulam Rothe; R. Reuven Katz, and more.[28]
Moreover, in several locations, particularly in America, support of Keren
Hayesod was considered as consensus among the rabbis,[29] and
even Rav Kook’s colleague in the Chief Rabbinate, R. Ya’akov Meir, called for
support of Keren Hayesod.[30]
Would R. Wasserman have defined all of these scores of rabbis as evil ones
“who cause the public to sin on the most terrible level”?[31] Whatever
the case may be, it transpires that it was specifically Rav Kook who stands out
as being the most stringent among them, and he consistently agreed to publicize
support only for Keren Hakayemet. In the light of all the data detailed here,
one wonders whether R. Wasserman’s extreme words to R. Dushinski[32] were
only written in order to deter him from cooperating with the Chief Rabbinate
(which he strongly opposed), and perhaps this is the reason that he avoided
mentioning Rav Kook explicitly by name.[33]

The halakhic letter of 1928

The
public letter of 1926 was indeed the only one in which Rav Kook’s words were
falsified in order to create support for Keren Hayesod. However, in the
following years, too, attempts were made to present what he had written as an
expression of direct support of Keren Hayesod. The element the two cases have
in common is that they were both published far from Rav Kook’s location. In 1928,
an announcement from the “Secretariat for Propaganda among the
Ĥaredim” was published in the Torah monthly journal Degel Yisrael,
published in New York and edited by R. Ya’akov Iskolsky. This secretariat
published a special letter from Rav Kook in Degel Yisrael, emphasizing
that the letter had not yet been publicized anywhere else. According to the
secretariat, the context in which the words were written was the following:

An
occurrence in a town in Europe, where the community demanded that all its
members contribute towards Keren Hayesod, and the opponents disputed
this before the government, and took the matter to court. The judges demanded
that the community leaders prove to them that the matter was done in accordance
to Jewish law, and on the basis of the above responsum (of Rav Kook) the
members of the community were acquitted.[34]

In
other words, according to those who publicized the Rav Kook’s letter, it was
written in order to help the heads of one European community to force all its
members to donate to Keren Hayesod. The problem is that examination of the
letter (see below) raises different conclusions. Similar to what appears above
(note 27) concerning the letter written by R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk,
here there is also no mention at all of Keren Hayesod. The explanations in the
letter are not relevant to the majority of Keren Hayesod’s projects, and the
letter only deals with clarifying the general virtue of settling Eretz Yisrael
and the obligation to support its inhabitants. Even the title prefacing the
letter only talks about “one community that agreed to impose a tax on its
members for the settlement and building of Eretz Yisrael,” without
mentioning that this was a tax specifically for Keren Hayesod. Towards the end
of the letter it is mentioned only that “the Zionist leadership in Eretz
Yisrael deals with many issues concerning settling the Land,” without any
specific reference to Keren Hayesod, even if the fund was the organization that
managed the appeal for the Zionist Organization. Thus, we again find that
whereas according to those that publicized the letter — the concerned parties —
the letter constitutes declared support for Keren Hayesod, in Rav Kook’s actual
words there is no mention of that.

The
letter, which as far as I know was never printed a second time, is brought here
in full:

When I was asked whether a Jewish community can impose
on an individual the obligation to give charity for maintaining the settlement
of Eretz Yisrael, I hereby reply that there is no doubt in the matter, considering
that the halakha is that one forces a person to give charity, and makes
him pawn his property for that purpose even before Shabbat, as explained in Bava Batra 8b, and as Rambam wrote in Hilkhot Matnot Aniyim 7:10:
concerning someone who does not want to give charity, or who gives less than
what is fitting for him, the court forces him until he gives the amount they
estimated he should give, and one makes him pawn his property for charity even
before Shabbat. The same is written in Shulĥan Arukh, Yore Dei’a, 248:1-2. If
this is the case in all charities, all the more so is it the case concerning
charity for strengthening Eretz Yisrael, for this is explicit in Sifrei, and quoted in Beit Yosef, Yore Dei’a, §251, that the poor of Eretz Yisrael have priority over
the poor outside the Land. And because one forces a person to give charity for
the poor outside the Land, it is clearly even more the case concerning charity
for strengthening the Land and its poor. The obligation to settle in Eretz
Yisrael is very great, as it says in the Talmud Ketubot 110b, and is brought by Rambam as a halakhic
ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim 5:12: A person should always live in Eretz
Yisrael, and even in a town where the majority are idol worshippers, rather
than live outside the Land, even in a town where the majority are Jews. In Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (mitzvah 4) Nachmanides wrote: that we were
commanded to inhabit the Land; “and this is a positive mitzvah for all
generations, and every one of us is obligated,” and even during the period
of exile, as is known from the Talmud in many places.
A great Torah principle is that all Jews are responsible for one another.
Therefore, those who are unable themselves to keep the mitzvah of living in
Eretz Yisrael, are obligated to help and support those who live there, and it
will be considered as though they themselves are living in Eretz Yisrael so
long as they do not have the possibility of keeping this big mitzvah
themselves. It is therefore obvious that any Jewish community can require an
individual to give charity for the benefit of settling Eretz Yisrael and
supporting its inhabitants; and G-d forbid that an individual will separate
himself from the community. Someone who separates himself from the ways of the
community is considered one of the worst types of sinners, as Rambam writes in Hilkhot Teshuva 3:11. Just as the community must guide the individuals towards all
things good and beneficial, and any general mitzvah, thus must it ensure that
no individual separates himself from the community concerning matters of
charity in general, and all the more so concerning matters of charity relating
to Eretz Yisrael and support of its inhabitants, as I have written. No one can
deny that which is revealed to all, that the Zionist leadership in Eretz
Yisrael deals with al lot of matters concerning settling Eretz Yisrael, hence
it is clear that its income is included in the principle of charity for Eretz
Yisrael.
And as a sign of truth and justice, I hereby sign … Avraham Yitzĥak HaKohen
Kook

The joint declaration with Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer

Just
as the public letter of 1926 (in the version published in Poland) quickly came
to the notice of the zealots of Jerusalem, who rushed to claim that Rav Kook
supports “a baseless fund,” the same thing happened with the 1928
letter: following its publication under the above headline, the zealots rushed
to upgrade their accusations and to claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may
“force a person to give charity to Keren Hayesod” (see below).

This
fact brings us to yet another claim, raised only recently, that Rav Kook did
indeed sign on a declaration in support of Keren Hayesod. A few years ago,
Professor Menaĥem Friedman wrote about an event that occurred in winter 1930,
when the zealots of the Jerusalem faction of Agudath Israel, with Reb Amram
Blau at their head, came out with a particularly sharp street poster against
Rav Kook. The background to the attack was the joint declaration of Rav Kook,
R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, and R. Abba Yaakov Borokhov, that was published before
the convening of the 17th Zionist Congress in Basel, calling to the
attendants of the convention and its supporters to exert their influence to
prevent ĥilul Shabbat, etc; at the side of this request, writes Prof.
Friedman, was a “call to donate to Keren Hayesod.”[35]

However,
in fact matters are not so clear at all. Prof. Friedman brings no support at
all for his words, and the only source that he brings concerning the event is
that same street poster that the zealots published. It seems that Prof.
Friedman never actually saw the said declaration, but rather assumed its
contents from the information that appears in parallel sources, such as the opposing
street poster, in which there is the claim that Rav Kook ruled that one may
“force people to give charity to Keren Hayesod,” but of course that
does not constitute an acceptable historical source.[36]

An
addition to this affair appears in a manuscript of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer,
which was published several years ago. This is a draft of a public announcement
from 1921, which shows that indeed there were those who understood that the
signature on the declaration meant support of Keren Hayesod (and other such
organizations) — but R. Meltzer clarifies that this was not the case:

Being that I signed on a call to the donors of the
Zionist funds, demanding that they do not support with their money those who
profane the Shabbat, and those who eat non-kosher food, I therefore declare
that my opinion is like it always has been: that so long as schools in Eretz
Yisrael that instill heretical ideas are supported by these funds, it is
forbidden to support them or give them aid in any way whatsoever. Those who
support and help them are destroying our holy Torah, and are ruining the yishuv.
I added my signature only to ask those who support those funds that at least
they should make every effort to influence those funds not to feed Jewish
people in kitchens that provide non-kosher food, and not to support those that
profane the Shabbat, etc.[37]

This
clarification was apparently written after reactions of amazement among some of
the Jerusalem public were voiced in the wake of the publication of the joint
declaration of R. Meltzer, Rav Kook, and R. Borokhov. From R. Meltzer’s words
it becomes clear that the joint declaration was not a call to support Keren
Hayesod, but a call to the supporters of the fund and to the attendants of the
Zionist Congress that they should anyway insist that their money should not be
used for unfitting purposes.[38]

Conclusion

Rav
Kook’s path was falsified many times, both during his lifetime and after his
death, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally. In what we have
written here, it is proven beyond all doubt that R. Elĥanan Wasserman’s claim
that Rav Kook called for the support of Keren Hayesod — a claim through which
he explained his opposition to cooperation between the Eidah Ĥareidit and the
Chief Rabbinate — is based on a mistake. The historical truth is that Rav Kook,
in his dealings with the institutions of the yishuv, more than once took
a more aggressive and stringent stand than did other rabbis of his generation,
as is expressed in the issue at hand.

[1] In
light of this contrast, it is interesting that Rabbi Wasserman, as a youth, was
privileged to learn from Rav Kook for a while. In 1890 Rabbi Wasserman’s family
moved to Bauska (Boisk),
and five years later Rav Kook was appointed as rabbi of the town. At the time
Rabbi Wasserman was a student in the Telz Yeshiva, and when he returned home
during vacation, he would participate in the classes given by Rav Kook (See R.
Ze’ev Arye Rabbiner, “Shalosh Kehilot Kodesh,” Yahadut Latvia: Sefer Zikaron [Tel Aviv, 1953], 268; Aharon Surasky, Ohr El ĥ anan I [Jerusalem,
1978], 30).

[2] Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-Igrot
I (Jerusalem, 2001), 153; previously in Kuntres Be-Ein Ĥazon (Jerusalem,
1969), 92. Concerning R. Wasserman’s dealings with the issues of the Jews in
Eretz Yisrael, we bring the words of R. Ĥaim Ozer Grodzensky, R. Wasserman’s
brother-in-law, which he wrote less than two months later in a reply to R.
Reuven Katz’s complaint regarding the open letter published by R. Wasserman to
Poalei Agudath Israel in Eretz Yisrael, calling on them not to accept help from
Zionist organizations: “I, too, am surprised at what [R. Wasserman] saw
that he publicized his personal opinion without consulting us, and I did not
know of it. He also exaggerated. The matters of the yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael cannot be compared to private matters in the Diaspora for several reasons,
and certainly it is impossible to give a ruling on such a serious matter from
afar without knowing the details…” (A ĥiezer – Kovetz Igrot [Bnei Brak, 1970], 1:299; see ibid., 200-1, a letter to Histadrut
Pagi, where the words are repeated. For R. Wasserman’s open letter and more
material on this subject, see Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-Igrot I, 133-152).

[3] This
statement is based on the words of Rabeinu Yonah Gerondi (Sha’arei Teshuva,
3:148), and R. Wasserman’s interpretation of them elsewhere (“Ikvete De-Meshiĥa, § 36, translated into Hebrew from the Yiddish by R. Moshe Schonfeld and
printed as a pamphlet in 1942, and in Kovetz Ma’amarim [Jerusalem 1963],
127-28). However, it seems that there is an essential difference between the
actual words of Rabeinu Yona and R. Wasserman’s interpretation (compare with a
parallel commentary of Rabeinu Yona to m. Avot 4:6, and the way his
words were interpreted by Rashbatz, “Magen Avot” 4:8, and R. Yisrael Elnekave,
Menorat Ha-Ma’or, Enlau edition, 310-11), and let this suffice. For an
example of a diametrically opposed position, see: R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen, Pri Tzadik, Vayikra (Lublin 1922), 221.

[4] See R. Yitzchak
Dadon, Imrei Shefer (Jerusalem, 2008), 273.

[5] “Li-Shelosha
be-Elul” (Jerusalem, 1938) §24
(p.22). See also Siĥot Ha-Rav Tzvi Yehuda – Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem,
2005), 84. On the other hand, R. Shmuel HaKohen Weingarten, who also heard from
Rav Tzvi Yehuda about his father’s refusal to call for support of Keren Hayesod,
pointed out an item in the newspaper Dos Idishe Licht (May 23, 1924),
according to which Rav Kook refused to support a proposal raised at the
American Union of Rabbis to boycott Keren Hayesod (Halikhot 33 [Tel
Aviv, Tishrei 1966], 27). Compare Rav Kook’s reasons for not waging a public
war against the Gymnasia Ha-Ivrit high school, despite his intense opposition
to the school (Igrot Ha-Re’iya II, 160-61).

[6] The existence
of false rumors concerning Rav Kook was mentioned already in 1921 by the Gerrer
Rebbe, R. Avraham Mordechai Alter, in his well-known letter written on the
boat: “Outside Eretz Yisrael what is thought and imagined is different
from the reality. For according to the information heard, the Gaon Rav Kook was
considered to be an enlightened rabbi who ran after bribes. He was attacked
with excommunication and curses. Even the newspapers Yud and Ha-Derekh
sometimes published these one-sided reports. But this is not the correct way of
behavior – to listen to one side, no matter who it is…” (Osef Mikhtavim U-Devarim [Warsaw, 1937], 68). R. Moshe Tzvi Neriya’s description
is typical: “…these news items even made their way into sealed Russia.
They said: “He’s close to the high echelons, and he has an official
position. This opinion excluded him from the usual description of a great Rav.
And then again it was said, ‘He’s close to the Zionists,’ and he was imagined
to be an ‘enlightened’ rabbi […] however, all those description and imaginations
completely melted away on seeing him.” (Likutei Ha-Re’iya [Kefar
Haro’eh, 1991], 1:13-14). An amazingly similar description was written by R.
Yitzchak Gerstenkorn, founder of Bnei Brak: “I imagined Rav Kook, of
blessed memory, as a modern rabbi […] and how amazed I was, on my first visit
to Rav Kook, when I saw before me a sacred, pious person, few of whom live in
our generation…” (Zikhronotai al Bnei Brak I [Jerusalem, 1942],
74).

[7] See Igrot la-Re’iya, 303-306. See also his 1923 declaration in support of Keren
Kayemet in which he emphasizes that “it is intended only for redemption of
the Land” (Raz, Malakhim ki-Venei Adam [Jerusalem, 1994], 238) —
meaning, not for educational and other such purposes as those of Keren Hayesod.
In this connection it should be noted that there was sometimes tension between
Keren Kayemet and Keren Hayesod because of the impression created that the
latter also dealt in redeeming lands (see Protokolim shel Yeshivot Ha-Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, 4:109, 498/33 —
protocols from March 31 and July 7, 1922. See also the joint agreement of the
two funds, Ha-Olam 10:14 [January 27, 1921], 16). In order to illustrate
the Keren Kayemet’s well-established status among substantial sections of the
rabbinical world, we will refer to the 32nd annual convention of the
Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, 1937. In the second
section of the convention’s resolutions it states: “The Union of Rabbis
imposes a sacred debt on all Orthodox Jews who will lend generous support to
Keren Kayemet Leyisrael.” It should be noted that the majority of
America’s great rabbis of the time participated in this convention (see Ha-Yehudi
2:10 [New York, Iyar 1927], 195. A similar resolution was made in previous
conventions; see, for example, HaPardes 5:3 [Sivan 1931], p. 31, § 7; HaPardes 6:3 [Sivan 1932], p.
25, § 5-8).

[8] This draft is
quoted by R. Yaakov Filber, Kokhav Ohr (Jerusalem, 1993), 21-22 (Slight
changes in style have been made according to a photocopy in my possession).
Negatives statements about Keren Hayesod were omitted from the response that
was actually sent, and only the positive statements about Keren Kayemet were
included. R. Filber posits that, based on the letter that Rav Kook sent to his
son, Rav Z. Y. Kook, about a week later (ibid.), the reason for the omission
was Rav Kook’s concern that the negative sentences might be used as a means to
attack the Zionist funds in general. In my opinion, taking into account Rav
Kook’s style, it is unlikely that he had such a concern, but rather the omission
is probably connected to his wish not to take part in a public boycott of Keren
Hayesod (see above, note 5).

[9] See R. Neriya
Goutel, “Hilkhot Ve-Halikhot Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael Ve-Haĥug Ha-Hityashvuti
Be-Ma’arekhet Hitkatvuyotav shel Ha-Rav Kook,” Sinai 121 (1998),
103-115; Ĥaim Peles, “Teguvotav shel Ha-Rav A. Y. Kook al Ĥilulei Ha-Shabat
al Admat Ha-Keren Ha-Kayemet Le-Yisrael,” Sinai 115 (1995),
180-186; see also Rav Kook, Ĥazon Ha-Geula (Jerusalem, 1937), 220-230;
ibid., 33-34, et seq. (I have expanded on the topic of Rav Kook’s relationship
with the Keren Kayemet elsewhere).

[10] In a letter
from winter 1924 to R. Dov Arye Leventhal of the Union of Rabbis, about his
trip to America, Rav Kook writes that one of the questions that his trip
depends upon is “whether there will not be a tendency to confuse his
support for this [the Union of Rabbis] with Keren Hayesod” (Igrot Ha-Re’iya
IV (Jerusalem 1984), 177. In a letter from winter 1925 to R. Akiva Glasner of Klausenburg,
he calls on him to make use of “the Zionist funds of Keren Hayesod”
for purposes such as sheĥita and ritual baths in a settlement of
Transylvanian immigrants in Eretz Yisrael. He comments that when all is said
and done, in most places the donors are religious Jews; but of course he should
ensure that everything is done according to the Torah (ibid., 216).

[11] Sinai
115 (1995), 181; the full letter was printed in Mikhtavim Ve-Igrot Kodesh
(ed. R. David Avraham Mandelbaum, New York, 2003), 588. Here, as in the third
example (see below), Rav Kook hints that if they do not take the necessary
steps, he will stop supporting the Keren Kayemet, and will even publicize the
matter.

[12] Sinai
115 (1995), 183

[13] R. Moshe
Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re’iya I (Rishon Lezion, 2002), 487.

[14] See inter al.:
Dan Giladi, Ha-Yishuv Bi-Tekufat Ha-Aliya Ha-Revi’it: Beĥina Kalkalit U-Politit
(Tel Aviv, 1973), 171-192. The cause of the crisis was twofold: on the one
hand, the especially large amount of new immigrants in the two years prior to
the crisis, for which the economy was unprepared; on the other hand, the severe
limitations that the Polish government enforced on taking money out of the
country (in an attempt to fight the hyperinflation of the value of the zloty),
which harmed both the donations to Eretz Yisrael, and the capability of the new
immigrants to bring their possessions with them to Eretz Yisrael.

[15] For details of
R. Ostrovsky’s trip see Ha-Zefira 66:30 (February 4, 1927), 8. For the
blessings for success that he received from R. Yeĥiel Moshe Segalovitz, head of
the Mława rabbinical court, see ibid. 66:34 (February 9, 1927), 3. Rav
Kook’s letter to Polish Jewry was published in Ha-Olam on March 4, 1927,
and again in Zuriel, Otzarot Ha-Re’iya II (1998 edition), 1075.

[16] See the monthly
Ha-Hed, Kislev 1926, p.12, and the weekly Ha-Tor 7:16 (November
19, 1926), front page. This version was printed later in Ĥazon Ha-Geula,
180. The version quoted here is based on minor corrections of mistakes that
appeared in one of the sources. In the description attached to the public
letter in Ha-Hed the following was written: “In honor of Keren
Hayesod’s special aid program for the benefit of the unemployed in Eretz
Yisrael, Rav Kook published a special public letter….”

[17] Ha-Zefira
65:50 (Warsaw, November 29, 1926), 3. In the description attached to the public
letter it said: “On 2 Kislev [November 8, 1926), the Chief Rabbi of Eretz
Yisrael, Rav A.Y. Ha-Kohen Kook sent the following public letter to the head
office of Keren Hayesod….” A few days later the letter was also published
in Ha-Olam 14:50 (London, December 3, 1926), 944, with the same headline
and description as in Ha-Zefira, but without the insertion of
“Keren Hayesod” in the body of the letter; see also Ha-Olam
14:48 (December 19), 906, where it was reported that “Rav Kook published a
public letter to world Jewry to aid Keren Hayesod, thereby easing the crisis in
Eretz Yisrael.”

[18] Central Zionist
Archives, KH421036. As is explained in this file, Rav Kook’s colleague, R. Y.
Meir, visited the offices of Keren Hayesod.

[19] From a copy of
the letter in the possession of R. Ze’ev Neuman, to whom I am most grateful. It
should be noted that Leib Yaffe was a relative of Rav Kook: his paternal
grandfather, R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe, was Rav Kook’s paternal grandmother’s
brother. Nevertheless, at the opening of the letter, Rav Kook does not show any
family sentiment, but starts with a completely neutral tone.

[20] About two years
before the above letter, in 1925, Rav Kook, together with other rabbis,
participated in a meeting with Keren Hayesod where sums allocated for religious
needs, and other allocation options, were decided upon (Yehoshua Radler-Feldman
[R. Binyamin], Otzar Ha-aretz [Jerusalem, 1926], 72-73; see also note 10
above).

[21] The reader
should note the letter of both the chief rabbis from March 27, 1927 – about two
months after the above letter – which was sent, among others, to the secretary
of Keren Hayesod, Mordechai Helfman, with the demand to prevent the profanation
of Shabbat and kashrut in settlements located on the land of Keren Kayemet, or
that are supported by Keren Hayesod. In his reply from March 30 (quoted in
Motti Ze’ira, Keru’im Anu [Jerusalem, 2002], 172), Helfman justified
himself saying: “The management of Keren Hayesod is only a mechanism for
collecting money […] We are, of course, ready to help in [attempting to] have
moral influence, and we hereby promise his honor, that we will use our
influence at every opportunity to emphasize that which is wrong.”

[22] The document
can be found in the Central Zionist Archive KH1/220/2. I am grateful to Mr.
Yitzĥak Dadon, who made me aware of the document’s existence and gave me a
photocopy. Most of the demands in this document were repeated, with different
emphases, in a declaration publicized by Rav Kook in the spring of 1931 (see
note 37 below).

[23] Even though Rav
Kook repeated in this letter that he was not prohibiting support of Keren
Hayesod, later, when in 1932 the Jewish Agency did not fulfill its promise to
transfer an allocated sum for religious matters, Rav Kook protested the matter
in a sharp letter in which he warned that if at least part of the promised sum
was not transferred, he would be forced to turn to the rabbis in America and to
members of Mizrachi in Poland, with the demand to prevent support of the Keren
Hayesod appeal (letter from April 6, 1932, Central Zionist Archive
S255894-419).

[24] Information
about Rav Kook’s supposed support of Keren Hayesod, based on the east-European
version of the public letter, quickly reached Rav Kook’s opponents in Eretz
Yisrael and even in America. In a letter from December 29, 1926, Meir
Heller-Semnitzer, one of the most extreme zealots in Jerusalem (around whom,
that same summer, a major scandal erupted, concerning a harsh declaration that
he published against the Gerrer Rebbe and Rav Kook), informed Reb Zvi Hirsch
Friedman of New York (a distinguished zealot himself who, a year previously, had
been expelled from the Union of Rabbis in America because of attacks against
Rav Kook that he had published in one of his books), that Rav Kook issued a
proclamation calling for support of “the baseless fund” [play on words:
yesod means base]. See Friedman, Zvi Ĥemed – Mishpati im Dayanei Medinat Yisrael (Brooklyn, 1960), 67.

[25] As R. Y. Y.
Trunk pointed out already in 1921 (see note 27 below).

[26] A. Elitzur, “Keren
Hayesod Be-mivĥan Ha-zeman” in Luaĥ Yerushalayim – 5706 (Jerusalem,
1945), 259-268; see also Otzar Ha-aretz, 70-76.

[27] In this
connection it is customary to mention R. Meir Simĥa Ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, author
of Ohr Same’aĥ, who acceded to the request of an emissary of the World
Zionist Organization in preparation for the appeal of Keren Hayesod in Latvia,
and wrote his famous letter calling for support of the yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael (printed in Ha-Tor, 3, 1922, and also in R. Ze’ev Arye Rabiner, Rabeinu Meir Same’aĥ Kohen [Tel Aviv, 1967], 163-165, et al.). However, even
though the historical context involves the Keren Hayesod, the letter itself
deals with general support of settling Eretz Yisrael, and contains no explicit
mention of Keren Hayesod or any other Zionist organization. Hence it is
difficult to see in the letter a ruling concerning the fundamental question of
whether to support Keren Hayesod despite the fact that part of its budget goes
towards secular education. The same applies to a similar letter written in the
same year and in the same connection by R. Eliezer Dan Yiĥye of Lucyn (See Otzar Ha-aretz, 84-86). In contrast, R. Yitzĥak Yehuda Trunk of Kotnya, the
grandson of the author of Yeshu’ot Malko and one of the rabbis of the
Mizrachi movement in Poland, wrote a detailed letter in the same year,
explicitly calling for support of Keren Hayesod. He wrote at length rejecting
the arguments against contributing to the fund (See Sinai 85 [Nisan-Elul 1979],
95-96). See also in the following footnotes.

[28] See Otzar Ha-aretz, 78-82. It should be added that the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (later
the Rishon le-Tziyon), R. Ben-Tziyon Ĥai Uziel, participated, himself, in the
activity of Keren Hayesod (see his books, Mikhmanei Uziel IV (Jerusalem,
2007) 31-32, 283-284, and in vol. VI, 297-299, et al.), as did R. Ostrovsky (as
mentioned above), and others.

[29] In an issue of
Ha-Olam (18:46 [London, November 11, 1930], 911) in honor of Keren
Hayesod’s tenth anniversary, “the declaration of Eretz Yisrael’s rabbis
concerning Keren Hayesod” from September 1930, was published. Hundreds of
rabbis signed the declaration, the majority from America, and others from Eretz
Yisrael, Europe, and Eastern countries. The declaration included an explicit
call to strengthen Keren Hayesod, “which for the last ten years has borne
on its shoulders the elevated task of building our sacred inheritance, and
faithfully supporting all projects that bring us close to that great aim.”
It seems that there is not one well-known rabbi who was active in the Union of
Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada who did not sign this
declaration: R. Yehuda Leib Graubart, R. Elazar Preil, R. Ĥaim Fischel Epstein,
R. Yosef Kanowitz, R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, R. Eliezer Silver, R. Ze’ev Wolf
Leiter, R. Ĥaim Yitzĥak Bloch, R. Yehuda Leib Salzer, etc., etc. (nevertheless,
in light of the scope and rare variety of the signatories, one wonders whether
this was a declaration approved by majority vote at the conference of the Union
of Rabbis, such that the weight of the opponents was not reflected, and
therefore the names of all the Union’s members were given as signatories).

[30] See Otzar Ha-aretz, 77, his letter from December 8, 1925 calling for support of Keren
Hayesod. See note 18, and more below.

[31] A most
interesting fact in this connection is that R. Wasserman’s relative by marriage
from 1929 (the father-in-law of his son R. Elazar Simĥa), R. Meir Abowitz, head
of the rabbinical court of Novardok and author of Pnei Meir on Talmud Yerushalmi, not only was an avowed member of the Mizrachi movement, and in
1923 even signed a call to join the movement (see Encyclopedia of Religious Zionism I [Jerusalem, 1958], columns 1-2), but also was one of the
signatories on the aforementioned declaration in favor of Keren Hayesod! (Otzar Ha-aretz, 81). The fact that R. Wasserman was involved in R. Abowitz’s
younger daughter’s marriage, is testimony to the good relationship between the
families (see R. Wasserman’s daughter-in-law’s testimony in the photocopied
edition of Pnei Meir on the tractate Shabbat [USA, 1944], at the end of
the introduction. R. Abowitz’s letters to his son-in-law are published at the
end of R. Wasserman’s Kovetz Shiurim II [Tel Aviv, 1989], 117-119).

[32] It is
worthwhile comparing these words with R. Yosef Ĥaim Zonnenfeld’s moderate
language in a letter to his brother written in 1921, in which he gives the
benefit of the doubt to the donors of Keren Hayesod: “Those naïve ones,
who contribute to Keren Hayesod out of pure love in order to aid in the
establishment of the settlement in our holy Land, certainly have a mitzvah. I
do not know to what purpose they will actually put the money of Keren Hayesod,
but if it is given into faithful hands, who will use it honestly for settling
the Land, this is anyway a big mitzvah. However, as has been said, it must be
in such hands that will use it for building and not for destruction […] ‘and
because of our sins we were exiled from our Land'” (translated from
Yiddish, S.Z. Zonnenfeld, Ha-ish al Ha-ĥoma III [Jerusalem, 1975], 436).

[33] Although R.
Ya’akov Meir, who explicitly supported Keren Hayesod, was also one ” who
heads the above [i.e. the Chief Rabbinate],” nevertheless, R. Wasserman’s
words are taken to be addressed specifically to Rav Kook. On the other hand, it
is interesting that in a letter that R. Wasserman wrote to his brother on July
30, 1935, the following sentence appears: “What is Rav Kook’s malady, and
how is he feeling now?” (Kovetz Ma’amarim Ve-igrot II, 124).

[34] Degel Yisrael 2:11 (New York, December 1928), 12-13 (the emphasis is mine). The date
of the secretariat’s letter is April 26, 1928.

[35] Friedman,
“Pashkevilim U-moda’ot kir Ba-ĥevra Ha-Ĥareidit,” in Pashkevilim
(Tel Aviv, 2005), 20. See also his book Ĥevra Va-dat (Jerusalem, 1978),
337.

[36] In the same
year, October 1930, in an issue devoted to the tenth anniversary of Keren
Hayesod, a declaration from Rav Kook was printed under the heading
“Mi-ma’amakei Ha-kodesh,” in which a process of awakening in the
country among the people and the new yishuv is described, together with
a call to base activities on sanctity and to unite (Ha-Olam 18:45
[November 2, 1930], 900). Here, too, there is no explicit mention of Keren
Hayesod or any other organization, even though explicit calls by other
personalities for support of the fund were published close to his declaration
(See also an additional article by Rav Kook, (Ha-Olam 18:47 [November
18, 1930], 926).

[37] Mikhtavim Ve-Igrot Kodesh, 624. The date of R. Meltzer’s signature on the declaration
is February 18, 1921. He writes using the plural form: “schools … are
supported by these funds,” but in fact only Keren Hayesod referred funds
to educational institutions, such that his main opposition was actually
directed against it in particular, and not against Keren Hakayemet (see next
note). For the moment I have been unable to locate the call mentioned in his
words, which Prof. Friedman dealt with, however it is probably a very similar
declaration to the one published in Ha-Hed, April 1931 (and again in Otzarot Ha-Re’iya II, 426), in which Rav Kook calls, in preparation for the
“coming Zionist Congress” to present a series of demands in the field
of religion, which have to come together with “material fundraising”
and aid to build up the country. It is superfluous to note that there is no
mention of Keren Hayesod in the declaration, as well as to no other official
institution.

[38] For comparison,
see a similar public letter that the three rabbis, Rav Kook, R. Meltzer, and R.
Borokhov, together with R. Yaakov Meir, published in 1929, calling to the heads
of the Zionist organizations “to immediately send a last warning to the
kibbutzim and moshavot supported by you, that if they do not stop
profaning our religion, and everything sacred, you will stop your support of
them altogether. If our words are not obeyed by you, we will unfortunately be
forced to wage a defensive war against these destroyers of our People and our
Land […] even though this will harm the funds which support the new yishuv” (printed in Ha-Tor 9:37 [August 9, 1929], and again in Keruzei Ha-Re’iya [Jerusalem, 2000], 90)