Was Rav Kook a Zionist?

It depends how you define the term. Yes, he supported settlement and hoped to see a Jewish state. But he was opposed to taking over the land by force, and indeed he wrote that such a war would violate the Three Oaths. From I Will Await Him, p. 250:

Even Rabbi Avraham Yitzchok Kook, who is idolized today as one of the pioneers of religious Zionism, wrote clearly against founding a state through warfare. In his commentary on the Siddur, Olas Re’iyah, on the blessing after fruit from the Seven Species, Rav Kook quotes the Gemara in Berachos 41b, which says that if one has dates and pomegranates, he should make the blessing on the dates because although they are mentioned last in the verse (Devarim 8:8), they are closer to the word haaretz, “the land.” He explains that, metaphorically, the first half of the verse refers to religious Jews who want Eretz Yisroel for its mitzvos and spiritual qualities. The second half refers to Jews who want Eretz Yisroel for its physical qualities and as a haven for Jews. A secular Zionist may be on a lower spiritual level than a religious Jew in exile who is not interested in settling the land, but since he is closer to Eretz Yisroel, his actions do more to advance Judaism’s spiritual goals. However, we must “achieve this through love and peace, not to ascend as a wall and not to rebel against the nations of the world, but rather to increase our strength and inner boldness, even our physical strength, for this will lead us to our spiritual goal. Not by might and not by power, but by My spirit, said Hashem.”

Yossi: Wow. I have got to show this to my friends who are always talking about Rav Kook. And there’s a whole yeshiva called Merkaz Harav Kook where the students serve in the army. According to this, Rav Kook held that there shouldn’t be an army because Jewish settlement should take place peacefully.

Rabbi Glauber: Right. It was only his son, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, who twisted his father’s views to support militaristic, settler Zionism. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchok Kook would never have supported that approach. As much as he tried to reconcile Zionism and Judaism (to the point of writing some things – along the lines of the above praise of secular Zionists – that were condemned by all the gedolim of his time), he was honest enough not to ignore the Three Oaths or explain them away.

Ari: Didn’t he realize that the Zionism he supported was leading to military conflict?

Rabbi Glauber: No, and neither did anyone else. Everyone at that time (he passed away in 1935) thought that the British would give the Jews Palestine as their homeland and there would be no wars. It was only with the Arab riots in the years 1936-1939 that this picture began to change. As a result of the riots, Britain revoked the Balfour Declaration and eventually left the Zionists to fend for themselves.

A couple of years ago, someone wrote to me arguing that I had misunderstood the Rav Kook quote. His main points were:

1. Even without the Arab threats, every State (or other autonomous grouping of people) requires an army.
2. Rabbi Kook actually supported the establishment of pre-state self-defense militias.
3. Since these militias were illegal under the Mandate, Rav Kook practiced self-censorship and spoke in code. When he said, “Not by might and not by power” he meant that we recognize Hashem acting, occasionally even through the veil of obligatory human effort.
4. As another example of his self-censorship, Rav Kook was famous for extolling the greatness of the Zionist athletes, and he came under heavy criticism from other rabbis for that. But according to Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg of KBY, he was really using athletics as a code word for military self-defense.

I responded:

I think you may have misunderstood my 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 or this article 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 (as opposed to simply protecting Jewish lives) – is forbidden.

As to the idea that Rav Kook practiced self-censorship, using athletics and exercise as code words for armed defense, 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 exercise but all of Rav Kook’s words (“we must achieve this through love and peace, not to ascend as a wall and not to rebel against the nations of the world”) 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”… 

My correspondent came back with another argument: The commentary on the Siddur was not written by Rav Kook himself. It was compiled from his other writings. In this case, the source is Ein Aya, his commentary on Ein Yaakov. Therefore, it can safely be categorized as Aggada. He was a posek, but he was not wearing his “posek hat” when he wrote it.

I responded: Even if you succeed in explaining away my Rav Kook quote, one would think that as a leader of religious Zionism and a chief rabbi who wrote teshuvos and paskened, he would have dealt with the three oaths somewhere.  Perhaps he does. I admit I am no scholar of Rav Kook, but I have read many books defending Zionism and I have yet to see them quote any response from him on this question. And even you, as you were trying to prove me wrong, did not have such a quote, in fact you wrote in your first letter, “I don’t know where else Rabbi Kook addressed this question explicitly, if at all, but the whole thrust of his work and life is clear.” 

Many other Zionists addressed the Gemara that Zionism seems to be violating, and provided answers: it is only Agadah, the Balfour Declaration or the UN gave permission et cetera. If you bother to read the rest of my book, or even better, the Hebrew edition which contains many additional source materials on the pro-Zionist side, you will see that I did research this subject. I think I gave my readers a fair view of the entire gamut of rabbinic opinions. 

The glaring exception is Rav Kook. With all of his sefarim including shailos utshuvos, couldn’t he write one line about it? Why doesn’t he tell us how he viewed the piece of Gemara that seems to contradict his life’s work? 

By the way, in one of your numerous links, you showed a page from Chazon Hageulah in which he says שאין לנו כעת עסק בכיבוש מלחמה which seems to support my side if anything.