 |
| R. Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook 1865-1935. |
Introduction
This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Isaac Hershkowitz[1] − statistically compares the early writings of Rav Kook to his later writings. R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook (1865-1935) was the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine and one of the founders of religious Zionism. Rav Kook created an enormous corpus of literature and new material continues to emerge. It is difficult, therefore, to describe Rav Kook unless all of his writings are taken into consideration. He is variously depicted by scholars in attempts to ascertain his “overarching system” of thought, but according to Hershkowitz, it seems his approach may have undergone an evolutionary process instead of remaining a homogenous system of thought. This position can be supported by a groundbreaking study of statistical data that Hershkowitz has conducted indicating “the development and evolution of Kook’s position over the course of his life” (Hershkowitz 2023:2, footnote 3).
Hershkowitz’s research is in sharp contradistinction to the work by R. Yosef Avivi in his “Kabbalah of Rabbi A. I. Kook,“[2] for example, who understands Rav Kook as expounding on the Kabbalistic system of the Ari (Lurianic Kabbalah). Hershkowitz uses an interesting methodology based on a statistical study of the frequency of words used by Rav Kook in the different phases of his writing career and, as we shall see, comes to a different conclusion.
Big-Data Technology and Close Reading
Hershkowitz engages in what is known as ‘distant reading’ which involves the use of technology, instead of just physically looking a small sections of Rav Kook’s writings in their specific and isolated contexts. This way, through using technology and statistical analysis, he is able to holistically examine and compare large amounts of text simultaneously, something the human brain cannot do. This is in conjunction with his ‘close reading’ (i.e., actual physical study) of the texts, which confirms the statistical findings. The use of Big-Data technology can:
“serve as tools for re-reading texts and combining close and distant reading techniques based on and inspired by the analysis of expressions and their clustering” (Hershkowitz 2013: 3, footnote 6).
In other words, the data on the frequency and clustering of certain key words can tell us many things that a general reading may overlook. In the case of the writings of Rav Kook, this statistical analysis confirms the evolutionary nature of his writing and highlights the differences between his writings as a young man compared to those as grew older as it takes into account the “different periods and different textual layers” (Hershowitz 2023:3). As a result of such methodology, Rav Kook’s writings emerge as anything but static.
Using Big-Data technology to analyse rabbinic texts is a unique way to avoid projecting personal biases into the texts and expending resources ‘explaining’ what they ‘really mean’:
“These biases include…undue attention to ideas and themes that the scholar is particularly interested in; aversion to or disregard for ideas that do not fit their research objectives; focus on salient themes that already exist in scholarly discourse; and failure to identify certain literary characteristics deemed unimportant” (Hershkowitz 2023:4).
Rav Kook’s different writing phases
Hershkowitz describes Rav Kook as progressing diachronically through five different writing phases. It all started in the town of Žeimelis in northern Lithuania (1888–1895) followed by periods in Bauska in southern Latvia (1895–1904), then Jaffa (1904–1914), and in Switzerland and London during World War I, and finally in Jerusalem.
Hershkowitz is not the first to point out changes in Rav Kook’s thought over time. Eliezer Goldman[3] had already noted this during the 1980s and there were others, but this is the first time technology has been employed in this endeavour to map and track these developments. Rav Kook drew “from a wide range of sources (many of which remain elusive)”, and he wrote intensively over a period of more than fifty years “while his personal and public life were convulsed by great changes” (Hershkowitz 2023:10). This appears to have been reflected in his writings.
The books subjected to data comparison
The books used for data comparison, in this study, were separated by a period of about 25 years and included the three early works produced while Rav Kook was living in Žeimelis (Pinkas 15-16, Metziut Katan and Midvar Shur from between 1888–1895) on the one hand − and the later, more well-known work, Shemonah Kevatzim (1920s) on the other hand. Shemonah Kevatzim is generally regarded as the flag-ship of Kookian theology.
The earlier and later sets of writing used in this study are relatively similar to each other in terms of the number of words in each corpus. The three works from the Žeimelis period contain 309 985 words (Metziut Katan: 148 199 + Midvar Shur: 111 330 + Pinkas 15–16: 50 456 = 309 985). Shemonah Kevatzim, on the other hand, contains 347 146 words. A detailed table of words is presented by Hershkowitz in the appendix to his study.
The emerging patterns
A fascinating pattern emerges emphasising the differences between the early and later writings of Rav Kook.
In the earlier writings from the Žeimelis period, the ideas are presented as a rather haphazard collection of independent clusters, with very few links connecting the different thoughts.
In the later Shemonah Kevatzim, however, Rav Kook creates an intricate series of connections between his various ideas. His ideological framework now appears as an intensely branched network of internal relationships.
The findings
What primarily emerges from the results of the data analysis is that the early writings project a relatively narrow, traditional view of Jewish particularism − as opposed to the later writings in Shemonah Kevatzim which convey a more expanded view of Jewish universalism and divine immanence and present a concentration on personal and ecstatic experiences. These broader aspects are lacking in the earlier writings:
“[I]n the Žeimelis corpus, content related to particularism is far more prominent, indicating that this was the main focus of Kook’s writing at that time…Kook is far more likely to cite specific sources, thus situating himself within a particularistic literary tradition…He responds to Jewish sources, uses particularistic Jewish language, and only rarely avails himself of ideas or concepts that are not rooted in canonical literature” (Hershkowitz 2023:14-15).
The early writings thus present Rav Kook as a relatively conservative traditionalist who does not deviate from the classical rabbinic sources. By contrast, the later writings reveal a Rav Kook who hardly mentions sources or any of the great rabbinical predecessors.
“His language remains aloof from his sources of inspiration, as if he were simply prophesizing or philosophizing without being beholden to any ideological or literary tradition” (Hershkowitz 2023:15).
Some examples of word frequecies
The acronym “Chazal,” which stands for Chachameinu zichronam liveracha, and refers to the classical rabbis, features often in the earlier Žeimelis collection but it is almost entirely absent from the later Shemonah Kevatzim.
“Without Midvar Shur [—a book of homilies, its genre requiring Rav Kook to draw upon external sources—] the Žeimelis corpus comprises 198,497 words. Ḥazal appears 448 times with a frequency of 0.226%—a significant result in its own right. In Shemonah Qevaṣim, with its total of 347,146 words, the word Ḥazal appears just twice!” (Hershkowitz 2023:18).
In the Shemonah Kevatzim, Rav Kook’s references to Jewish particularism are rare. He hardly addresses the unique characteristics of the Jewish people. This is in stark contrast to the earlier Žeimelis collection where there are almost no references to humanity without an emphasis on Jewish uniqueness and separateness:
“Even generic characteristics of humanity, life, and the world are simply not broached in the Žeimelis corpus” (Hershkowitz 2023:16).
On the other hand, in Shemonah Kevatzim we find many references to the world and humankind. For example, the expression “as to the human” occurs 19 times; “all of life” occurs 12 times, “light of life” occurs 19 times; “in humanity and in the world” occurs 10 times; “throughout the world” occurs 8 times; “with love of people occurs 8 times.
This is contrasted in the Žeimelis corpus by expressions like “of Israel” which occurs 173 times; “about/on Israel” which occurs 58 times; “to Israel” which occurs 53 times and “the collective Israel” which occurs 46 times. In a similar vein, the expression “nations of the world” occurs 157 times and it is almost always contrasted with particularistic reference to the Jewish people. There are other expressions also related to a particularistic vision of redemption such as “the World to Come” and “in the World to Come” which occur 105 times; “the holy temple” occurs 47 times and the “resurrection of the dead” occurs 49 times.
The words “Torah” and “Mitzvot” appear frequently in the Žeimelis collection while in Shemonah Kevatzim the words “world” and “human” are more frequent.
“Kook’s decision to emphasize his sources in the Žeimelis corpus may be understood as stylistic, however, I think it may point to something more: inward looking writing sharpens and emphasizes Kook’s own attempts to present himself as traditional insider—as a member of the Jewish religious world. This orientation is lacking in Shemonah Qevaṣim, and it corresponds well with Kook’s sharp turn to a more universalistic orientation in his later works” (Hershkowitz 2023:18).
Some words not found in the Žeimelis collection are: supernal, divine, soul [neshamah], spiritual, sanctity [kodesh], internal, thought [machshava], worlds, and morality.
The names of G-d far appear more frequently in the Žeimelis corpus than in Shemonah Kevatzim. G-d’s names appear almost three times more frequently in the Žeimelis corpus which is almost once in every 60 words. This means that G-d’s name occurs in almost every two sentences. In Shemonah Kevatzim, however, a divine name appears almost once every 160 words, which is only once every six and a half sentences.
There is also a difference in the way G-d’s name is used in Shemonah Kevatzim, to indicate that G-d is to be found among the people and within the outside world.
“[In the Žeimelis corpus, the] names of God are densely packed…precisely because God is a discrete object that Kook recognizes, and Who can be reached through the medium of study and law. By contrast, in Shemonah Qevaṣim, Kook identifies divine presence within the totality of reality…In that work, the primary relationship between human and God is one of love —not one of fear and awe, a theme so prominent in the Žeimelis corpus and which presupposes an unbridgeable chasm separating humankind from the divine” (Hershkowitz 2023:20).
The Kabbalah of Shemonah Kevatzim
A recurring theme of Shemonah Kevatzim is “secrets of the Torah.” But it uses the word “Torah” in a mystical and esoteric sense, and not in its usual Halachik or Talmudic sense. There is an irony here because, in the Žeimelis writings, the focus is very esoteric and the teachings are essentially representations and systematic commentaries on Lurianic Kabbalah − yet Shemonah Kevatzim, supposedly dedicated to the “secrets of the Torah” does not deal with such Kabbalah! So where are the “secrets of the Torah” in Shemonah Kevatzim?
The answer is that, during this final phase of Rav Kook’s writings, his essential mysticism revolved around his conceptualisation of universalism. This, if I understand Hershkowitz correctly, was a profound break from traditional and particularistic Kabbalah and a move towards a broader and universal Kabbalah. The move away from traditional particularism was so dramatic that there even appears to have been space for some degree of antinomianism:
“In Shemonah Qevaṣim, ‘Torah’ almost always implies an esoteric approach, one that does not necessarily imply a behavioral distinction between Jews and non-Jews, and to a large extant allows for antinomian (or at the very least anomian) readings of the Jewish tradition” (Hershkowitz 2023:21).
Hershkowitz doesn’t go into examples of this possible antinomianism or anomianism, but I would suggest the following two examples:
1) Rav Kook described the ‘anguish’ one experiences upon entering the ‘confined world of halacha’:
“Great anguish is experienced by one who leaves the wide horizons of pure contemplation, where poetry and the most exquisite beauty was experienced, and now enters the study of the confined world of halachic enactments...A person who is stirred by a soul ennobled with the splendour of holiness suffers frightful anguish at the chains of confinement when he leaves the one branch of study for the other” (Orot, Vol. 1, p.28).
2) Rav Kook felt that the Rabbinate was ‘too focused on Halacha.’ He wrote:
“The Rabbanut that I am trying to raise up...should not be boxed in and focussed only on the world of religious law...because matters of religion are in truth matters of life” (IR 2, p. 28).
Conclusion
In the Žeimelis corpus, Rav Kook appears as a typical and traditional Kabbalist and remains true to all the literary Talmudic, Halachic and Kabbalistic sources. In Shemonah Kevatzim he appears to be a new brand of universalist Kabbalah, devoid of traditional sources: In Shermonah Kevatzim:
“[t]he authoritative sources that characterize the rabbinic literary tradition throughout history are almost entirely absent, replaced by original thought which seem to draw from no literary source whatsoever. In Shemonah Qevaṣim, and unlike the Žeimelis corpus, Kook is a man who encounters God everywhere; he sees God in all corners of reality, and thus particularistic boundaries and partitions lose their value" (Hershkowitz 2023:23).
This way, the statistical analysis of Rav Kook’s writings confirms
a profound process of evolution and development of thought over his lifetime,
and he emerges even more radical than previously characterised.
Further reading
Kotzk Blog:
114) RADICAL RAV KOOK - REMBRANDT, ATHEISTS AND THE 'FRIGHTFUL ANGUISH OF
HALACHA':
Kotzk Blog:
208) RAV KOOK ON: WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE STUDYING GEMARA?
Kotzk Blog:
115) THE CENSORED WRITINGS OF RAV KOOK:
Kotzk Blog:
225) WHAT THEY DIDN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT RAV KOOK:
Kotzk Blog:
337) RABBI CHAIM HIRSCHENSOHN – BETWEEN RAV KOOK AND R. YOM TOV SCHWARZ?
Further sources
I thank Dr Avi Harel for sharing these sources with me.
ההלכתית־הגותית של הרב קוק, הוצאת מאגנס, תשס"ה. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
אבינועם רוזנק, ההלכה הנבואית: הפילוסופיה של ההלכה של הראי"ה קוק, הוצאת מאגנס (של האוניברסיטה העברית), תשס"ה. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
משה צבי נריה, אריה שטרן ונריה גוטל (עורכים), ברורים בהלכות הראי"ה, בית הרב, תשנ"ב. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
יוסף בן שלמה, שירת החיים: פרקים במשנתו של הרב קוק, מסדרת "אוניברסיטה משודרת" משרד הביטחון – ההוצאה לאור, תשמ"ט 1989. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
סמדר שרלו, צדיק יסוד עולם: השליחות הסודית והחוויה המיסטית של הרב קוק: במעמקי נפשי קול ה’ קורא, הוצאת אוניברסיטת בר־אילן, 2013.
יעקב פילבר, לאורו: עיונים במשנת רבנו..., המכון לחקר משנת הראי"ה, תשנ"ה. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
יוסף קלנר, מילון הראי"ה: ערכים ומונחים בכתבי הרב, הוצאת עטרת ירושלים, תשע"ג. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
מיכל לניר, הרב קוק והציונות: גלגולה של תקווה, הוצאת ספרא, 2015. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
יהודה מירסקי, הרב קוק - מבט חדש, כנרת זמורה-ביתן דביר, 2021.
יואל בן-נון, המקור הכפול: השראה וסמכות במשנת הרב קוק – לאחד את הבלתי מתאחד, בני ברק: הקיבוץ המאוחד, 2014. (הספר בקטלוג ULI)
טלי פרידמן, שמואל ליימן-ווילציג, חופש הביטוי של רבני הציונות הדתית: בין הלכה, משפט ותקשורת בדמוקרטיה הישראלית, ניב, 2024
[1]
Hershkowitz, I, 2013, ‘Rabbi Kook in Žeimelis: A Big Data Analysis’, European
Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 17, 1–27.
[2]
Avivi, J., 2018, Kabbalah of Rabbi A. I. Kook, Ben Zvi Institute,
Jerusalem [Hebrew].
[3]
Eliezer Goldman, E., 1988, ‘The Development of Rabbi Kook’s Major Views:
Writings from the Years 1906–1909’, Bar Ilan 22–23, 87–120 [Hebrew].
No comments:
Post a Comment