Dynamic Duos: Part 3--Powerful Company
By: Jonathan Seidel
Though this essay was properly explored in an earlier essay it is reviewed here due to the chronology and structure of this series. R' Kook and R' Weinberg were luminaries in their respective communities and had an incredible foothold in modern Jewry.
Advocating Adjudicators
The introduction mentions R’ Kook's controversy with his fellow chief rabbi, R’ Uziel, but that slot will be filled by a later chief rabbinate diversity. As adjudicators R’ Kook and R’ Weinberg were highly regarded. Their conclusions are still followed by the students and much of the Jewish world. Prof. Avinoam Rosenak, in his essay on R’ Eliezer Berkovits cites three examples of differentiation between R’ Berkovits’ rebbe R’ Weinberg and R’ Kook adding R’ Berkovits’ response1. I will omit the latter’s opinions, though I do think his explanations are quite intriguing even if the reader disagrees.
Prof. Rosenak firstly cites the case of the sabbatical year2. R’ Kook’s conservatism with R’ Weinberg and R’ Uziel was not absolute, he tended to be lenient with Zionism and secularists3. The irony of his distinction between female publicity and Zionism is quite interesting historically recognising one and not the other. R’ Kook opined by a traditional rule to permit selling land to the Arabs (Shabbat Ha-Aretz 59-61)4 (this may follow the zionist push but it seems to be more traditional than contemporary with regards to ruling). R’ Weinberg argued instead that selling land to Arabs cannot be done in our generation because it will create all sorts of problems (Shevet Mi-Yehuda 12:265). Despite traditional permission, it should be suspended nowadays because of its potential danger.
R’ Kook opposed autopsies from his “metaphysical concept of Israel” (Da’at Kohen #199/383). Arguing prohibition destroying a body is intertwined with preserving it. If Jews cannot partake then even in Israel for medical purposes non-Jewish corpses will be imported. R’ Kook preferred to save the Jewish soul disallowing its desecration relying heavily on other countries. It does not seem so practical and because of this R’ Weinberg questioned its implementation. R’ Weinberg again ridiculed this ruling as it failed to recognise the proper reality of Israel’s situation. He felt R’ Kook’s conclusion was not only unacceptable to the times to Jews but the world. As a political matter, he deemed it worthy to use Jewish bodies for autopsies (Seredei Aish #22)5.
The last case involves women. R’ Kook had a big disagreement with R’ Uziel and furthered with R’ Weinberg. R’ Kook with his mystical outlook prohibited any mixing of the sexes as intolerable (Shemoneh Kevatzim 3:351, 124)6, R’ Weinberg on the other hand supported female legal involvement, permitting listening to multiple women singing in unison (Seredei Aish 2:8)7. R’ Kook had an agenda as a leader to retain the integrity of the halakha but sympathised with certain groups. R’ Weinberg instead recognised development as did R’ Epstein but was not necessarily as brazen.
Endnotes
1. Avinoam Rosenak, “Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits: Halakhah and Modern Orthodoxy” Ukrainian Orientalistics: Special Issue on Jewish Studies ed. Vitaly Chernoivanenko pp. 85-92.↩
3. Avinoam Rosenak, Rabbi A.I.H Kook, Zalman Shazar Publication, Jerusalem, 2006 [Hebrew] pp. 81-92.↩
4. M. Weiss “On Shmita before 1929” Pangs of Tradition and Change ed. M. Kahana Rehovot, 1990 [Hebrew] pp. 75-90. See: Arye Edrei, “From Orthodoxy to Religious Zionism: Rabbi Kook and the Sabbatical Year Polemic” Dine Israel 26-27, 2008.↩
5. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “Autopsies in the State of Israel” Tehumin 12, 1991 pp. 383-384.↩
6. Rav Kook went as far as forbidding teaching Torah to women. Abraham Isaac Kook, Mitzvat Ri'ayah Yoreh Deah 1, Jerusalem 1985.↩
7. Marc B. Shapiro. Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884–1966 Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Rabbi Weinberg's Agony by David Singer | Articles. Dr. Singer notes in line with Dr. Shapiro’s analysis that R’ Weinberg was innovative at times and quite conservative at others. Still as Prof. Rosenak points out, the debacle between R’ Berkovits and R’ Kasher seems to shed light that R’ Weinberg believed in, maybe even preferred, liberal rulings but abstained at times due to lack of resources or agreement.↩
Comments
Post a Comment