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

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.

“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:

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:

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.