At times, when there is a need to disregard words of Torah
The word "when" does not appear in Rav Kook's manuscript; it was added by the editor in the 1983 edition. The revision somewhat smoothes over the radicalism of Rav Kook's statement - that there is an inevitable need to disregard words of the Torah.
That is, who can do this in the permitted way, by "temporal decree" (Hora'at Sha'ah), a directive to temporarily suspend a commandment.
That is, a spontaneous movement of the people, which "breaks the fence," a mass disruption of religious law.
If there has been no Hora'at Sha'ah, and the rectification of the situation has come about by means of a disruption, then it is better that this should be in the form of a spontaneous action by ordinary people (in error) than that religious people should intentionally break the law.
According to the Torah, a prophet has the right (in a critical historical situation) to suspend certain Torah laws. A classic example of this is the prophet Elijah, who created a religious revolution when he carried out the sacrifice on Mount Carmel rather than in the Temple (I Kings 18:23), as the times demanded this. (It must be noted that the laws of the Torah apply to a stable situation, in which life flows normally. But no stable system can be equated to a critical situation, and it is such cases that the Torah anticipates with the concept of Hora'at Sha'ah.)
Inasmuch as in this case, the commandment to obey the prophet - including temporary injunctions - will be carried out.
Breaking the fence - and also breaking the law itself.
The words "long-lasting" were deleted by the editor of the 1983 edition, who saw them as too harsh and drastic.
Because there is a departure from observation of Torah and the commandments.
That is, this change, in the end, is important, and is fundamentally for the better. The "outer" is what exists today; the "inner" considers the future in terms of that deep change in the existing situation that is necessary to build the future in the right way. To prevent an incorrect understanding of the text, the concluding words were revised by the editor of the 1983 edition to read as follows: "although these processes dismay the heart as they are, they cause it [the heart] to rejoice due to the future (i.e., the aim) to which they are directed."