ואבוא
היום אל העין
VA AVO HAYOM EL HAAYIN
Woe upon the eyes that see it and the ears that hear it
and those who keep silent - R.
Yechezkel Landau, the Nodah beYehuda, after reading the mystical
treatise VaAvo haYom el haAyin.[1]
INTRODUCTION:
In 1724, the itinerant Polish-Lithuanian traveller and
bookdealer, Moshe Meir Kamenker must have known about the explosive nature of
one of the books he peddling. The book was entitled VaAvo
haYom el haAyin (And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, Gen.
24:42) whose authorship has been traced to R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz, arguably the
most respected and prestigious rabbi of that era.
R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz was embroiled in one of the most
vitriolic rabbinic controversies - probably since the time of Maimonides
(1135-1204) - with R. Yakov Emden, after being accused of his secret
involvement in the Sabbatian messianic movement of the false messiah Shabbatai
Tzvi (1626-1676).
[For more background to the controversies see The
Discovery of Notarized Amulets of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz and follow the
links provided there.]
In this article, based extensively on the research of
Professor Pawel Maciejko,
we explore the story and some of the content of the book found in the satchel of
this book pedlar, which shocked the rabbinic world and exposed the nature of
Sabbatian ideology and R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz’s alleged connection to it.
NOTE TO READER:
This article may upset sensitive readers although I have
made every effort to leave out the unimaginable and extremely graphic details
while still attempting to capture the essence of the work.
THE STORY:
THE BEIT MIDRASH OF ZOLKIEW:
The bookseller Moshe Meir Kamenker was associated with the kabbalistic
Beit Midrash of Żółkiew. R. Chaim Malach had taught there and it became
an important centre for the dissemination of secret Sabbatian mystical
literature. This was a time when Sabbatians had well infiltrated the ranks of
mainstream religious Jewry and it was difficult to know who was who. It was
also the time when the Chassidic movement was beginning to emerge.
In 1724, one of R. Chaim Malach’s students, R. Feishel of Złoczów
(Zolotchov) caused a stir when he announced that he was a follower of Shabbatai
Tzvi. This was even more surprising as R. Feishel was a prominent Torah scholar
who knew the Talmud by heart. R. Feishel also happened to be the bookseller,
Moshe Meir Kamenker’s brother-in-law. And Moshe Meir Kamenker’s brother was
Leib Buchbinder, who two years later was to become the father of Jacob Frank
(1726-1791) the founder of another messianic movement whose followers were known
as the Frankists (a more radical branch of the Sabbatians).
THE ‘CHASSIDIM SCHULLE’ OF MANNHEIM:
There is no doubt of Moshe Meir
Kamenker’s subversive Sabbatian credentials and leanings. Moshe Meir
Kamenker’s travels led him through Prossnitz (the centre for followers of another
Sabbatian, and another messianic claimant, R.
Leibelle of Prossnitz) and then eventually on to Mannheim. The reason why
Moshe Meir Kamenker went to Mannheim was to bring books and be associated with
the Sabbatian Beit Midrash in that city, which was known as the Chassidim
Schule headed by R. Isaiah Chassid. R. Isaiah
Chasid had been previously associated with R. Avraham Rovigo and his kabbalistic
yeshiva established in Jerusalem around 1701. Moshe Meir Kamenker and R. Isaiah
Chassid wanted to proclaim R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz as the Messiah.
Maciejko’s (2014:iii) research reveals that in all
likelihood, on Moshe Meir Kamenker’s arrival in Mannheim, he mistakenly thought
he had made contact with a Sabbatian colleague but instead, he met up with an
opponent the Sabbatian movement. This person duly reported him to the community
authorities who detained him, searched his bags and found a number of
manuscripts which were subsequently seized.
EX-COMMUNICATING MOSHE MEIR KAMENKER:
The rabbinic courts of Frankfurt and Mannheim investigated
the matter and after threatening some members of the Chassidim Schulle
with ex-communication, it became clear that Moshe Meir
Kamenker had supplied its rabbi, Isaiah Chassid, with some Sabbatian material
from R. Leibelle Prossnitz and, more damningly, with material from none other
than R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz!
These findings proved to be the first known writings of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz
to be publicised. A signed letter from R. Eibeschuetz to R. Isiah Chassid was
also discovered amongst the texts in the satchel, ironically, telling him not
to publicise any of these writings.
Sometime later, the Beit
Din of Frankfurt ex-communicated Moshe Meir Kamenker and the entire sect of
Sabbatians, who, because of their numbers, called themselves the believers
(kat haMa’aminim). The mainstream opponents were labelled as deniers
or Kofrim. This case highlighted the extent of the vast network of
secret Sabbatians operating across Europe.
‘REPENTANT’ SABBATIANS:
Of interest, is that this ban of ex-communication stressed
that Sabbatians must be identified and prosecuted no matter the status or
religious scholarship exhibited by the members of this group. This was
obviously a problem and great concern at that time. Many important rabbis
continued to believe in Shabbatai Tzvi even after his death in 1676 and well
into the next century. Furthermore, there was little trust in repentant
Sabbatians as they generally remained secretive and subversive. The bans of
ex-communication made it clear that they could only be rehabilitated back
within the community after producing a written affidavit signed by three
reliable rabbinical authorities.
The rabbinic courts were wary of
repentant Sabbatians because R. Isaiah Chassid who headed the Mannheim Beit
Midrash had already denounced Sabbatiansm only to openly return to it
later.
In all, three bans were issued
simultaneously by three prominent Jewish communities in three different
countries. These bans were an attempt to present a united front against the
Sabbatians.
R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ AS
AUTHOR OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN?
According to R. Yakov Emden,
when R. Isaiah Chassid read the writings which were brought by Moshe Meir
Kamenker (and which were attributed to, although not all signed by, R. Yonatan
Eibeschuetz) he knew they were from him and he declared that R. Eibeschuetz
certainly had the holy spirit resting on him as he revealed secrets far deeper
than the Ari had through his Lurianic Kabbalah during the sixteenth
century.
These writings in the satchel, as
we shall see, were so explosive and shocking, that R. Yechezkel
Katzenellenbogen - who was the main signatory of these bans issued from the
three Battei Din -wrote to the famous ‘Sabbatian hunter’, R.
Moshe Chagiz, to ask for his help in eradicating these texts of the ‘sect of
believers’ which were found on Moshe Meir Kamenker. Particularly, what they
considered to be R. Eibeschuetz’s work, VaAvo haYom
el haAyin.
While R.
Moshe Chagiz identified the work as emanating from R. Eibeschuetz, R.
Katzenellenbogen was not willing to single him out in person because of his
prestige in the community.
According to R. Yakov Emden, the three courts that issued the bans, also knew
that some of the manuscripts distributed by Moshe Meir
Kamenker had been written by R. Eibescheutz but were reluctant to publicise
the matter for fear of upsetting his wealthy supporters.
Thus R. Eibeschuetz’s name does
not appear on the bans, but Moshe Meir Kamenker’s name does and he unfairly
bears the brunt of the attack becoming its scapegoat. This was a classical case
of ‘shooting the messenger’.
R. Katzenellenbogen then requested
of the rabbi of Frankfurt, Yakov Cohen Poppers to contact R. Eibeschuetz’s
brother in Prague, and get him to speak to R. Yonatan to ascertain whether
these allegations of Sabbatian involvement were true or not. The brother
reported back stating that R. Yonatan was indeed involved with the movement,
but only in the sense of infiltrating it to gather strategic information.
So far, because everyone was
gently, if not fearfully, skirting around the issue, no official mention was made of the ‘elephant
in the room’, the text of VaAvo haYom el haAyin.
However, Maciejko’s outstanding
and meticulous research has allowed him to reconstruct the events, and from
letters and other writings relating to this investigation, it became clear that
various witnesses did make reference to this explosive work.
Maciejko
(2014:vii) explains that during the investigations of the Batei Din, a
past student of R. Eibeschuetz by the name of Binyamin Chassid, had sent a copy
of VaAvo haYom el haAyin to his father R.
Michael Chassid who was the rabbi of Berlin.
R. Michael Chassid was of the view
that Sabbatians were not just mistaken in their beliefs (as R. Akiva was,
thinking that Bar Kochba was the Messiah) but instead, they were acutely aware
that their teachings were at variance with Torah values, and they were intent
on subverting Judaism. When he received the copy of VaAvo haYom el haAyin it
proved to be the last straw for him and he was determined to expose R.
Eibeschuetz.
CLOSING RANKS TO PROTECT R.
EIBESCHUETZ:
The problem now was that R.
Eibeschuetz was protected by many leading rabbis including Chief Rabbi David
Oppenheim of Prague, who it was believed had threatened to take any Jew who
spoke badly of R. Eibeschuetz to the Christian authorities.
An aura of secrecy and protection
thus prevailed hindering any true investigation of the Sabbatians and their
ideologues who were so deeply entrenched within the mainstream community.
ONLY TO RABBIS SPEAK OUT:
Amazingly, notwithstanding a
golden age of rabbinic leadership, only two rabbis were prepared to speak out
publically against the Sabbatians calling for their exposure, no matter their
standing in rabbinic circles. They were R. Moshe Chagiz and R. Michael Chassid.
R. Moshe Chagiz boldly called for the drastic step to ex-communicate all the students
who had studied under R. Eibeschuetz. Even R. Yakov Emden, who was later to
become the greatest Sabbatain exposer, felt that at that time it was better not
to draw attention to works like VaAvo haYom el haAyin.
This, even after reading the work and proclaiming that: “Nothing like this
was ever seen or known from any heretic or disbeliever of this world.”
To confuse matters even further,
the supporters of R. Eibeschuetz claimed that the three abovementioned bans of
ex-communication were forgeries. This was given momentum by R. Eibeschuetz’s
wealthy father-in-law, R. Yitzchak Spira who sent letters to other Jewish
communities supporting the notion that the bans were fraudulent.
R. EIBESCHUETZ’S ANTI-SABBATIAN
BAN:
Then on September 16, 1725, in
what many believe was a disingenuous strategic move, R. Eibeschuetz issued a
ban against the Sabbatians. The ban also called on all to distance themselves
from the book dealer Moshe Meir Kamenker and his ‘false writings’, who
had again become a scapegoat, this time for the (alleged) Sabbatians.
Most rabbis were prepared to accept and believe that
R. Eibeschuetz’s ban was genuine, and for the next twenty-five years, he remained vindicated until the issues of the Sabbatian amulets surfaced around 1750.
THE CODED WORDING OF R. EIBESCHUETZ’S
ANTI-SABBATIAN BAN:
Maciejko
(2014:xi) draws our attention to the fact that most rabbinic bans of
ex-communication use a relatively standard form of verbiage, especially when
their target is the same entity. However, R. Eibescheutz’s ban against the
Sabbatians did not follow the template of the three earlier West European anti-Sabbatian
bans.
R. Eibeschuetz’s ban referred
Shabbatai Tzvi who had “raised his hand against the Torah of Moshe”, “descended
into the abyss of the Sheol” and “took
upon himself everlasting infamy”.
While on a cursory reading of this
ban it would appear that R. Eibeschuetz was sharply condemning the evil
Sabbatians, a deeper reading reveals something most unusual:
No self-respecting Sabbatian wold have found these expressions offensive in the least. After all, their leader Shabbatai Tzvi proudly abolished Torat Moshe and replaced it with a Torah Chadasha, or new Torah which was to be relevant to the messianic era.
Similarly, he did indeed descend into the depths of evil Kelipot,
or husks in order to ‘elevate’ them in mystical preparation for
messianic redemption.
Furthermore, he took on “everlasting infamy” as a
badge of honour as he suffered in his cosmic and messianic mission.
And even when R. Eibeschuetz
wrote: “…everyone who believes in Shabbatai Tzvi denies the God of Israel
and His Torah”, that too didn’t bother Sabbatians because Sabbatian Kabbalah,
with its roots in Lurianic Kabbalah [see Root
Causes of the Sabbatian Movement] distinguished between Ein Sof and Elokei
Yisrael (see How
are we Supposed to Pray?]. According to some models of Kabbalah and
certainly according to Sabbatain Kabbalah, Ein Sof is so removed
from the “God of Israel and His Torah” that they found justification to
reject that lower level of Elokei Yisrael, as their aim was to reach a 'higher' level of G-d.
Accordingly, seasoned Sabbatain kabbalists
would not have found R. Eibeschuetz’s ban objectionable. On the contrary, it
would have resonated with them as if it were some form of code. Sabbatians were
known to have used codes similar to this - hidden within seemingly benign writings
- in their communications with each other.
And even when R. Eibeschuetz wrote
what seemed to be an insulting phrase referring to Shabbatai Tzvi as a “dead
dog”, a Sabbatian well-versed in his Kabbalah would know that the Zohar
(Raya Mehemna) has
Moshe Rabbeinu speaking of the Messiah as a “dead dog”.
Another suspicious element evident
in R. Eibeschuetz’s ban is the matter of the signatories. For example, while it
claims to represent the elders of the Prague community, two elders out of four
are missing. The Chief Rabbi of Prague, R. David Oppenheim did not sign the ban
but R. Simcha Poppers signed the ban and he was a known Sabbatian.
Another rabbi who signed the ban was Avraham Fesseburg and he is known to have
made the statement that if R. Eibeschuetz believed in Shabbatai Tzvi, so would
he.
And yet another rabbi, Yakov Hamburger would go on to support R. Eibeschuetz
twenty-five years later during the amulet controversy.
MORE EVIDENCE ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN:
R. Eibeschutz’s ban against the
Sabbatians in 1725, nevertheless, proved to be effective as it put paid to any
real discussion on his suspected authorship of VaAvo
haYom el haAyin.
However, Maciejko’s
(2014:xvi) research reveals that:
All the
testimonies from the 1720s that do attribute the work to a concrete author,
without a single exception, identify this author as Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschütz.
Contemporary scholarship[13] also
concurs the R. Eibeschutz was the author.
Maciejko
continues:
Doubts
concerning the attribution of Va-Avo to Jonathan Eibeschütz arose for the first
time only during the amulet controversy of the 1750s, when the purported author
made a halfhearted and highly ambiguous statement which was interpreted by some
as a denial of his authorship.
However, based on the earlier
evidence from 1725:
Some of the
testimonies allow us to trace the paths of dissemination of concrete copies of
the manuscript that originated from Eibeschütz’s yeshivah in Prague and were
brought to Mannheim (by Moses Meir Kamenker), Berlin (by Binyamin Hasid), or
Lissa (by an anonymous former student of Rabbi Jonathan)…. and no
attempt to attribute the book to someone else was made.
Interestingly, in trying to
deflect authorship of the explosive document away from R. Eibeschutz, it was
purported that Jacob Frank was the true author. This was clearly not possible
as Frank, born in 1726, would have been just one year old at the time.
THE THEOLOGY OF VA’AVO
HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN:
Like much Kabalistic
literature, VaAvo haYom el haAyin calls G-d the Ein Sof,
the Infinite or literally the One with no End. The work begins
with a question: If G-d is Infinite, then why is He called the One with no
End, and not the Ein Reshit or the One with no Beginning?
The answer is that it all depends
on the perspective. From G-d’s perspective, He is conscious of beginnings. In
the beginning, G-d created. From our perspective, we are conscious of
endings.
We can only know G-d by working
from the end or the bottom upwards.
This type of theology led the
Sabbatians to indulge in sin and promiscuous activity as they wanted to know
G-d from the ‘End’ in order to get closer to the ‘Beginning’. And
because He is Ein Sof, there is no place devoid of G-d. G-d, according to them (and other mystics),
can be found even (or especially) in sin.
The author of VaAvo haYom
el haAyin writes:
[E]verything
that is prohibited in the lower worlds… is the force of unification and
construction in the upper realms.[15]
This is similar to the concept of
‘veNahfoch hu’ where the physical and spiritual realms are said to be
inverted relative to each other.
For us, it seems as if the cosmos
is the most important thing, but instead, VaAvo haYom el haAyin describes
it as insignificant and as a G-ldy ‘waste product’ (to use a euphemism). I have
seen similar descriptions even within the writings of later Chassidut.
But in VaAvo haYom el haAyin,
G-d’s ‘physiology’ is depicted very graphically to the extent that it would be
considered blasphemous. It takes the well-known concept of corporeality (that
G-d has some form of body - a popular mystical concept that Rambam was opposed
to) [see The
Notion that G-d has a ‘Body’ - In Early and Modern Rabbinical writings] to
the next unimaginable level.
Earlier works like the Shiur
Komah, depict G-d as having sexual organs, and later mystical works like Lurianic
Kabbalah describe dynamic relationships between various aspects of the
Godhead. Although there is a large body of apologetic literature, both written
and oral, that explains that these images are not to be taken literally, some
depictions are so graphic that they transcend the boundaries of poetic licence or descriptive analogies.
In VaAvo haYom el haAyin, the imagery has gone too far for a theological
discussion to remain within respectable parameters.
Maciejko
(2014:xxvi) describes
how VaAvo haYom el haAyin depicts:
the various
stages of creation as a series of sexual acts, but it argues that the
exploration (in thought and deed) of various aspects of sexuality is in itself
a redemptive act of mending the world (tikkun olam).
During the act of creation, VaAvo
haYom el haAyin describes G-d losing consciousness (a state known as tardema)
and it is the duty of the Jewish people, and humanity in general, to restore
that G-dly consciousness, through the kabbalistic notion of tikkun
(Maciejko 2014:xxix).
Maciejko (2014:xxxiv) writes that
in VaAvo haYom el haAyin:
Eibeschütz
draws upon the Lurianic teachings, yet he strips the myth of all of its pathos
and grandeur…
[After the
act of creation t]he Holy Ancient One…has removed himself from the lower worlds
and folded into himself. The God of Israel…loses both his virile powers and any
interest in his creations.
According to this, G-d is now in
exile. Exile is a central theme of Lurianic Kabbalah and seized upon by
Sabbatianism - and because G-d is in exile, He is alienated from His creation.
The Messiah is the only being who can redeem and restore both G-d and creation.
I have only shared, in the broadest terms, a minuscule amount of the content and lewd imagery of VaAvo haYom el haAyin
as I am unable to repeat or write further about such matters.
REACTION TO THE WORK:
Whoever read VaAvo haYom el
haAyin, whether they were for it or against it, agreed that it was
unlike anything they had ever seen before.
The Sabbatian kabbalists
believed that VaAvo haYom el haAyin revealed
deeper secrets than both the Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah. But the
mainstream readers like R. Moshe Charif of Pressburg referred to it as “bizarre
and appalling”
and R. Yakov Emden said it was “obscene”. R. Moshe Chagiz said that such vile ideas had
not ever even come into the minds of the “ancient idolaters”.
R. Yechezkel Landau, also known as the Nodah beYehuda, wrote:
This book is
that of a complete heretic, who does not merely deny a particular tenet of
belief [kotsets be-neti’ot], but who uproots and destroys the very fundaments
of Jewish faith… I did not find such heresy even among all the religions of the
Gentiles that ever existed…and [it] denie[s] the providence of the Ein Sof.
The work VaAvo
haYom el haAyin shocked everyone one way or another. For some
Sabbatians, it was a masterful mystical work that surpassed any previous Kabbalah,
while for the opponents it was just vile, appalling and basely pornographic. It
was felt that a line had been crossed, even for those who follow the mystical
tradition.
As Maciejko puts it:
[I]t is
blatantly pornographic..in fact, it is possibly the only truly pornographic
text ever written in the rabbinic idiom.
ANALYSIS:
Granted, VaAvo haYom el haAyin is
an extreme example of an otherwise common mystical theology that was prevalent
during the eighteenth century. While the content of the treatise is
unimaginable, what strikes one even more so is the respected personalities who
were involved and implicated in perpetuating such ideas.
It also shows that the common
distinction made between ‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’ Kabbalah - where
it is said that the former is dangerous while the latter is just theosophy at
best, or theurgy at worst - is not entirely true. Theoretical Kabbalah
is not always just inspirational and benign.