Introduction
This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Talya Fishman,[1] explores the origins of the extreme teshuvah, or penitential practices of the Chassidei Ashkenaz (also known as the German=Ashkenaz Pietists). This intensely ascetic, pietist and mystical movement was founded by R. Yehuda HeChassid and flourished in Germany and France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Were some of their self-punishing penitential practices appropriated from the surrounding Christian culture or were they purely of Jewish origin - or somewhere in between?
Origins of the extreme forms of
German pietism
The question regarding the
origins of some of the extreme forms of repentance practices has been the
subject of much scholarly debate. Yitzhak Baer (1888–1980) and Gershom Scholem (1897-1982)
have maintained that these practices were absorbed from similar practices
within the Christian communities, including German folk traditions – while,
more recently, most other scholars have argued that they stemmed from
penitential traditions within Judaism itself.
Fishman’s research, however,
tends to be more inclined towards the older views that some influence from
Christianity is evident in the penitential practices of Chassidei Ashkenaz.
Arguments for and against the Jewish
origins of strict pietist practices
One does not need to go far to
find extreme pietist penitential practices within Judaism. Tannaic
sources (from the Mishna period 10-210 CE) frequently deal with ascetism
involving strict abstinence and self-punishment.
Fishman explains two different tannaic
motivations for such teshuvah practices:
some [were] motivated by the
impulse to atone and others by the desire to prophylactically stave off future
calamity (1999:202).
In other words, one motivational impulse
was genuinely concerned with repentance for a misdeed, while the other was to mystically
prevent, or protect from, some further ramification resulting from the misdeed,
arising again sometime in the future.
Ephraim Urbach[2]
(apparently in support of Baer) argues that we should not regard these earlier mishnaic
penitence practices as being particularly Jewish in origin because they were
more in natural response to historical events such as the destruction of the
second Temple in 70 CE and the persecutions that followed. On this view, these
practices cannot be regarded as Jewish “vestiges of ancient ascetic
teachings”. Furthermore, there was a rabbinic attempt to curb some of the
more extreme of these practices.
A radical example of some of the
practices of Chassidei Ashkenaz was to drag the dead bodies through the
streets before burial believing they were saving the souls from punishment in
the afterlife.
Sefer Chassidim claims its
ancient roots in earlier traditions
A key work of Chassidei
Ashkenaz was their Sefer Chassidim. In this work are examples and
tales designed to guide the penitent through the process of teshuvah.
Fishman points out that it goes to great effort to show the ancient Jewish
origins of its recommended practices of self-mortification. Baer shows how Chassidei
Ashkenaz moulded itself on the Chassidim Rishonim (early pietists),
which earlier rabbinic sources often referred to. The Chassidei Ashkenaz,
therefore, were very conscious of creating this link with the past to show the
authenticity and provenance of their pietist teachings.
So, for example, Sefer
Chassidim ties to link its notion of “voluntary exile” - where the penitent
leaves his home and family and wanders the world alone – to the biblical source
of the wanderings of Cain. It also links to some rabbinic stories concerning
the atonement of Judah and speaks about the atonement of the Talmudic
sage, Nachum Gamzu. The latter, once delayed giving food and drink to a poor
man by a short time while he first unloaded his waggon. In the interim the poor
man died. The Talmud records Nachum’s words:
I went and fell upon his face and
said: May my eyes, which had no compassion on your eyes, be blinded; may my
hands, which had no compassion on your hands, be amputated; may my legs, which
had no compassion on your legs, be amputated. And my mind did not rest until I
said: May my whole body be covered in boils. [Naḥum of Gam Zu prayed that his
suffering might atone for his failure.] (b. Ta’anit 21a).
Sefer Chassidim also links
to certain rabbinic traditions concerning the penance of Adam who suffered for
130 years by standing in the river Gihon with the waters up to his neck.
These and other rabbinic sources
lead many scholars to conclude (contra Baer and Scholem) that Sefer
Chassidim was indeed based on earlier Jewish traditions and did not derive
from Christian pietist practices.
One interesting attempt at a
scholarly compromise is Reuven Bonfil[3] who
suggests that some of the ancient rabbinic ascetic practices were preserved by
Christian monks, so even if the Chassidei Ashkenaz were influenced by
such practices, they still had their origins in Judaism.
Fishman, however, is not happy
with this compromise or “bridge hypothesis” because it does not explain why,
specifically at that juncture in history (during the 12th and 13th
centuries), these severe penitence practices suddenly re-emerged in the
writings of Chassidei Ashkenaz. Fishman (1999:204) asks:
Why did these penitential
practices assume such popularity in this time and place? ...why were these
strands plucked from the richly-woven rabbinic archive suddenly endowed with
such prominence and authority?
Fishman continues:
I will argue…for a reopening of
the currently unfashionable hypothesis of Christian influence.
Christian
influence
While Fishman (1999:205) opts for
the hypothesis of Christian influence against the overwhelming opinions that
posit an ancient rabbinic provenance, it must be borne in mind that she does
not suggest a direct influence but rather a:
dynamic, two-directional, often
unwitting interplay of cultural influences in medieval Jewish and Christian
societies.
Penitence theology of
Chassidei Ashkenaz
a) Teshuvah haBa’ah (also
known as Teshuvat haCharata)
One of four methods of teshuvah
or penitence, recommended in Sefer Chassidim is Teshuvah
baBa’ah.[4]
According to the Talmud, penitence is achieved for a sin, if in another set of
circumstances, one is confronted by the same temptations – yet one withstands
the temptation. In the words of the Talmud, when one is:
with the same
woman, at the same time, in the same place.[5]
According to another Talmudic
text,[6] R.
Chanina and R. Yochanan were walking along the road, and when they came to a
fork, they were forced to decide which path to take. One led through a place of
idolatry, while the other led through a place of immorality. One sage suggested
they take the route through the place of idolatry because the appetite for
idolatry had been removed from the world.[7] The
other sage (whose opinion is regarded as being the correct one) chose to pass
through the site of immorality so as to "defy our inclination and have our
reward."
In the Christian world, Robert of
Arbrissel (d. 1117), a wandering preacher who worked with both men and women, encouraged
a practice called "martyrium," where he would sleep chastely among
the women whom he had converted from a life of sin. He wanted to atone for the
sins of his youth and established a monastery at Fontevrault.
b) Teshuvat haMishkal and
confession
Another unusual form of penitence
was that known as Teshuvat haMishkal (repentance equal in measure), and
that was to have the most sway on future Jewish attitudes towards repentance.
In this method, the penitent was to endure suffering that was equal in degree
and duration to the pleasure of the sin. This sometimes called for an
arbitrator of sorts to determine the correct and appropriate penance. This
position was filled by a chacham (wise man) and later a moreh
(advisor). This authority figure required a confession so that he could
determine the corresponding ‘tariff’ that was mandated. The parallels between
this and the well-known Christian concept of confession is clearly apparent.
Sefer Chassidim advises
the moreh to go slowly and gradually through the process, revealing just
a few penitential details at a time, lest he overwhelm the penitent.
Interestingly, Robert of Flamborough advices the Christian priest to engage in
"progressive bargaining" with the penitent for the same reason.
Sometimes fasting and charity in place of self-mortification could serve as a
‘tariff’ for the sin.
Contrition over
self-mortification
Over time, both within
Christianity and Judaism, some of the more painful methods of repentance fell
into disuse in favour of a more contemplative approach which only demanded
reflection, contrition and regret.
Fishman (1999:211) explains:
While teshuva ha-ba'ah [going back
to the same circumstances of the sin][8] may
at one point have been regarded as the quintessential penance, it had fallen
into official disuse by the early thirteenth century, leaving only the Jewish
folk tradition to perpetuate its logic and spirit.
R. Eleazar of Worms, also known
as haRokeach (1176-1238) was the last of the leaders of Chassidei Ashkenaz.
Already in his time, he discouraged some of these intense penitential
practices, particularly teshuva ha ba’ah.[9]
Shame and confession
Gradually other practices,
including confession, fell away, and as Fishman (1999:212-3) explains:
Once contrition had come to be
recognized as the essence of repentance in both the Christian and the Jewish
penitential traditions, it was only natural for the practice of confession to
be called into question.
Eventually, it was only Judaism
that abandoned confession. This took place within a relatively short period of
time because R. Yehuda heChassid had high regard for confession to a chacham,
yet his student, R. Eleazar of Worms disbanded this practice, saying:
every man whose heart elevates him
to do complete penitence ... might find penance and expiation ... and need not
shame himself in coming before a hakham.
Fishman (1999:213) shows that:
[w]ithin the Christian penitential
system, shame was seen, technically, as a form of "satisfaction"…
In fact, in
1215, just two years before R. Yehuda heChassid passed away, the Christian body
known as the Fourth Lateran Council demanded yearly confession before a priest
with the penalty of excommunication if it was not upheld. Fishman continues to
show a Jewish contemporary parallel:
[O]ne passage in Sefer Hasidim
claims that the very essence of pietism is the experience of shame. Positing an
etymological link between the terms "hasid" and "hasida,"
the text likens the pietist to the white stork, for the hasid's experience of
ubiquitous humiliation leaves him perpetually blanching [i.e. pale].
Later Jewish tradition spoke of
R. Yehuda heChassid as engaging in theological discussions with bishops
(Fishman 1999:215).
Who holds the moral high
ground?
Fishman points out to another
parallel development within the Christian world at that time:
The flourishing of ascetic Jewish
tendencies at this particular time may well be related to the growth and
prominence of monasticism in medieval Europe and to the challenge which the
monastic religious ideal posed to the Jewish image of moral superiority.
On this view, Judaism took on
some very stringent practices at certain points in its history and it did so
when the general world had adopted stricter religious and moral practices. We see
this occasionally taking place in Babylonia during Talmudic times, where
Babylonian women took on certain purity stringencies which were emulated by Jewish
women.[10]
Fishman (1999:220) fascinatingly
explains other similar instances in history where Jews were also influenced by
Christian piety:
[T]he testimonies of two Provencal
scholars, R. Jacob Anatoli and R. Menahem HaMeiri, provide ample evidence that
some Jews of the thirteenth century found the Christian approach to penance
attractive and sought to emulate it. HaMeiri (after conversing with a priest!) explicitly
acknowledged that Jewish culture offered inadequate guidance in this aspect of
religious life.
In the case of R. Jacob Anatoli,
he acknowledges that Jews adopted penitential practices which he clearly labels
as being of Christian origin.
The need to root these ideas
with the ancient Jewish tradition
It is for reasons such as these
that Fishman (1999:221) boldly suggests that Chassidei Ashkenaz made a
concerted effort in its literature to root some of their teaching firmly within
the Jewish tradition. They had to do this because they were:
far less inclined than their
Provencal counterparts to acknowledge Christian influences (let alone to
portray them in a positive light as HaMeiri, in effect, did). Hasidei Ashkenaz
would have sought to dispel the anxiety of novelty by tracing practices that
had surfaced only recently to literary precedents lying dormant in the archive
of Jewish traditions.
Recalling Jewish teachings
that had been dormant for centuries
Fishman (1999:222) continues
relentlessly by informing us of certain ancient Aggadot from Palestine
which:
depict the binding of Isaac as
having culminated in a consummated sacrifice [!][11]
These had been ignored for
centuries until R. Ephraim of Bonn resurrected and “re-appropriated” them at a
particular juncture in Jewish history where it was deemed an appropriate and “psychologically
and polemically crucial”.[12]
Fishman (1999:222-3) concludes:
In the course of their overarching
pursuit of the absolute, Hasidei Ashkenaz unconsciously appropriated the
demanding penitential practices, which had gained new visibility in the
medieval Rhineland, of their Christian neighbors…they claimed for these practices
a hallowed Jewish pedigree and even fused disparate elements from the ancient
rabbinic corpus to meet this need.
Impact of Chassidei Ashkenaz
According to Fishman (1999:201):
The greatest impact of Hasidut
Ashkenaz on Jewish culture at large has arguably been in the realm of
penitential theory and practice.
This powerful “penitential
theory” of approaches to teshuvah, has left a legacy which has impacted
subsequent generations of Jews, not just in the Ashkenazi but also the Sefaradi
communities and persists to some degree to this day.
Analysis
Fishman has introduced a number
of fascinating questions and challenges to the institution of severe penitential practices of Chassidei
Ashkenaz, vestiges of which still remained at least in within the psyche of
some in more modern times. R. Nachman of Breslov speaks of confessing one’s sins
to the Tzadik. We give tzedakah on certain occasions, perhaps not
so much out of concern for the poor but sometimes as a spiritual “tariff”.
Of course, there are Jewish roots
to these and the other ideas we have discussed, but the question is which of
them have fallen into disuse over time. Which rabbis today, for example, would
encourage their students to go the route through places of immorality rather
than idolatry as per Talmudic times?
In dealing with the question of
whether Chassidei Ashkenaz took their severe penitential practices inadvertently
or otherwise from the popular Christian culture of their time we have seen some
interesting ideas:
If they indeed did take from the surrounding
culture, there is the view that some Christian monks may have preserved some of
the strict old rabbinic penitential practices – so they were technically still
Jewish practices.
On the other hand, there is
another view that early mishnaic penitential
practices may have simply been natural human responses to the overwhelming
calamity of the destruction of the second Temple – and not necessarily Jewish
responses (indeed there was rabbinic opposition to some of the more severe
practices).
Another approach is the view of Fishman that these
practices had been discouraged for later generations, and had fallen into
disuse, but with the adoption of monastic penitential practices by the
prevailing Christian society, Chassidei Ashkenaz may have appropriated them,
and in an attempt at authenticating them, they resurrected many of the older rabbinic
practices that had been dormant for centuries.
The question remains: were the
extreme forms of penitence as espoused by Chassidei Ashkenaz, old Jewish
practices, new Jewish practices, appropriated Christian practices, or something
in between?
[1]
Fishman, T., 1999, ‘The Penitential System of Hasidei Ashkenaz and the Problem of
Cultural Boundaries’, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, vol.
8, 201-229.
[2]
E. Urbach, E., 1961, ‘Eskesis vi-Yisurim bi-Torat Hazal,’ Sefer Yovel
li-Yitzhak Baer, Jerusalem.
[3]
R. Bonfil, R., 1987, ‘Beyn Eretz Yisrael li-Bavel,’ Shalem 5.
[4]
This is probably a form of teshuva al averah she-ba'ah li-yado, or repentance
for a sin that has come up again (at a later time).
[5]
b. Yom. 86b and see Sefer Chassidim 43.
[6]
b. Avodah Zara 17b.
[7]
b. Sanhedrin 64b.
[8]
Parenthesis is mine.
[9]
Sefer haRokeach, Hilchot Teshuva 1.
[10]
See “Private affairs” in Kotzk
Blog: 197) BABYLONIAN INFLUENCES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD:
[11]
Emphasis is mine.
[12]
Spiegel, S., 1963, The Last Trial, New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment