 |
| Travel by ship in the 12th century |
Introduction
This article draws extensively on the research by Dr Ahuva Liberles[1] and explores a unique path within Jewish theology (and messianic eschatology) where personal redemption is emphasised, over the more common notion of national redemption. This path, it is suggested, was championed by R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1217), a leader of the mystical group known as Chasidei Ashkenaz (or German Pietists) which flourished during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. R. Yehuda heChasid is one of the authors of Sefer Chasidim[2] containing almost two thousand brief teachings on mystical, pietist and ascetic practices interspersed with German folk traditions. R. Yehuda heChasid’s restriction of travel is an area of scholarship that has not achieved much attention and the lacuna is filled by Liberles’ enlightening research.
An era of travel
Liberles explains how travel became important during the
time of R. Yehuda heChasid:
“The twelfth century in particular was one in which Europeans were on the move—both Christians and the Jewish minority that lived among them” (Liberles 2021:107).
In general, this interest in travel was inspired by the
Crusades and by the establishment of universities in Italy and France. European
Jews similarly began to travel in search of teachers and Talmudic
academies, and often they ventured to the Holy Land as well, with messianic expectations.
Rabbis, as a rule, encouraged this travel:
“Rabbinic authorities held a generally positive view of long-distance travel, which enabled the dissemination and harmonization of traditions, laws, and rabbinical edicts” (Liberles 2021:108).
The Toasfists, active between the twelfth to
mid-fifteenth centuries, also inspired students to travel with statements like:
“it is the way of he who goes to study to become a great man” (b. Ketuvot 63a).
They also spoke about the ‘merit of the exile’ of the student
who travels away from home. The historical record shows much evidence of
responsa literature (Sheilot uTeshuvot) where Halachic questions
concerning travel were posed to, and answered by, leading rabbinic decisors. In
one particular instance, Rabbeinu Tam (1100–1171) placed a cap on the duration
of a family man’s absence from his home, and that was eighteen months. During
that period, however, he was still responsible to take care of the financial
burden of his wife and children back home.
Travel bans
Against such a backdrop of ‘travel fever,’ it would have
been very unusual for R. Yehuda heChasid to go against the grain and restrict
the freedom of travel. In fact, Liberles points out that much of Sefer Chasidim
diverted from contemporary rabbinic views of that time:
“[T]he image of the ideal pietist, as presented in Sefer Hasidim, challenged many aspects of medieval Ashkenazi religious life” (Liberles 2021:110).
This is to such an extent that many scholars[3] have gone
so far as to show the connections between the ideas in Sefer Chasidim and
the then popular Christian views although there are divided opinions views on
this matter (Liberles 2021:110).[4]
A breakdown of the
frequency of travel references in Sefer Chasidim follows:
·
Sefer Chasidim
refers to travel over one hundred and twenty times (and the two versions of the
work exhibit no significant differences in this regard).
·
Over one hundred paragraphs
express opposition to, or at least disapproval of, journeys of any sort.
·
Fifty-six sections warn of
the physical dangers inherent in travelling including the possibility of
highway robbers, rapists and murderers. He also mentions the possibility of
being captured and ransomed or converted to Christianity. Jewish female
travellers were also to be warned of the dangers of being sexually assaulted by
Jewish men. And women could report the sexual offender to the Christian
authorities in such eventualities, even if those authorities might sentence the
man to death.
·
Thirty-five passages show
how travelling can be disruptive and even destructive to families.
·
There is also the
injunction against abandoning elderly parents, even at the expense of the son
or daughter not finding a spouse in a distant place.[5]
·
A traveller, whether by
land or sea, is warned fifty-eight times that it is extremely difficult to
observe all the commandments properly whilst on the way.
Sefer Chasidim thus frames travel as being dangerous
not just for the individual Jewish traveller but risky for the entire Jewish
community as well. Here is an extract from Sefer Chasidim in this regard:
"The sage said: If the road is a bad one, they will abduct you and the public will need to ransom you. He was not concerned, set off, was abducted, and they ransomed him. The sage said: The amount [the community] paid to ransom you would have provided for your needs for several years. And now you need them both to support you and to [pay] ransom."[6]
Thus, travelling is framed as a selfish activity that places
the community under unnecessary financial pressure.
R. Yehud heChasid has sharp words for travellers who wear
overt Jewish clothing on the road (sometimes doing so in an attempt at creating
a safeguard against transgressing):
“A man goes in a convoy ... and if he dresses in Jewish garb he is liable to endanger the others and to bring about misfortune for everyone.”[7]
The fear is that he will be abducted, ransomed and again placing
the community under financial pressure.
R. Yehuda heChasid also opposed travelling to collect
funding for Jewish institutions, something that has always been a very key
Jewish communal activity. He feared it was an intrusion on the hosting families
(especially in his hometown) and could even have moral implications.
The edict of Emperor Friedrich in 1182, allowing the Jews of
Regensburg to trade again in “gold, silver, and other metals,”[8]
created concern for R. Yehuda heChasid as it would have encouraged Jews to
travel, even more, this time for business. He responded by suggesting that Jews
find different means of earning their livelihood which did not entail
travelling:
“most travellers do not receive the Sabbath at its proper time.”[9]
And even a trader who works
relatively close to home often has difficulty in bringing Shabbat in at its
appropriate time.
R. Yehuda heChasid’s opposition to pilgrimage to the Holy
Land
Liberles describes how popular the notion of travelling to
the Holy Land was at that time:
“In the Jewish context…first in France and then in Germany, setting out on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land as well as considering immigrating there became increasingly popular at the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries” (Liberles 2021:117).
In a manuscript known as Teshuvat heChasid, R. Yehuda
heChasid writes:
“It seems to me that one who goes to the land of Israel, to the contrary, he actually increases his sins…it is better that he remain home and study.”
Liberles cites Israel Ta-Shma who states that he “has not
seen such a blunt choice of words by any of the other Rishonim” speaking like
this against the Holy Land.
A context to the opposition to travel
Scholars have been perplexed by R. Yehuda heChasid’s unusually sharp opposition to travel in general and to ‘aliyah’ in particular. Some suggest this was a result of the opposition by Chasidei Ashkenaz to the popular messianism and eschatology in general at that time. This is bolstered by the fact that Sefer Chasidim, although containing about fifty paragraphs referencing the Holy Land, does not do so in its contemporary context or period. The references are either its historical past or pertaining to the future.
Liberles (2021:118-9)
notes:
“Therefore, it seems that the land of Israel and Jerusalem play an extremely limited role in R. Judah’s program for pietistic life… The commandment to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem, however, was in effect only while the Temple still stood. Following the Temple’s destruction, Jerusalem was no more than an unpleasant reminder of the sins of the Jewish people that led to their exile… Until this future time arrives, in his view, Jerusalem is a den of corruption where it is improper to pray…”
R. Yehud heChasid asks:
“If it is forbidden to visit a place where transgressions such as sexual wantonness or idol worship have been committed, how can we ask in our prayers to once again pray in Jerusalem and the Temple, where we know many such sins were committed?”[10]
Liberles (2021:119) explains that for Chasidei Ashkenaz,
the land of Israel symbolised Israel’s past and was only an option for the
future, not the present.
However, Liberles suggests that there may be another layer
of elucidation. R. Yehuda heChasid not only condemns travel, but he also
emphasises staying at home. This seems to indicate that he is promoting
an ideology where there is some merit in personal redemption over national
redemption.
As part of this programme of personal redemption was the
requirement of a connection, and confession of sins, to the Sage - the Sage of one’s
city, not the Sage of another city. Staying at home and not travelling meant
connecting to the local Sage. Better
still, connecting to R. Yehuda heChasid himself, as the Sage of choice - the
leader of Chasidei Ashkenaz:
“To live as a pietist, according to R. Judah, required physical proximity to and direct contact with R. Judah himself and with his community of Hasidim. A pietistic life outside the orbit of the sage and his followers was not encouraged. Indeed, the members of the communal circle needed each other to fulfill their religious obligations. When one of them traveled, he hindered the religious operation of the entire group” (Liberles 2021:122).
In R. Yehuda heChasid’s worldview, the holy Sage - not the
holy site of pilgrimage - granted penitence. This is supported by his notion
that the Sage had to prescribe personalised penance that was specific to each
of his individual followers. The followers had to be close to him so that he
would know them intimately. Travelling to other holy Sages, holy sites or even
the Holy land would upset this personalised system. The ‘chasid’ or
pietist had to remain within the circle headed by the leading Sage, R. Yehuda
heChasid.
Although subject to debate, there is evidence to show that the
circle of Chasidei Ashkenaz may not have been a particularly successful,
widespread or popular group:
“R. Judah’s opposition to his followers leaving his nest may have necessarily weakened the connection between them and himself, depleting the pietistic circle, which seemed to be numbered by its nature. Was this attitude driven by R. Judah’s fear that his group of disciples would dwindle once they were beyond his purview…?” (Liberles 2021:122).
Analysis
R. Yehuda heChasid seems to have introduced a new theological system to
Judaism, that although perhaps not particularly popular in his time, may have
gone on to serve as an inspiration for later mystical movements where the Sage
was seen as the epicentre of the world of the circle of his followers. Chasidei Ashkenaz was centuries before the Baal Shem Tov and the modern Chasidic movement, so the two movements should not be confused.
However, one does hear echoes in modern Chasidism as we know it, of the teachings of
this earlier form of the Chasidism of Chasidei
Ashkenaz.
R. Nachman of Breslov, for example, was later to expand the concept of
the Sage or Tzadik and similarly wrote about
confessing to the Tzadik. He also had a system of penitence
for his followers (most notably his Tikkun
haKelali).
Chasidism in general similarly held as a
major virtue, the idea of loyalty to one Rebbe, and did not look favourably upon
those who travelled from Rebbe to Rebbe. Most Chasidic and mystical groups did adopt a model of national
messianism where the Land of Israel played an important (albeit sometimes
future) role.
The notion of personal messianism may have been exemplified in the
Sabbatian movement, where (at least according to Moshe Idel and Yehuda Liebes),[11]
Shabbatai Tzvi was more interested in personal redemption over national
redemption.
These ideas may attest, in some ways, to the legacy of the views
of R. Yehuda heChasid and the Chasidei Ashkenaz.
Although beyond the scope of this article, one wonders
whether, based on how candidly R. Yehuda heChasid spoke about the Holy Land, he
was not concerned about smaller Jewish exilic communities becoming
subsumed within the larger community of new returnees to Israel where rabbinic
care and guidance might not be of the same intensity as that of the hometown
communities. Additionally, he may have feared that the unique characteristics and
traditions that these various communities had developed over history and proven
over time, would suddenly be lost forever. Reading R. Yehuda heChassid this way,
removes the stigma of egotism and self-centeredness, and also softens his
apparent anti-Holy Land stance (as he wasn't against the land as such, but against
the challenges posed by the mass and unguided migration that was popular at
that time).
Further reading
Kotzk
Blog: 228) CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ – ‘THESE ARE NOT SUPERSTITIONS’!
Kotzk
Blog: 380) Appropriating penitence?
[1]
Liberles, A., 2021, ‘Home and Away: The Opposition to Travel in Sefer Hasidim’,
Jewish History 34, 107–123.
[2] Other
contributing authors were his father, R. Shmuel of Speyer and R. Eleazar of
Worms. Liberles draws our attention to the debate surrounding the influence of
the movement of Chasidei Ashkenaz in general, and makes this comment: “In
this artcle I will not enter into the heated scholarly debate about the
influence of Hasidei Ashkenaz in general or R. Judah he-Hasid in particular,
although current scholarship indicates a disparity between R. Judah he-Hasid’s
aspiration to influence his generation and the number of disciples he in fact
gathered around him” (Liberles 2021:109 note10).
[3]
Shoham-Steiner, E., 2010, ‘Jews and Healing at Medieval Saints’ Shrines:
Participation, Polemics, and Shared Cultures’, Harvard Theological Review,
103, no. 1, 111–29.
[4]
For the view that Sefer Chasidim does not depart from rabbinic views, see Avraham
(Rami) Reiner’s lecture “Halakhah and Practice in Sefer Hasidim,” delivered at
the 2017 conference “Sefer Hasidim in Context.”
[5]
“[I]t is even preferable [for a man] to serve his father and his mother than to
take a wife, if he must follow her to a distant land” Sefer Chasidim: MS
Parma H 3280; Facsimile Edition [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1985), (hereafter SHP) §
1902.
[6]
SHP § 773.
[7]
SHP §§ 204–205.
[8]
Die Urkunden Friedrichs 1, vol. 4, 1181–1190, ed. Heinrich Appelt (Hannover,
1990), 43, no. 833.
[9]
SHP § 592.
[10]
See § 543.
No comments:
Post a Comment