480) What did the Kotzker Rebbe say?

 

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Yaakov Levinger[1] − examines the authenticity of many of the sayings popularly attributed to the Chassidic Rebbe, Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1869). 

Many sefarim (books) have been published, claiming to present anthologies of the teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe. I have collected these books over the years and always found them to be of immense interest. These include publications like Emet miKotzk Titzmach (The Truth Sprouts from Kotzk) and Emet veEmunah (Truth and Faith). With time, more and more books purporting to contain the teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe began to emerge and soon they appeared in the English language as well, most notably in the iconic works of R. Avraham Yehoshua Heschel who, growing up in Warsaw, actually knew older people who had travelled to the court of the Rebbe in the Polish town of Kotzk. 

Professor Yaakov Levinger, however, has researched these sources and has questioned the authenticity of many of them – quite an appropriate field of research, considering that the Kotzker Rebbe was a man dedicated to utmost authenticity. Levinger notes that even some of the work by academics on the teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe, are not true products of academia, because they just deal with: 

“haphazard collections [of his teachings and biography] taken from wherever they were found and not subjected to proper scrutiny to establish whether they were authentic or not” (Levinger 1986:109).[2] 

According to Levinger (1986:109), writing in 1986, more than 1 200 sayings have been attributed to the Kozker Rebbe. In more recent times, the internet has become home to even more teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe with many sites offering his “wise and deep sayings,” “wise, pithy quotes” and “original teachings.” 

The problem is threefold: 

1) The Kotzker Rebbe did not write anything that we have a record of, apart from one short letter which contains no words of Torah.

2) Many statements attributed to him only emerged in later years, well after his death. 

3) Many of his alleged statements have been ascribed to other Chassidic Rebbes as well. 

Dual attributions

1) A famous saying attributed to the Kozker Rebbe is: 

“All your actions should be for the sake of Heaven – but even your ‘for the sake of Heaven’ should be for the sake of Heaven.” 

This means that it is not enough to technically base our actions on religion if that religion is not sincerely one’s motivation. It is easy to be religious, but it’s very difficult to be authentic and altruistic. 

This teaching is referenced in Shem haGedolim heChadash by R. Aharon Valden, one of the Kotzker Rebbe’s younger students and attributed to his teacher. However, another book, Niflaot Chadashot also references the same teaching, but in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe’s son R. David of Kotzk. Granted, in this case, both 'teacher' and 'son' are part of the same family, but they are still different people and attributions need to reflect that. In other cases, similar  Kotzker teachings are sprouted in the name of various other Rebbes and even in the name of the Baal Shem Tov. 

2) Another example of dual attribution is the teaching in the form of a question and answer: 

“Why were the words of the Zohar (I, 117a) not fulfilled? The Zohar predicted that the year 600 of the sixth millennium (5600 corresponding to 1840), would usher in an era where the gates of wisdom would be opened and God would raise Israel from the dust of exile (with the coming of the Messiah). The answer is that Israel did not prove worthy and, instead, the wisdom was granted to Chitzonim and it became an era of secular (scientific) discoveries.” 

According to the two works Niflaot Chadashot, and Siach Sarfei Kodesh, the Kotzker Rebbe was the originator of this teaching. However, according to Shem miShmuel, the originator was R. Yitzchak Vorka who told it to the Kotzker Rebbe, who then concurred with him. 

3) A third example is the following teaching: 

“Why did Joseph say (after being accused of trying to have an affair with Potiphar’s wife): וְאֵ֨יךְ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֜ה הָרָעָ֤ה הַגְּדֹלָה֙ הַזֹּ֔את וְחָטָ֖אתִי לֵֽאלֹקִים ‘How would I have done such an evil and sin against G-d?’ Joseph should rather have spoken in the plural and included Potiphar’s wife: ואיך נעשה...וחטאנו... ‘How would we have done such an evil thing….!’ This is because (also under Egyptian law) she was forbidden to have an affair. The answer is that Joseph didn’t want to be associated with her even in mere words (of the same sentence).” 

Again, this teaching is recorded in Yerach leMoadim in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe, but in Kol Simcha, it is said to have originated with R. Simcha Bunim of Pesishcha (the Kotzker Rebbe’s teacher). 

These, and many more examples of dual attribution as well as entirely ‘new’ teachings began to “sprout over time like mushrooms” (Levinger 1986:110). 

The exponential growth of the Kotzker Rebbe’s teachings

The number of sayings attributed to the Kotzker Rebbe has grown exponentially over the last century and a half. 

Around 1881, just over twenty years after the Kotzker Rebbe’s passing, R. Shmuel of Shinova (also a student of R. Simcha Bunim of Pesishcha), in his Ramataim Tzofim, presented his readers with 30 teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe. 

In 1909, the first work dedicated specifically to the Kotzker teachings was published by R. Tzvi Tzigelman which presented over 300 sayings of the Kotzker Rebbe. 

In 1940, the work Emet veEmunah came out with 906 teachings. 

In 1956, Amud haEmet was published containing over 1000 teachings attributed to the Kotzker Rebbe. 

In 1961, Emet miKotzk Titzmach presented 1113 teachings. 

In 1980, Otzar haChassidut dedicated a volume entitled Lehavot Kodesh to the Kotzker teachings and the number grew to over 1200 sayings. 

This being the case, how do we know which teachings are accurate − or at least more accurate − than the burgeoning and ever-expanding literature in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe? 

The attempt to ascertain the authentic teachings of Kotzk

Levinger (1986:112) sets out to try and ascertain the most authentic teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe by adopting an exact set of criteria. He created four levels of ‘authenticity.’ This is a difficult thing to do because, as with all rabbis, everyone claims to have been well-connected to the person and his teachings. In such instances the expression “I heard” or “my teacher said” is often used loosely. Conscious of this, Levinger proceeds with scholarly caution and adopts the following methodology: 

1) The highest level of probable authenticity was the recorded teachings of those who genuinely knew and were well-associated with the Kotzker Rebbe and who claimed they personally heard those teachings from the mouth of the Kotzker Rebbe. 

2) The second level is where the transmitters of the teachings mention the name of the person from whom they heard those direct teachings. 

3) The third level of authenticity is where known transmitters omitted to state that they heard the teachings directly from the Kotzker Rebbe. However, the general ideas of the teachings are presented as having emanated from the Kotzker Rebbe (without direct attribution) – and there is no reason to doubt the content or reliability of the teachings. 

4) The fourth level is where a teaching is presented, by those who knew the Kotzker Rebbe or were part of his circle, but they were presented generally and not directly attributed to anyone who actually heard or transmitted that teaching. In other words, these were ‘anonymous’ teachings without a known transmission trail at all. 

Even in the court of the Kotzker Rebbe, during his lifetime, there was a confusing proliferation of teachings that were sometimes attributed to him and simultaneously to other Rebbes as well. 

Close associates and family

One of the most reliable sources for the Kotzker Rebbe’s teachings is R. Yitzchak Meir of Gur, known as the Chidushei haRim. However, he only mentions one teaching of the Kotzker Rebbe, and even there, it is not clear if he heard that one teaching directly or indirectly. 

In the Kotzker Rebbe’s immediate family, there was no one to whom he specifically handed over the teachings, besides his son-in-law, R. Avraham of Sochatchov, the author of Avnei Nezer. However, even in his writings, he only mentions three very bland and ordinary sayings of the Kotzker Rebbe. 

1) One of those indirect references is to be found where the Avnei Nezer deals with the Halachic question of sounding the Shofar during the silent Musaf Amidah of Rosh haShana. He mentions that his father-in-law, the Kozker Rebbe, did not seem to mind the shofar sounds during the silent prayer in his synagogue − but he did mention that he “heard directly” his father-in-law that “while I was still on Malchiyot, they were blowing the sounds of Zichronot.”  This is a bit disappointing because we have such an accurate source reporting on something of little significance. Ironically, Levinger writes: 

“This is one of the most authentic sayings we have received from the Kotzker Rebbe, presented in ‘the name of his father-in-law and bezeh halashon, in these exact words’ but it effectively tells us nothing” (Levinger 1986:114). 

2) Another reference to the Kotzker Rebbe by R. Avraham of Sochatchov, also found in Avnei Nezer, is where he responds to a question posed by his father, R. Nachum of Biale, based on his father’s reading of a section of the Talmud Yerushalmi. The Talmud Yerushalmi has two main commentaries, one is Korban haEidah and the other is Penei Moshe. R. Avraham of Sochatchov responds to his father that the interpretation by Korban haEidah is more acceptable in that particular case. Then, as an apparent afterthought, he adds that his father-in-law, the Kotzker Rebbe also generally held that the commentary of Korban haEidah (on the sections it is available) is the best commentary to use when it comes to studying the Yerushalmi and is better than the Penei Moshe commentary. 

Once again, this example is a highly authoritative reference to a direct utterance of the Kotzker Rebbe and is framed by R. Avraham of Sochatchov as something “I explicitly heard from my holy father-in-law.” It meets the highest criterion standards of authenticity as set by Levinger – but it is of no great significance, because from 1860 the Yerushalmi Talmud was printed and formatted with the Korban Eidah commentary as one of the dominant commentaries. 

3) The third example of a highly authoritative quotation by the Kotzker Rebbe is also found in R. Avraham of Sochatchov’s Avnei Nezer. It deals with an interesting case of a man who tells his wife, whom he suspects may fancy a certain gentleman, not to ever allow him to lodge in the house while he (the husband) is out of town. His wife did not listen and she offered the guest lodging. The wife was known to be a woman of good morals and her son and daughter were also at home at the time. The question was whether the husband should remain married to his wife after he had explicitly expressed his suspicions about the male guest. 

R. Avraham of Sochatchov ruled that failing further evidence, one need not fear that anything untoward had transpired under those circumstances. Again, as an addendum to his ruling, he authoritatively quotes his father-in-law the Kotzker Rebbe, who said that the yetzer hara (evil inclination) is an imaginary force and is not real. This seems to imply that, failing concrete evidence, one cannot accuse another based only on the assumption that the situation may have been tempting for the yetzer hara. 

This, taken by itself is quite an important observation and seems to define the role of the yetzer hara in an unusually benign manner (compared to how it is usually depicted in Jewish Musar (ethics) and even mysticism. This could have been a fascinating authoritative definition setting unique theological parameters to the ‘power’ of the yetzer hara by the Kotzker Rebbe – but it is not an innovational idea of the Kotzker Rebbe because Maimonides had already described the yetzer hara in such ‘imaginary’ terms in his Guide For the Perplexed.  Thus, again, we have another authentic account of a primary teaching of the Kotzker Rebbe that offers us no special insight into his thoughts. 

More than 70 potential ‘principal’ sources

More than 70 well-known rabbis visited the court of Kotzk frequently and could have served as potential and ‘principal’ sources for his teachings that they heard directly from his mouth. Levinger analyses many of these sources and determines which teachings appear more authentic than others. 

R. Zev Wolf Landau of Strykow was one of the closest associates of the Kotzker Rebbe, taking care of his finances and was allowed access to the Rebbe during his period of isolation. However, in his book Zer Zahav, he doesn’t quote a single teaching of the Kotzker Rebbe. 

R. Aharon Simcha of Gumbein, author of Ramazei Eish, includes ten quotes from the Kotzker Rebbe. Nine of them are introduced by the expression “in the name” of the Rebbe of Kotzk, and only the tenth saying is introduced by the expression “as I heard from the mouth of the Rebbe.” This differentiation does not seem to be accidental and leads to the conclusion that only one of the ten sayings was heard directly from the mouth of the Rebbe. 

R. Shmuel of Sochatchov, the son of R. Avraham of Sochatchov (the Kotzker Rebbe’s son-in-law) wrote the well-known work entitled Shem miShmuel. In it, he included about 70 teachings of his grandfather the Kotzker Rebbe. However, he was only four years old when his grandfather passed away so he could not have heard the teachings directly from him. By the standards set by Levinger, only about 16 of the 70 teachings are qualified as relatively authentic as he specifically notes that he heard those 16 teachings directly from his father, who heard it from his father-in-law. 

Conclusion

Using the standards set by Levinger to gauge the authenticity of teachings allegedly originating with the Kozker Rebbe, we arrive at the conclusion that out of the 1200 recorded sayings (up to 1986 and excluding the internet versions), only 91 Kotzker teachings can be considered authentic. 

But even arriving at this number of 91 authentic statements does not bring comfort to those of us who are followers of the Kotzker Rebbe’s teachings. This is simply because there is nothing outstanding, revealing or reactionary in these 91 teachings that cannot be found in the writings of the Kotzker Rebbe’s teachers, the Yid haKadosh and R. Simcha Bunim of Pesishcha. The Kotzker Rebbe simply reflected the teachings of the milieu in which he found himself: 

“We do not easily find in them [these 91 authentic teachings] anything at all unique to R. [Menachem] Mendel of Kotzk compared to anything these rabbis [his teachers] taught” (Levinger 1986:121). 

There is nothing of immense inspiration or blessings for wealth and health or miracles. All we find is an aristocratic form of Chassidut, requiring adherence to Torah and Avodah. There is nothing of the contrarian nature that has come to be associated with the Rebbe of Kotzk. The teachings are not particularly mystical, not connected to the Zohar or any other mystical works. They are according to peshat (simple interpretations) and based on basic Halacha (Levinger 1986:121). 

Levinger points out rather dramatically that if we want to find the contrarian, rebellious and inspirational side of the better-known Kotzk we have come to expect, we would need to defer to the less authentic strata of the teachings of the Rebbe of Kotzk. 

As for the 91 authenticated teachings, Levinger has appended a list of these teachings in full and they all make direct reference to how the transmitters heard these teachings for the Kotzker Rebbe himself. It seems that Levinger’s list, although not so well-known, may be the most accurate source for the authentic teachings of Rebbe of Kotzk.

---

[1] Levinger, Y., 1986, ‘The Authentic Sayings of Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Kotzk’ (Hebrew)’, Tarbiz, vol. 55, Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies, 109-135.

[2] All translations are mine.