513) Secret Mystical and Chassidic societies

The Pledge of Allegiance between the students of the Ari zal (as found in the Stolin Geniza)

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Zvi Leshem[1]—examines several secret mystical societies from biblical times to pre-war Europe, with a particular focus on the secretive group established by R. Kalonymus Kalmish (Kalman) Shapira of Piasecnzo (Piasetzna) (1889-1943). 

Secret mystical circles and societies are not well-known in Judaism, but they have always existed. 

Biblical times

The Torah describes the Benei haNevi’im (Sons of the Prophets) who were groups of disciples of prophets like Samuel, Eliyahu and Elisha (see 2 Kings 2:3, 4:1, 6:1 for example). These groups, while not necessarily secretive, played a significant role in preserving prophetic traditions and maintaining spiritual teachings during times of idolatry and apostasy. They used mystical techniques including meditation and even music to train in prophetic inspiration (Leshem 2021:112). 

Talmudic times

In Talmudic times, we read about the four sages who entered the Pardes (mystical ‘Orchard’).  Ben Azzai gazed and died; Ben Zoma gazed and was mentally affected; Acher "cut the plantings," meaning he became a heretic; but only R. Akiva (50-135 CE) entered in peace and left in peace. 

Zoharic times

Without going into the controversy over the authorship of the Zohar, it only emerged for the first time around 1290 in Spain in the time of R. Moshe de León (1240-1305). Many scholars including some notable rabbis believe the Zohar is R. Moshe de León’s own work, although he claimed he had found the original manuscript by R. Shimon bar Yochai from one thousand years earlier.  The Zohar describes the existence of the Chevraya Kedosha (Mystical or Holy Fraternities) of the second-century R. Shimon bar Yochai and his students. According to Yehuda Liebes, these Chevraya Kedosha: 

“may in fact have mirrored an actual mystical fraternity active in late thirteenth-century Spain, centered around the personality of R. Moshe de Leon. This circle…may have authored the Zohar, spiritually or imaginatively transplanting themselves in the land of Israel of the second century” (Leshem 2021:112). 

Early Modern Period

R. David ben Zimra (Radbaz) (1479-1573)

The Stolin Geniza also held another similar and secretive contract signed in the same year, 1565, but this time in Egypt. It was between the eleven students of Radbaz and they too pledged strict confidentiality to the teachings of their Master. 

R. Yitzchak Luria (Ari zal) (1534-1572)

During the sixteenth century, the Kabbalists of Safed had also formed secretive mystical circles particularly the group centred around R. Yitzchak Luria, also known as the Ari. The famous Stolin Geniza housed a contract between the students of the Ari and R. Chaim Vital which was signed in 157(or 6?)5 (see: Kotzk Blog: 307) SEFER HATZOREF AND THE STORY OF THE ‘LOST’ STOLIN GENIZA:). In it, they pledge to serve G-d and study Torah only as taught by R. Chaim Vital and they agree not to reveal his mystical teachings to those outside the group without permission. 

The Pledge of Allegiance (as found in the Stolin Geniza) reads as follows:

"We the undersigned have pledged ourselves to form a single company to worship the Divine Name and study His Law day and night, as we shall be instructed by the perfect and divine Sage, the Rav and Teacher, R. Hayyim Vital (may his light shine forth!), and we shall learn with him the true wisdom and be faithful in spirit, concealing all that he shall tell us, and we shall not trouble him by pressing him too much for things that he does not wish to reveal to us, and we shall not reveal to others any secret of all that we shall hear spoken in truth by his mouth, nor of all that he taught us in the past, nor even of what he taught us in the lifetime of our Teacher, the great Rav, R. Yitshak Luria Ashkenazi (of blessed memory) during all that time; and even what we heard from the lips of our Teacher, the above-named Rav (of blessed memory), we shall not be able to reveal without his permission, since we should not understand these things if he had not explained them to us. This pledge, taken under solemn oath in the Name of the Lord, concerns our Teacher, the above mentioned Rav, R. Hayyim (may his light shine forth!); and the duration of this pledge is from today for ten consecutive years. Today is the second day of the week, the 25^th Menahem Av, 5335 of the creation [1575], here in Tsfath (Safed] (may it be built and established speedily in our days!); and all these words are clear and valid" (Stolin Geniza).

R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Ramchal) (1707-1746).

During the early eighteenth century, in Padua, Italy, R Moshe Chaim Luzzatto also maintained secretive study circles. 

R. Shalom Sharabi (Rashash) (1720-1777)

Also in the eighteenth century, the Yemenite rabbi, Shalom Sharabi and his group signed a secretive fraternal document (Shtar Hitkashrut) at Yeshivat Bet El in the Old City of Jerusalem. This document was signed in 1754 and 1758. The secretive society went by the name Ahavat Shalom (Lovers of Peace and perhaps Lovers of R. Shalom, whose name means peace as well). The members of this fraternity were known as Mechavnim (those with mystical Intentionality). They focused on the Kavvanot (mystical Intentions) of the Ari zal and R. Chaim Vital but specifically through a Sefaradic lens. 

They signed a pact of friendship and made use of certain types of melody. According to Ariel Bension (the son of one of the last members of the group): 

“under the magic of these tunes, mekhavnim and listeners, animate and inanimate objects, became one in the true pantheistic sense” (Bension 1930).[2] 

Initially, there were twelve signatories (including the Chida, R. Chaim David Azulai), corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel and they pledged their affinity to each other with great love, and their bonds of friendship were to extend even into the world to come. According to their manifesto (apparently written in the hand of the Chida) they undertook to: 

“love each other with great love, both spiritual and physical…the twelve of us will be as one man…Each of us will rebuke his associate when, God forbid, he hears of any sin the latter has committed… [We pledge] never to praise one another even if it is clear to everyone that one associate is superior… None of us will rise fully to his feet before any other associate… We shall conduct ourselves as if we were one man, no part of whom is superior to any other part… We further take upon ourselves the obligation never to reveal to any creature that we have resolved to do these things” (see Meir Benayahu, 1995, Shtare Hitkashrut she-le-mekubale Yerushalayim, Asufot 9:16). 

R. Shalom Sharabi encouraged his group to separate from the regular synagogues and only pray at his Bet El where they focused on Lurianic Kavanot (mystical intentions). This was distinct from the group of R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira—as we shall soon see—where the individual members of his group were encouraged to remain within their particular communities. Another difference was that in the signed fraternal contract of Bet El, the brotherly connections ‘remained’ even after the death of member of the group. A further difference was that Bet El adopted the mode of stern rebuke among its elite membership, whereas R. Shapira advocated a gentler approach involving coaching and peer counselling (Leshem 2021:118). 

R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk (c.1730-1788) and R. Avraham Kalisk (1741-1810)

R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R. Avraham Kalisk were third-generation Chassidic Rebbes being disciples of the Maggid of Mezeritch (the successor to the Baal Shem Tov). The former led a Chassidic aliya to Safed and Tiberius in 1777. Both Rebbes established Chassidic circles in Tiberius and maintained tight control over their followers. Their inner teachings were reserved only for a selected few. 

These secretive Chassidic groups emphasised, among other virtues, the importance of up-frontness and confession between friends. This marked a break or development from the usual communal confession before G-d, which has always been a characteristic of traditional Judaism. In some Chassidic circles, like Breslov, the notion of confession was turned to confession before the Tzadik (i.e., R. Nachman). This was akin to an initiation rite in Breslov. However, in the group of R. Avraham of Lalisk, the notion of confession evolved to confession between equals and became a daily ritual: 

“Let him hold converse with them every day for about half an hour, and engage in self-reproof for the evil ways he sees in himself. His companion should do likewise” (Letter of R. Avraham of Kalisk). 

One of the differences between the Tiberius Chassidic groups and R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira was that according to R. Avraham of Kalisk, one could use the spiritual energy of one’s fellow in the group as a stepping stone for one’s own Deveikut (spiritual clinging to G-d). This was absent in R. Shapira’s system where the spiritual energies of the individuals were not seen to ‘merge,’ although he still maintained that: 

“the individual cannot achieve alone what he is capable of achieving within the group” (Shapira, Benei Machshava Tova, 8). 

We glean much information about the more secretive enterprises of these Tiberius groups of Chassidim from a series of letters that were first published in the early nineteenth century. Leshem suggests that these letters and their content would have been known to R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira, through his father-in-law, R. Yerahmiel Moshe Hapstein of Kozhnits, who was familiar with the inner workings of the Chassidic courts. 

We now turn to the main focus of this study, the secret handbook of R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira. 

R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira (1889-1943)

Around 1920, R. Kalonymus Kalmish (Kalman) Shapira produced a secret handbook for his mystical group, titled Benei Machshava Tova (Sons of Good Thought). The book presented guidelines for how the secret group was to conduct itself and also expounded on an assortment of mystical techniques and meditative exercises for “expanding consciousness and achieving prophetic inspiration” (Leshem 2021:107). R. Shapira referenced this work in his later writings which indicates that, over time, it had lost its initial secretive status. 

In terms of historical context, it is significant that R. Shapira’s twentieth-century “plan for renewal” (Leshem 2021:108) of the Chassidic movement emerged after a period of deterioration of the movement: 

“In his opinion, certain aspects of Hasidic life had fallen into disregard, including the crucial institution of Hasidic fellowship, the Hevraya qadisha, which first appears in the context of the Zohar. Drastic educational reform and spiritual revolution were needed. As part of his program, he strove to reinstitute spiritual societies…” (Leshem 2021:109). 

R. Shapira’s secret handbook, Benei Machshava Tova, was directed towards the elite members of the Chassidic movement. He attempted: 

“to empower an elite cadre of Hasidic avreikhim (advanced students) as part of his attempt to strengthen Hasidic society and fortify it against the corrosive influences of secular modernity” (Leshem 2021:124). 

He wanted to establish small fraternities of like-minded soul searchers within the movement. Each of the souls in the group would “melt” together. His secret handbook would serve as a practical guide to the exclusive and secret participants and show them how to achieve: 

“a heightened state of consciousness that went beyond special times of prayer or Torah study. It was meant to be a total revolution in the religious persona of the individual, who would learn to think constantly of God, living in a state of intense concentration and powerful emotion bordering on prophecy” (Leshem 2021:109). 

The members of the secret society would be taught how to attain Machshava Tova (good thought) and enter into a state of expanded consciousness. In a break from the Chassidic norm—where the individual would serve the Rebbe and the group—now the group would serve the individual. 

The secret society was controlled very tightly with a set of internal ‘bylaws.’ Each group was to keep its own records with its lists of members. This was, after all, a holy society and, therefore, the writing was to be in the specific script as found in Torah scrolls. The records were to contain the Nusach haKabbalah which was the signed document whereby the new member agreed to abide by the code of the group. The agreement read as follows: 

“In free will and volition, in alignment with the deepest desire of my heart, life, psyche, and soul, I take it upon myself to become a member of this devoted group… to clean and clear my body and mind and to offer them in holiness to the holy God. I devote to God’s holy purposes my intentions, thoughts, speech, and deeds, in a binding and immutable commitment… I stand before God and declare myself holy and devoted—body, heart, and mind—I am his… May his holiness enter my being. At every moment and at every level, wherever I may be, there may I be surrounded by God. May the glory of his presence encompass me from this moment on through eternity. I pray to God with all my heart and soul: If my urges overpower me… if I stray from the will of God in my intentions, in my awareness, in my speech or deeds, please God, for the sake of your great mercy, do not despise me… I know your holy hand is always open wide to accept the strays who return—accept me, for my remorse is sincere. When you are in my heart, I am whole… I go forth to enter the presence of God. I commit my 248 organs and limbs to the 248 positive commandments. I accept the 365 negative commandments in my sinews and my flesh. By this declaration, I accept upon myself to carefully observe every aspect of my behavior, intentions, and speech, in a manner appropriate for a person who has made a commitment to holiness and elevation… I know that the Holy One will support me with his unflinching righteousness and guide me on his holy path… Amen (Shapira, Benei Machsahva Tova: 54-55). 

The proposed secret societies are to remain neutral politically and have no affiliations to any specific Chassidic dynasties. No one in the group is its leader and there is no hierarchy of power. This may have been R. Shapira’s way of expressing opposition to the common and typical manifestations of the various Chassidic sects with their very strict hierarchies of structure. 

The members are to love each other and, additionally, not display animosity to those outside of the group. Their manifesto emphasised that their: 

“holy society is based on three principles: the connection of friends, the love between friends, and the cleaving of friends... They must all love each other with powerful love… Each should choose one special friend, before whom he can reveal all of the secrets of his heart, in both spiritual and physical matters, his concerns and his joys, his failures and successes. His friend should then comfort and advise him and cause him to rejoice as much as possible, also in spiritual matters, according to his understanding of the situation, and then they should reverse roles” (Shapira, Benei Machshava Tova, 56-57). 

There is even a clause that provides for someone who feels isolated from the group: 

“If there is one member for whom no one wishes to be a spiritual discussion partner, the fraternity must provide one for him…” 

Meetings within the group must take place as regularly as three times a week. During the meetings, the members must refrain from frivolous chatter. They may choose what to study in any Talmudic works, whether Mishna or Gemara, but at least once a week they must study Chassidic works (including R. Shapira’s Benei Machshava Tova). While studying the Chassidic works, they must discuss among themselves how to practically implement those teachings in their day-to-day lives. If anyone has an innovation regarding any matter, it should be discussed no matter how irrelevant it may seem. However, these gatherings should never be allowed to get out of control as was sometimes the case in other Chassidic circles: 

“It is proper for them to occasionally drink together, not to get drunk and act frivolously, God forbid, but in the way of Hasidim to connect with each other, and also to arouse the animal soul from its laziness… After they drink, they should sing a spiritually arousing song… and if they are inspired and wish to dance together, they should dance, so long as they don’t spend all of the time just drinking, singing, and dancing” (Shapira, Benei Machshava Tova, 56–57). 

Secrecy remained a key priority for the group: 

“Do not discuss or publicize matters of the holy society in the market or the streets; don’t brag about it in front of others. . . . All of Kabbalah is called ‘secret’ (sod); so too, all service involving the revelation of the soul is opposed to publicity, preferring secrecy” (Shapira, Benei Machshava Tova, 56–58). 

The martyrdom of R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira

R. Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira was killed in the Trawniki concentration camp in Poland in 1943. Members of the Jewish Underground had smuggled themselves into Trawniki, to help the inmates escape. R. Shapira refused to leave as long as there were Jews who remained behind. He had formed a new group where the members pledged their ultimate allegiance to each other even in the death camps. According to Nehemiah Polen: 

“The pious hasidic master joined hands with nominally secular figures: political activists, lawyers, intellectuals, artists, and others, sweeping aside all ideological differences in an act of solidarity that reached the core of their shared Jewish identity . . . to turn down a rescue attempt in such circumstances was a compelling act of faith, a concrete articulation of the soul-to-soul binding that he had preached all his life, an ultimate expression of the unity of Israel” (Polen 1994).[3] 

In a sadly ironic sense, one could say in Trawniki, surrounded by secular and religious Jews of all persuasions, R. Shapira experienced the: 

“highest ideal of ‘Hasidic fellowship’ that we have encountered: commitment to group martyrdom together with one’s fellows” (Leshem 2021:124). 

Analysis

Leshem makes an important contribution to the study of Chassidism by drawing attention to the more secretive aspects of the movement which is usually characterised as individualistic and promoting a form of existentialism. Chassidism—especially early Beshtian[4] Chassidism—is often understood as emphasising individual existence, freedom, and personal meaning in a world that seems to lack inherent purpose. Leshem, however, exposes a core and more private (perhaps secretive) Chassidic belief in the communal aspects of the movement where the individual’s boundaries merge with that of the group and remain subsumed within the group. This may be the hidden cement that underpins the structure, essence and ultimate success of the movement.

---

[1] Leshem, Z., 2021, ‘Mystical Fraternities: Jerusalem, Tiberius, and Warsaw: A Comparative Study of Goals, Structures, and Methods,’ in Hasidism, Suffering, and Renewal: The Prewar and Holocaust Legacy of Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman Shapira,’ Edited by Don Seeman, Daniel Reiser, and Ariel Evan Mayse, Suny Press.

[2] Bension, S., 1930, Sar Shalom Sharabi, Zutot, Jerusalem, 87–91.

[3] Polen, N., 1994, The Holy Fire: The Teachings of Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman Shapira, the Rebbe of the Warsaw Ghetto, Jason Aronson, Northvale.

[4] From the Baal Shem Tov (abbreviated as Be sh t).

512) Managing theological differences: Then and now

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Bernard Dov Cooperman[1]—explores how the Italian rabbinic world dealt with their dynamic differences in theological expression during the early Modern period. This was about the same time as R. Yosef Karo was producing his Shulchan Aruch in Safed. If one of the rabbis stepped out of the perceived appropriate theological boundaries, they were officially placed under a ban of cherem, or excommunication. However, what they referred to as cherem differs dramatically from the way we understand and implement the concept of cherem today. The earlier forms of excommunication and even charges of heresy were not as severe or even as binding as they are considered nowadays. 

511) The Zoharic notion of healing a ‘lovesick’ Shechina: A possible medical context

Tikunei Zohar, first edition, Mantua 1558

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Dr Assaf Tamari[1]—examines the Zohar’s unusual depiction of the exiled Shechina (the feminine aspect of the Godhead) as a patient requiring urgent treatment. 

Note: This literature research by Tamari on the Zohar showing a possible medical context to the thirteenth-century emergence of the Zohar, is brand new and was only published recently in a peer-reviewed journal article. Had I read something like this ten years ago I would have rejected it as absolute nonsense. Now I read it with great interest and fascination.

The intertwining of religion and medicine was not an innovation of the thirteenth century when the Zohar was first published, because the two disciplines had always been interrelated since the earliest of times. Sin was traditionally associated with illness and healing with atonement (Tamari 2025:83, note 1). What was new at that time, though, was a proliferation of Jews and rabbis who had entered the medical field and were practising physicians. The number of Jewish physicians was: 

“out of proportion with contemporary demographics and the place of Jews in society” (Shatzmiller 1995:1).[2] 

510) L'shem Yichud: Do You Understand What You're Actually Saying?

This guest post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton originally appeared on the B'chol D'rachecha site.

Some days you just can’t open a regular Artscroll siddur without falling down a deep rabbit hole of theological controversy.

You’d figure that the siddur is the very poster child of consensus and ancient tradition. But you’d be wrong. There are, in fact, some odd expressions of extreme beliefs that many recite daily without giving it a second thought. Today’s example is the “l’shem yichud” attached to sefiras haomer (and to putting on tefilin). Artscroll even printed those in their Ashkenaz editions.

What’s the big deal about l’shem yichud? Well there is that famous Noda B’yehuda (חי”ד סי’ צג) who wasn’t at all shy about sharing his general feelings on the subject. But his forceful criticisms were largely focused on the chutzpa of later generations who felt that the mitzva observance of our ancestors - who simply made berachos and then did the mitzvos - was somehow incomplete. He did hint to something darker, but didn’t elaborate.

509) When authority becomes the determinator of reason, meaning and truth

An early manuscript of Meirat Einayim by the 14th century R. Yitzchak of Acre

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Eitan Fishbane[1]—examines the rabbinic notion of the authenticity of a teaching or text being reliant on the perceived authority of its transmitter or originator. In other words, the greater the rabbi the more authentic the teaching, regardless of the independent status, nature and validity of the actual teaching itself. 

As a test case, we analyse the writings of a fourteenth-century Kabbalist, R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel of Acre in his Meirat Einayim which is a supercommentary (i.e., a commentary on a commentary) on Nachmanides’ Commentary on the Torah. Interestingly, R. Yitzchak of Acre—who lived at the same time as R. Moshe de Leon who had claimed to have discovered the ancient Zohar—questioned the authenticity of Zohar being the work of the second-century Tanna, R. Shimon bar Yochai about a thousand years earlier.[2] 

508) Assessing the Modern "Yeshivishe" Approach to Torah Learning

Tractate Eruvin from the famous Vilna Shas

This Guest Post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton originally appeared on his B'chol D'rachecha site.

Despite what you might think, I’m not going to talk about the way yeshivas largely ignore Tanach or - in many cases - ignore 90 percent of whatever mesechte they’re learning. There may or may not be justifications for such deviations from tradition, but no one’s going to argue that, two thousand - or even two hundred - years ago, abandoning whole curriculum categories was the way things were supposed to work.

Instead, I’m going to discuss the dominance of the Brisker “chakira” style of analysis. I should be clear that I have nothing against the style, and I don’t deny that many people get enormous pleasure from it. My only question is whether making that our primary focus is the best use of the limited time we have available for our learning.

507) The rise of contemporary Religious-Zionism

Torat haMelech: a work by a "fringe element," a "call to terror" or according to R. Dov Lior (a respected figure among many mainstream Religious-Zionists) “very relevant especially in this time”?

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Yoav Peled[1]—examines the rise of the Religious Zionist movement from relative non-dominance in 1948 to a position of unquestionable hegemony in the last decades. The Chabad movement is widely recognized for its messianic focus, yet the similarly fervent messianism of Religious Zionists often receives less attention. 

From Socialist-Zionism to a Labour-Zionism to Religious-Zionism

Two political scientists from Bar-Ilan University, Charles Liebman and Eliezer Don-Yehiya (1983:128-131),[2] show how two significant ideological shifts took place within two decades of the birth of the State of Israel in 1948. Both shifts profoundly influenced the so-called ‘civil religion’ or dominant mindset and worldview of the nascent Israeli society. 

506) Reading the biblical word אות (‘sign’) in its earlier context

 

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professors Idan Dershowitz and Na’ama Pat-El[1]—examines possible lost meanings of the Hebrew word אות (‘ot’) which is usually simply translated and commonly understood as a ‘sign.’ The word ‘ot’ appears most famously in the Shema prayer in reference to the tefillin (phylacteries) which does seem to refer to a tangible 'sign': 

וּקְשַׁרְתָּ֥ם לְא֖וֹת עַל־יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ׃

“And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand and they shall be as a symbol (or frontlets) between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8). 

Because the biblical word ‘ot’ is usually translated as a ‘sign,’ it is commonly associated with some object, or some miraculous future event as a symbol of either an ominous or auspicious occurrence. 

“This understanding [of ‘ot’ as a ‘sign’] has long informed interpretations of biblical passages and Hebrew inscriptions” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:1). 

505) Michtav Oz Shel Torah: A 1923 Anti-Zionist Polemical Letter by R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson

 

The 1923 Michtav Oz Shel Torah by R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson

Introduction

The rise of modern Zionism created some interesting challenges for many within the rabbinic community. Some rabbis believed that Zionism transgressed the Talmudic notion of Shalosh haShavut or the Three Oaths, where Jews were conceptualised to have undertaken oaths to remain in exile until the arrival of the Messiahꟷas discussed in the previous article [see: Kotzk Blog: 504) The ‘Three Oaths’: Theologies of Cancellation and Resurrection]. The list of rabbis who opposed Zionism becomes very interesting when some unexpected names begin to emerge. 

504) The ‘Three Oaths’: Theologies of Cancellation and Resurrection

 

Eim haBanin Semeicha by R. Yisachar Shlomo Teichtel

Introduction

This article – based extensively but not exclusively on the research by Professor Reuven Firestone[1] ꟷ examines the Talmudic concept of שלוש השבועות or Three Oaths. It focuses on the theological tension between the Three Oaths, which prohibit a return to the Land of Israel until the Messiah arrives, and the desire to settle in the Land. The Three Oaths were designed to engender a non-militaristic and exilic ethos within the Jewish people after the defeats of the Bar Kochba revolts against the Romans. It also touches upon the biblical notion of מלחמת מצווה, Mitzvah or Holy War. 

NOTE: This is not intended to be a political discussion or commentary on the present situation in the Middle East. Rather, it is an inquiry into a Talmudic theology that has evolved dramatically and in different directions over time. Firestone’s original article was written in 2006 and I have additionally consulted various other sources entirely unrelated to present-day events. In any case, ideas discussed here can be simultaneously selected and used by protagonists and detractors from all quarters. The main concern here is the vast array of often tendentious exegesis and evolution of a Talmudic theology, paradoxically resulting in both its cancellation and resurrection. 

503) Sebastianism: Crossover messianism that predated Sabbatianism

 

A Chumash printed by R. Menashe ben Yisrael in Amsterdam. Note the interesting way he presents the date.

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Matt Goldish[1] ꟷ examines the unusual notion of messianic crossover between Jews, Christians and Muslims that developed around the sixteenth century. What is even more unusual, from a Jewish perspective, is that the rabbis who participated in such enterprises were always Kabbalists and often respected Halachists as well.

 

Early forms of ‘messianic crossover’

An early example of messianic crossover may have early Christianity where Paul of Tarsus “deliberately engineered or changed” symbols and messages of his messianic movement (Christianity) to “appeal to people outside that tradition” (Goldish 2018:124). This successful methodology was adopted by Paul and he indeed brought many Gentiles under the wings of Christianity. 

502) Moshe haGoleh of Kiev: a critical devotee of Avraham Ibn Ezra

 

An early manuscript of Moshe haGoleh's Kabbalistic work, Shoshan Sodot.

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Eric Lawee[1] ꟷ examines a little-known and somewhat neglected exegete and commentator, R. Moshe ben Yakov (1448-1520) who compiled a super-commentary (i.e., a commentary on a commentary) based on R. Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) who had preceded him by almost four centuries. Moshe ben Yakov is also known as Moshe haGoleh (the ‘exile’) miKiev.^[2] 

Very few have ever heard of Moshe haGoleh, nor of the commentary he authored on Ibn Ezra entitled Otzar Nechmad, but he had some interesting things to say about Ibn Ezra and his relationship to Halacha, and to his 'opponent' Rashi. Moshe haGoleh also shed some light on the existence of diverse Rashi manuscripts. Additionally, he embarked upon a mission to convert Karaites to Rabbinic Judaism. Surprisingly, although Moshe haGoleh was an outspoken supporter of the rationalist Torah commentary of Ibn Ezra and engaged in the sciences and astronomy, he personally remained a Kabbalist. As an exegete, he was able to maintain a level-headed and even critical approach towards his ‘rabbi,’ Ibn Ezra. He is the only known Kabbalist to have written a super-commentary on Ibn Ezra. Yet, he remains: 

501) Were some early Spanish Kabbalists defending a Maimonidean position?

An image believed to be that of R. Yitzchak the Blind occupied with the Sefirot

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Tzahi Weiss[1] ꟷ examines an interesting and unusual approach to understanding how thirteenth-century Kabbalah suddenly emerged in Provence (southern France) and Catalonia (northeastern Spain). With this emergence, there was now a rapid interest in, and wide reception of, the notion of Sefirot (Divine emanations). Although the term ‘Sefirot’ was used in the earlier mystical work of the Bahir, it suddenly took on a specific meaning in thirteenth-century Spanish Zoharic Kabbalah. 

Weiss, a professor of Jewish mysticism, offers a unique interpretation as to why the Spanish Kabbalists reworked and redefined the older existing notion of Sefirot.  While the Spanish Kabbalists are usually depicted as radical mystics in direct conflict with Maimonidean rationalism ꟷ Weiss fascinatingly sees these Kabbalists as having more in common with some aspects of Maimonides’ Halachic writings (Mishneh Torah) and his philosophical writings (Moreh Nevuchim or Guide for the Perplexed) than usually imagined!

500) Mining Chassidic stories for kernels of historicity

 

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Glynn Dynner[1] ꟷ examines a possible methodology to extract aspects of historical truths from the often exaggerated and venerating style of Chassidic storytelling. Even within Chassidic circles the ‘Chassidishe Maaseh,’ or Chassidic story, is sometimes acknowledged as a questionable source of information, but this is not always the case. The presentation style of Chassidic stories is often referred to as hagiography as opposed to historiography. Sometimes Chassidic hagiography is so dense and detailed that Ada Rapoport-Albert has coined the phrase “Hagiography with footnotes.”[2] As detailed as the hagiography may be, it is still hard to define Chassidic stories as accurate history. Nevertheless, Dynner asks: 

“Can elements of certain tales stand on their own as historical sources?” (Dynner 2009:655).

 

499) The debate over the authenticity of the portrait of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi

From the Abraham Schwadron Portrait Collection, National Library of Israel archive

Introduction

This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Professor Wojciech Tworek[1] ꟷ examines the debate over the authenticity of one of the best-known portraits in Chassidic iconography; that of the Alter Rebbe, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Chabad Rebbe. 

Unlike the iconic portrait of the Baal Shem Tov which has conclusively been shown to be not of the Baal Shem Tov of Medzhebuzh (c.1700-1760) but rather of the Baal Shem of London (1708-1782) ꟷ  there is much controversy over the portrait of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812). 

The portrait of R. Shneur Zalman is published in the haTamim (vol. 2 p. 755) anthology of the sixth Rebbe of Chabad, R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, under the title “תמונת תואר פני קדש הקדשים, The picture of the image of the Holy of Holies...” 

498) Did the Babylonian Talmud create the authoritative rabbi and the passive Jew?

 

Coins from the Bar Kochba era

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach[1] − explores the emergence of the rabbinic class after the failed Jewish revolts against the Romans during the first two centuries CE. Up to that point, the rabbis did not feature in leadership positions. On assuming power immediately after the failed military campaigns and revolts, the rabbis (and the Babylonian rabbis particularly) began to intensely promote passivity as the hallmark of the Torah Jew. Too many Jews had been killed during the wars and the rabbis saw passivity as the only way forward for Jewish survival into the future. 

497) Language as incubators of theological ideas

 

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Edward Ullendorff (1920-2011) – examines languages as distinct incubators of theological ideas. In other words, we are going to see to what extent “different languages reflect different realities” (Ullendorff 1966:273) which, in turn, reflect different theologies; and how translations, in this case from the Hebrew of the Torah into English, can project different meanings from those of the original language. I then take this a step further and propose that sometimes the reflected theologies can impose themselves back onto the original source language, creating a double distortion.