Introduction
This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Israel Koren—explores a most unusual approach to sociability, friendship and family, in the teachings R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica (Ishbitz) (1800-1854). He dramatically broke away from the warm, traditional Chassidic conception of interpersonal relationships, which had previously been regarded positively as both reflective of, and parallel to, union with the Divine. Instead, he promoted a decidedly anti-social stance where sociability was scorned. Today, the Ishbitzer’s work, Mei haShiloach, is very popular. However, R. Mordechai’s striking ambivalence toward human friendship and companionship goes mostly unnoticed. Koren’s study of the Isbitzer’s distinct asociality contributes to a fuller understanding of the writings of Ishbitz.
Defining and problematising friendship
R. Mordechai appears comfortable with transactional relationships between people because he recognises that they live in societies that must be navigated. Where he has issues, though, is with the creation of meaningful and endearing social relationships. Thus, we find the word חב[י]רו (transactional companion) is mentioned about 200 times in Mei haShiloach, whereas רעהו (close friend) appears only around 30 times. Significantly, mystical and pietistic words like דיבוק חברים (brotherly cleaving) and אהבת חברים (brotherly love) do not appear at all.
Interpreting Ahavat Yisrael and Love your
neighbour as yourself
R. Mordechai interprets concepts like “Ahavat Yisrael” (Love of a fellow Jew),
not as the love between two people, but rather as the love that God has for the
person (Mei haShiloach, 1,125-7). In his interpretation, Ahavat
Yisrael is a vertical bond between God and Jews, not horizontal
between Jew and |Jew.
He also interprets “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18)—not positively as the love between two humans—but rather, negatively or passively, as avoiding hate and animosity between humans:
“Rather than promoting psychic or spiritual intimacy, R. Mordeḥai focuses upon the avoidance of criticism, judgment, hostility, and anger towards the other” (Koren 2022:41).
Thus, we find that the commandment to “love your neighbour” is mentioned 6 times in Mei haShiloch, but not in the conventional positive Chassidic sense of brotherly love. Instead, all these 6 instances occur within a single section addressing the prohibition against defrauding or wronging one’s fellow, underscoring its interpretation in a negative, passive and cautionary context (Koren 2022:41).
This is unusual for Chassidic texts, which abound in teachings of positive friendship, as their societies are constructed—and dependent—upon harmonious and close-knit communities. Indeed, the historian, Dr. Mendel Piekarz (1966: 225-8), one of the great scholars of Chassidism, argues that the movement generally may be said to actively elevate the social dimension, at times even placing it above the religious sphere.
Friendship “is not always necessary”
In a dramatic break from the general Chassidic ethos, R. Mordechai reinterprets a certain Midrashic passage (Vayikra Rabbah 9:9) that encourages the pursuit of friendship:
“[T]his [friendship] too is not always necessary, for in everything there is an amount of uncertainty. For it could be that this one is not fit to bring into your house. Yet to repulse him is also not permitted” (Mei haShiloach, 1,29).
Here, he articulates his ambivalent stance towards friendship, carefully qualifying that this does not imply one must actively repel the other, but affirming that social cohesion is “not always necessary.”
Understanding R. Mordechai’s cultural background
While R.Mordechai eventually broke away from his two teachers, Simcha Bunim of Peshischa and the Kotzker Rebbe, he had still been influenced by the ideas taught in those courts. Peshischa and Kotzk placed a disproportionate weight on individualism, autonomy, and independence. This orientation towards self-sufficiency naturally led to some form of exclusionism from the popular and mainstream society.
Elitism
The Kotzker Rebbe particularly despised the typical image of the classical Chassidic Rebbe, or Tzadik, who encouraged mass pilgrimages to their courts and subservience from their followers who never made an independent move without consulting their Rebbe. The Kotzker Rebbe viewed the classical Chassidic Rebbe as diminished—reduced to a servant of the masses, a spiritual instructor, and a mere helper [see: Kotzk Blog: 310) HOW THE TZADIK IS DEPICTED IN SOME CHASSIDIC LITERATURE:]. The Peshischa and Kotzker Chassidim, on the other hand, were rather proud and elitist.
Aaron Aescoly (1999:45-53) describes this new form of independent Chassidism as one “intended for the elite who mocked…[the Chassidism] of the masses.” Historically, Peshischa and Kotzk did not attract the poor or common people, but rather the middle to upper class of Jewish society.
The Kotzker Rebbe’s radical autonomy
The Kotzker Rebbe made a point of blatantly not caring about what others thought. Commenting on the biblical story of the spies—"To ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (Num 13:33)—he teaches that the great sin of the spies was not so much the false report about the land, but rather the spies being concerned about what others think of them (as evidenced in “and so we seemed to them”).
The sign of the ‘feig’ (fig)
In one of the most unusual of rabbinic texts I have ever come across, the Kotzker Rebbe is recorded as saying:
כשמראה לעצמו "פייג" (תאנה) יוכל להראות "פייג" לכל
העולם
“When one can show the sign of the ‘fig’ to oneself, one can show the ‘fig’ to the entire world” (Emet veEmunah, 26).
It’s interesting to see how benignly some interpret this strange statement. Here is one such interpretation I found, which completely whitewashes the original intent:
“The fig suggests something ordinary and tangible—the Kotzker often used everyday images to show that real spirituality is found in concrete self-knowledge, not in lofty rhetoric.”
But showing the sign of the “fig” or “manus fica” (fig hand) is a longstanding, terribly rude and crude gesture. In ancient Rome, the manus fica was first used in an apotropaic ritual to ward off evil. The wild fig was a symbol of good luck for the Romans. For the Christians, however, it was known as manus obscena (obscene hand) as it later developed into a well-known obscene and insulting gesture, which we do not need to elaborate upon any further.
I intentionally mention that this teaching—although printed in Emet veEmunah—is “reported” to have originated from the Kotzker Rebbe, because the authenticity of many of his ever-growing number of aphorisms is a matter of dispute [see: Kotzk Blog: 480) What did the Kotzker Rebbe say?].
The cultural context behind the quest for independence
The quest for independence in religious thought may be seen as a sign of modernity stemming from both the religious and secular environments, particularly through the Maharal and the Enlightenment respectively [see: Kotzk Blog: 244) CHASSIDISM: A REACTION TO - OR PRODUCT OF - MODERNITY?].
1) Maharal of Prague
Furthermore, according to Alan Brill (2015), the Maharal of Prague (d.1609) was an early modern thinker who served as a link from the Renaissance to Chassidism, as the Chassidim studied his writings. He emphasised modern existential thinking, self-awareness and self-criticism, emphasising the concept of the self, the ‘מושג ה'אני, or the “I.”
“[D]uring the Middle Ages the ‘I’ was thought to form part of the divine realm encompassing human beings, being revealed to a person from outside, as it were, [however,] during the Renaissance divine revelation came to be viewed more in terms of an inner truth manifesting itself in the ‘I’ – an entity aware of the value of the individual self, moral autonomy, and independent faith” (Koren 2022:37-38).
These new ideas from the Maharal, concerning the primacy of the individual, may have had some direct bearing on the Peshischa and Kotzker concepts of intellectual independence and religious autonomy, and through them, filtered down to R. Mordechai.
2) The
Enlightenment movement
According to Raphael Mahler (1985: 282-283, 301-302), the quest for independence as exhibited in some of these Chassidic schools reflects the influence of modernity, liberalism and the Enlightenment, which encouraged a personal worship of God and the need for personal self-realisation and elevation of the ”I.”
These ideas emanating from the Enlightenment may have partially entered the Chassidic realm through Simcha Bunim, who attended the German theatre and was involved in extensive commercial enterprises. He was also an accomplished public figure, played a role in Polish politics, and was a government-qualified pharmacist. He would have come into contact with ideas not readily available to most other Chassidic Rebbes who lived more cloistered lives.
R. Mordechai and the “I” of the other
R. Mordechai was not sociable, but neither was he abrasive. Notwithstanding his elevation of the “I” over the “us,” he nevertheless makes space for the “I” of the other. In other words, he recognises the rights of others to also live within their distinctive pathways, even if they are at variance with one’s own path. He writes that it is important not to rebuke or disrespect others for following a different path. Put simply, he advocates the notion of different strokes for different folks:
“Even though…God commanded man to reprove his neighbor and to try to distance him from all evil as much as is possible…one cannot judge his neighbor as guilty, for perhaps his neighbor’s yetzer [inclination (to evil)] is greater than his own. Or, perhaps what he sees as an error or sin is actually permitted to his neighbor, for there are many things that are forbidden to one but permitted to another” (Mei haShiloach, 1,248-9).
Therefore, one who tries to impose their particular spiritual path on another, errs:
“One does not call into question the attributes of his fellow, for he understands that his fellow can only keep the mitzvah in his own way, and not in his way” (Mei haShiloach, 1,348).
These extracts make it clear that for R. Mordechai—while clearly rejecting the indiscriminate embracing of the other—the social arena was, nevertheless, marked by complex approaches requiring careful navigation, not just with caution but also with respect for the “I” of the other.
The “I” as deceptive
R. Mordechai explains through his biblical exegesis that the “I” is always hidden, confusing and even deceptive. He cites Isaiah who describes God as saying: “I have … hidden you [i.e., the ‘I’] in the shadow of my hand” (Isaiah 51:16). This means that Moshe, the great lawgiver, is described by the Torah as the humblest of all people (Num. 12:3)—while Datan and Aviram (who together with Korach rebelled against Moshe and Aharon) are described as elevating themselves arrogantly above the rest of the congregation (Num 16:13). R. Mordechai uses this juxtaposition to present his paradoxical teaching that a person’s “outer, visible garb was contrary to the inner root of his soul” (Mei haShiloach, 2,144). This is what is meant in Isaiah by the “I” being “hidden.”
From this, we can understand why he was wary of others. He believed that there was a distinct disparity between the way in which a person was perceived by the outside (or the way in which a person presented themselves to the outside) and their internal essence (Koren 2022:38).
Family relationships are “not necessary”
R. Mordechai took the abovementioned paradoxical and sceptical ideas so far that he even applied them to members of his own family. He maintained that close ties, even to one’s family, are not always necessary. Astonishingly, he felt that family relations only appeared to be close, whereas in reality, this was not necessarily so. Commenting on Lech Lecha (Gen. 12:1)—where Avraham is told to leave his father’s house—he writes rather cynically that one should “not look at the way things seem at first glance but rather into the root of the matter” (Mei haShiloach, 1,37).
He continues to find support for this in Avraham again, who also separated from his nephew, Lot, who was, on the surface, very similar to Avraham. Although they resembled each other, R. Mordechai describes Lot as Avraham’s “counterfeit clone” and therefore, “the two do not belong together” (Ibid.). It required בירור (meticulous examination), “to distinguish the truth from its false exteriority” (Ibid.). Based on this, all relationships—even within the family—need to be approached with caution because in the social sphere, nothing is what it seems. He calls this sceptical approach עבודת הבירורים (the technique of meticulous examination), and it applies even to close family.
Socialising as “swimming”
This complex Ishbitz theory of relationships, including family ties, reminds me of a statement recorded in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe, although not as extreme: “If you are going to socialise, you had better be a good swimmer.” The Kotzker Rebbe is acutely aware that all social relationships are dynamic, having ‘currents’ that can easily change in one direction or the other. The Kotzker Rebbe also seems to be alluding to a softer type of the abovementioned עבודת הבירורים (the technique of meticulous examination), where knowing how to swim the ‘currents of deception’ may be the prudent preparation for any social encounter.
From independence to isolation
R. Mordechai retained these elitist and independent teachings even as he himself became independent of his former Rebbes and Tzadikim.
To illustrate how he had abandoned the classical model of the Chassidic Tzadik, he used the term ‘Tzadik’ 281 times in his Mei haShiloach—not in reference to a Chassidic leader, as one may have expected—but rather, almost exclusively, to an individual’s elevated and personal spiritual state. This was, again, an expression and emphasis on the “I,” and a move away from subservience. The “I” did not need saints, Tzadikim, friends, society, or even family to validate itself. In R. Mordechai’s thought, the “I” he inherited from Peshischa and Kotzk is not merely independent; it is now isolated from the external world. The Kotzker Rebbe spent his last twenty years in physical isolation, and it seems that R. Mordechai lived in a parallel form of ideological isolation
An admittedly confrontational approach
R. Mordechai acknowledges that his unusual path of asociality sometimes includes confrontation:
“Both…[Mordechai’s] teachers, R. Simḥa Bunim and the Kotzker Rebbe, had caustic natures, neither being afraid of—and even welcoming—confrontation” (Koren 2022:39).
Commenting on the notion of Adam’s wife being a “counter-helper” (Gen. 2:18), he writes:
“For it is by means of seeing how one is challenged that he may strengthen his words with greater proofs, and thus his words will come well into being” (Mei haShiloach, 1,23-24).
Challenging relationships and social confrontation afford opportunities for self-growth:
“Difference, confrontation, and abrasion are better aids than empathy and support; affirmation from the other and compliments intended to bolster one’s self-esteem [do] not form…fertile ground for personal growth” (Koren 2022:49).
Messianic future with no teachers
Commenting on the verse “And the world will be filled with the knowledge of God” (Isaiah 11:9), he writes about an imagined future where we will no longer require rabbis or teachers because the “I” will be sufficient and clear for everyone:
“Man will no longer experience dread before his teacher, for man shall no longer learn from his brethren…This is because at this time everyone will know what his portion in Torah is with perfect clarity” (Mei haShiloach, 1,63).
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
It is interesting to see that the German philosopher
Nietzsche (1844-1900) seems to reflect some of the core innovations of the
general Peshischa-Kotzk-Ishbitz schools. Nietzsche rejected herd
morality and proposed a “new extreme, individualistic philosophy”
(Mahler 1985:302). Nietzsche is a nuanced thinker, and he championed a
demanding, creative form of “individuality” and focus on the “I” (Schacht 2023:
264-283). Supporting this notion, it's interesting to see that Nietzsche also
expressed ambivalence towards friendship and valued solitude. He did encourage
exceptional friendships between strong, creative individuals as occasions for
mutual challenge and growth rather than simply for company and comfort.
Conclusion
The school of Ishbitz is an extreme offshoot of an already stark and radical Peshischa-Kotzk school. It differs dramatically from the other typical Chassidic schools, especially from their emphasis on positive social interactions with others. From R. Mordechai’s writings, it is apparent that these ideas of society consumed him, and people represented—not friendship—but hindrances and risks (Koren 2022:50).
Going even further back into previous generations, there was much political movement to and from the earlier dynastical line, traceable all the way back to the Maggid of Mezerich, that eventually led to the schools of Peshischa and Kotzk. Leadership was often contested, with breakaway factions emerging.
We find that R. Elimelech of Lezansk had broken away from his teacher, the Magid of Mezeritch (the successor to the Baal Shem Tov). The Chozeh of Lublin was the student of R. Elimelech of Lezansk, and the Yid haKadosh broke away from the Chozeh. The Kotzker Rebbe broke away from the Yid haKadosh and from Simcha Bunim of Peshischa. This unusual Chassidic ‘dynasty’ of rebels and breakaways must have created a competitive—if not suspicious—environment, especially considering that R. Mordechai, in turn, broke from the Kotzker Rebbe. Perhaps this accounts for why, at the culmination of this extended chain of breakaways, human beings ceased to be viewed as friends, and it was only God who manifested Ahavat Yisrael and genuine concern.
The striking and distinctive elements of the Ishbitzer’s
social doctrine that we have examined have been insufficiently recognised by
both scholarship and popular readership. Koren’s research alters how we read R.
Mordechai Yosef Leiner’s overall project and particularly his stance toward family,
community and solitude.
Further reading
Kotzk
Blog: 416) What really happened on the last Friday night in Kotzk?
Kotzk
Blog: 480) What did the Kotzker Rebbe say?
Kotzk
Blog: 147) THE (UNCUT) STORY OF KOTZK - A REVOLUTION WITHIN THE CHASSIDIC
MOVEMENT:
Kotzk
Blog: 010) The Rebbe Who Didn't Like Mysticism].
Bibliography
Aescoly, A.Z., 1999, Ḥasidism in Poland,
Jerusalem.
Brill, A., 2015, Maharal and the Early Modern Self,
in Maharal: Overtures – Biography, Doctrine, Influence, Edited by E.
Reiner, Jerusalem, 305-328 [Hebrew].
Koren, I., 2022, ‘Interpersonal Relations and
Sociability in the Thought of R. Mordeḥai Joseph of Izbica’, Studia
Religiologica, vol. 55, no. 3, 33-53.
Mahler, R., 1985, Ḥasidism and the Jewish
Enlightenment: their confrontation in Galicia and Poland in the first half of
the nineteenth century, Jewish Publication Society of America,
Philadelphia.
Piekarz M., 1966, ‘Ḥasidism as a Socio-Religious
Movement on the Evidence of “Devekut,”’ in Ḥasidism Reappraised, Edited
by A. Rapoport-Albert, London. 1996, pp. 225‒248.
Schacht, R., 2023, ‘Nietzsche as Individualist?’, in Nietzsche's
Kind of Philosophy: Finding His Way, University of Chicago Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment