Menu

Showing posts with label Breslov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Breslov. Show all posts

Sunday, 26 April 2026

550) Likutei Halachot: Reinterpreting Halacha as a means to connect with the Tzadik

My copy of Likutei Halachot by R. Natan Sternhartz

Introduction

This article—drawing extensively on the research by Dr Leore Sachs-Shmueli[1]—examines the nineteenth-century Chassidic work, Likutei Halachot, by R. Natan Sternhartz of Nemirov (1780-1844). R. Natan worked on his manuscript of Likutei Halachot for forty years, from 1806 to two days before his passing in 1844. His autograph (i.e., original) manuscript is housed in the  National Library of Israel. This work by R. Natan, the foremost student of R. Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810), essentially redefines Halachic practice as a mnemonic (memory system) and theurgic (spiritually manipulative) means of connecting with the Tzadik, R. Nachman of Breslov (or more accurately Bratslav).

Sunday, 11 March 2018

167) TWO VERY DIFFERENT WAYS TO VIEW A REBBE:




INTRODUCTION: 

In this article, we will highlight two very different approaches to the concept of a Rebbe. We will look at extracts from two contemporary English books which reflect, in modern parlance, the basic differences between how Breslov and Kotzk define the role of the Rebbe.

The first book, Rebbe Nachman’s Soul, is compiled by R. Shlomo Katz, and is ‘A Commentary on Sichos haRan from the classes of Rabbi Zvi Aryeh Rosenfeld z’l.” R. Rosenfeld (1922-1978) is credited with bringing the Breslov teachings to the English speaking world.

The second book is The Quest for Authenticity by Rabbi Dr Michael Rosen (1945-2008) and deals with ‘The Thought of Reb Simcha Bunim’, who was the teacher of Rebbe of Kotzk. Rabbi Rosen studied at Yeshivat Beer Yakov and received ordination from Chief Rabbi Unterman.

To emphasize the extreme differences in attitudes towards the tzadik, we will simply cite extracts from both books, without any additional comment or analysis.

Please bear in mind that the aim is not to have a competition between both approaches, but simply to show two very different spiritual paths.

I have intentionally chosen to use newly published English books to emphasize the ‘current’ nature of these approaches which are indeed adopted by the followers of these movements today and are quite common and widespread:

BRESLOV[1]:

‘Above all, Rabbeinu zal (Rabbi Nachman of Breslov)[2] designates this one thing - travelling to the tzaddik emes (the true tzaddik)[3] - as the definitive sign of emunah (faith)[4], because the faith of a person can only be strengthened through binding himself with the tzaddik emes...

...’tzaddik’- first seek out a tzaddik- ‘be’emunaso yichyeh’- by faith in this tzadik you will live...

Netzach means eternity, and the gematria (numerical value)[5] of netzach (148...) is Rabbeinu zal’s name (148...) (Nachman = 148)[6]. Eternal life is dependent on a person’s simple and pure faith in the tzaddik emes. If a person has that emunah, he is automatically assured of having faith in HaShem...[7]

Rabbeinu zal is the greatest expert in the true knowledge of what’s happening in Olam Haba, in heaven...

If a person repents, there is no limit to the infinite mercy of HaShem. But HaShem has mercy only while a person is alive. When the person passes away, that mercy comes to an end. Then there is HaShem of vengeance and HaShem who pays.

HaShem pays reward to the tzaddik and HaShem avenges the evil acts of the wicked. There is no mercy or kindness in the heavenly court at all; there is purely din (judgement)[8]...

In heaven there are souls who lie outside the gates of Gan Eden. They lie there screaming very bitter screams: “Give us something to eat!”

Others come to them and say, “Here is food and drink. Eat your fill.”

These poor souls reply, “No, no, this is not the food that we want. We want the food and drink of Torah and tefillah...

We have not learned enough Torah during our lifetime and we haven’t had Torah and tefillah in our life. We don’t have the food and drink that is necessary in heaven. We don’t have the spiritual food and drink that a person can acquire only through Torah and tefillah.”

These are souls lying around in heaven freezing, bare of clothes, and they scream in pain: “Give us something to cover ourselves with.”

There is no greater pain and suffering than the suffering of embarrassment. This is worse than the fires of Gehinnom...

Therefore Rabbeinu zal says: There is no way to help these people. One who is left there unclothed, bare and without food – woe is to that soul who is so embarrassed, so isolated, and suffers continuously.

No one can help that person. You cannot offer him clothes, because that’s not the kind of clothes he needs...

However, there is one who has the unusual heavenly power to help these souls. This is the tzaddik emes.

The key to it is if a person during his lifetime has had solid emunah, solid faith, in the tzaddik emes, to the point that he actually merged with the tzaddik emes.

“Merged” means they became one. This merging refers to the mind – one mind only, and that is the mind of the tzaddik.

This is when a person says, “I have no thought of my own, I have no mind of my own, I have no opinion of my own.

I accept completely and implicitly the words of the tzaddik emes, without question at all.”
This is what is meant by merging and becoming one.’

KOTZK[9]:

‘It is interesting to note that in Przysucha (pronounced Pesishcha, the school from which the Kotzker came)[10] they did not talk much about Olam Haba (the world to Come)...

Przysucha did not believe in Zaddikism (the veneration of rebbes or other tzaddikim)[11] in the way Hasidism in general did. Furthermore, it was an implied critique of the Hasidic establishment which could not be ignored...

The following story is told about R. Bunim (the Kotzker’s teacher)[12] in response to the “style of prayer” of one of his students:

Our holy teacher, our master from Alexander (Hanoch Heinich), told that once when he visited R. Bunim, he recited the morning prayers in a house which was close to that of R. Bunim, and he prayed in a loud voice with a lot of movement [which was then the norm; however, this approach did not appeal to R. Bunim].
In the middle of praying, R. Bunim came in. Immediately he stopped his noise and movement.
But in a moment he settled his mind, saying: “Indeed, I am standing now before G-d, so why am I concerned at this moment with my rebbe?”
He returned to his former style of praying loudly.
After he concluded his prayers, the rebbe invited him to his house and said to him thus: “Heinich, today I enjoyed your praying.”[13]

If this story can be relied upon...then it...reflects...the relationship between a zaddik and himself (the student)[14]...

Clearly it doesn’t mean he (the student)[15] is abdicating his own judgement, nor does it even mean that he will necessarily listen to his zaddik.

Moreover, R. Bunim not only approves of Hanoch Heinich’s disregarding him because his behaviour was authentic...

It was impossible for someone who had absorbed the world of Przysucha to have a one-dimensional relationship with a zaddik: That which for the rest of Polish Hasidism was a sign of faith – namely, total reliance on the zaddik – was anathema to the world of Przysucha...

...if he does nothing but simply relies on the zaddik, then, unfortunately, the zaddik cannot help him.[16] 

...one could journey to zaddikim till kingdom come without achieving anything. Without doing the real work within oneself, the Hasid, or devotee, was wasting his time.

...their journey to zaddikim for periods of time adds nothing, and nothing will come of it.[17]

...Responsibility could not be absolved. Moreover, anything that detracted from the individual’s personal responsibility – be it the miraculous, the belief in salvation by another, or the external trappings of the zaddik’s court – was to be shunned....

The entire role of the zaddik in Przysucha was understood in such a way as not to create dependency. For dependency meant that the very quality on which everything hung – namely personal authenticity – was emasculated...

All a zaddik could do was to be a guide, a role model...by his own spiritual integrity, the student could find his own integrity as well.

The function of the rebbe was to help people become themselves and to serve G-d in their truth.
Vicarious redemption runs counter to the most basic values of Przysucha.

(In Kotzk/Przysucha)[18] the rebbe(‘s)[19]...focus is on how to make the pupil autonomous.
Such a teacher is truly kind, unlike the one who makes the other dependent...

In Kol Simcha[20] R. Bunim says...:

...someone who has the quality of learning from everyone, even from simple people speaking about mundane matters...- such a person does not need a master at all.

The statement “does not need a master at all” could not have been made in any other stream of Hasidism...other than Przysucha...

The real teacher...is concerned with making his disciple independent...
The (biblical) verse itself warns “Do not trust in princes,” the intention being to warn against...the righteous of the generation...And in truth...Przysucha...would (talk) a lot about this: that maybe it would have been better to abolish this type of leadership since the “world” relies too much on the zaddikim.[21]




[1] Extracted from Rebbe Nachman’s Soul, A Commentary on Sichos Haran from the classes of Rabbi Zvi Aryeh Rosenfeld z’l, compiled and edited by Rabbi Shlomo Katz, p. 186-190..
[2] Parenthesis mine.
[3] Parenthesis mins.
[4] Parenthesis mine.
[5] Parenthesis mine.
[6] Parenthesis mine
[7] Rebbe Nachman’s Soul, p. 298.
[8] Parenthesis mine.
[9] Extracted from The Quest for Authenticity, The Thought of Reb Simcha Bunim, by Michael Rosen, p. 113-122.
[10] Parenthesis mine.
[11] Parenthesis mine.
[12] Parenthesis mine.
[13] Siach Sarfei Kodesh 5:21
[14] Parenthesis mine.
[15] Parenthesis mine.
[16] Toldot Adam, eight night of Hanukkah, 100.
[17] Chiddushei haRim, hasidut, 350.
[18]Parenthesis mine.
[19]Parenthesis mine.
[20] Kol Simcha, Veyetze 35.
[21] Hiddushei haRim Hasidut, 352, 356.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

101) R. PINCHAS OF KORETZ WRITES THAT BRESLOVERS ARE 'NOT JEWISH' - MISPRINT, TAMPERING OR INTENTIONAL?

Midrash Pinchas by R. Pinchas of Koretz
BACKGROUND:

R. PINCHAS OF KORETZ AND HIS PARADIGM SHIFT:

Rabbi Pinchas of Koretz (1728-1790) was a talmid chaver (student and contemporary) of the Baal Shem Tov, and rose to become one of the leading lights of the new Chassidic movement.[1] 

R. Pinchas received a thorough Lithuanian style Torah education and wrote many Talmudic and Halachik novellae while still a young man. He was also interested in the writings of the Rishonim (medieval scholars and philosophers) and additionally mastered secular studies like engineering science and mathematics. This may have been because he was influenced by the Gaon of Vilna who placed great emphasis on secular education for Torah scholars (see here). Apparently a page of Euclides which was translated into Hebrew under the Vilna Gaons’s instruction, made its way to R. Pinchas and he studied it with the same diligence with which he applied to his Talmudic studies.

However, with time he eventually ‘grew tired’ of science and philosophy and was drawn to mysticism particularly the Zohar and became one of its greatest proponents ever (see here).

His father, R Avraham Abba Shapira was a staunch opponent of the Chassidic movement, but after fleeing from his hometown of Shklov he happened to meet the Baal Shem Tov. He changed his views and became a follower. 

His son Pinchas became one of the Baal Shem’s closest friends (although they may only have met on four occasions[2]). There is some debate as to whether R. Pinchas was indeed his best friend or his closest disciple[3]. The Baal Shem entrusted the education of his grandson R. Baruch of Mezhibuzh to R. Pinchas.

R. NACHMAN OF BRESLOV:

R. Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810) arguably created a movement that almost rivalled that of Chassidism’s founder, the Baal Shem Tov himself. This brought him into sharp focus by many of his contemporary rabbinic colleagues and caused him to be constantly surrounded by great controversy[4]

This controversy came from both Chassidic and Mitnagdik sources. Some Mitnagdim felt he was even more radical in his teachings than the Baal Shem himself - while some Chassidim saw him as a threat because he didn’t believe in the concept of dynastic rule which was already well entrenched within the general Chassidic movement.

In the early 1800’s R. Nachman moved to Zlatipol, a town in the Ukraine. This move was seen by some as a challenge to the authority of R. Aryeh Leib known as the Shpoler Zaide (1725-1812) who resided in Shpola, a mere two miles away and under whose jurisdiction the town of Zlatipol fell. 

Although the Shpoler Zaide, who was 75 years old at the time, had originally supported R. Nachman he now became one of his fiercest opponents. It seems as if R. Nachman chose the Shpole Zaide as a symbol of the mainstream Chassidic Rebbes he had set out to oppose.[5]

The Shpoler Zaide was a student of R. Pinchas of Koretz, and he now accused R. Nachman of deviating from the path of the Baal Shem Tov!

I would like to propose the following question:

Did the Shpoler Zaide draw from an alleged text (or even just from the tenor) of his teacher R. Pinchas of Koretz, to justify his negative opinion of Breslov?

THE TEXT:

About a century later in the early 1900’s, R. Meir Shapira[6] the head of the Bet Din of Lublin (who also happened to be a direct descendant of R. Pinchas of Koretz) once told about how in his youth he was drawn towards the teachings of R. Nachman. However, he records that his father had expressly forbidden him from reading any of R. Nachman’s books.

His father, on his own admission, based his opposition to R. Nachman upon something he had read in Midrash Pinchas, a work of (his ancestor) R. Pinchas of Koretz (loose translation follows)[7]



“(R. Pinchas of Koretz) rebuked his students, after he heard them speaking (positively) about R. Nachman of Breslov, because Breslov was not part of traditional Judaism![8]

However, R. Meir paid no heed to his father’s words (nor to the alleged proof text from his own ancestor) and defiantly continued to surreptitiously study R. Nachman’s teachings.

Once, his father caught him secretly studying R. Nachman writings by candlelight in his bedroom, and became very angry. This tension between honoring his father and needing to study R. Nachman, deeply affected the young man and tore at his soul.

Then, one day R. Meir met the illustrious R. Avraham Mordechai of Gur (1866-1948) author of Imrei Emet. R. Meir asked what he thought about the shocking comment against Breslov as recorded in Midrash Pinchas.

The Gerer (Gur) Rebbe responded:

The words printed there (in Midrash Pinchas) are a huge mistake. For in the original hand written manuscript it reads that R. Pinchas would rebuke his students who (incorrectly) said that Breslov was not part of traditional Judaism!

[The difference appears to me as to whether the original text said the R. Pinchas would rebuke those he heard speaking MEY- for-  or AL – against-  CHASSIDEI BRESLOV.] 

Thus, according to this reading of the text, R Pinchas was a supporter and not an opponent of the Breslov movement.

Now R. Meir must have felt justified in his secret studying of R. Nachman’s works against the wishes of his father!

He then went back to his father and asked him to check his original handwritten copy of Midrash Pinchas (which he happened to have in his possession probably as a family heirloom) and indeed it was in accordance with the version of Gerrer Rebbe!  (Although the printed and published versions ran with the contversial text.)

ANALYSIS:

Original grave site of R. Pinchas in Shepetovka, Ukraine.


The whole matter of the handwritten manuscript is rather confusing in the first place:

R. Pinchas refers to the term ‘Breslover Chassidim’ in his manuscript. The problem is that R. Pinchas of Koretz passed away when R. Nachman was only 19 years old.  At that stage R. Nachman did not yet have a following and he certainly wasn’t yet living in Breslov (where the followers were only later referred to as Breslover Chassidim).[9]

A probable answer is that the actual words quoted from Midrash Pinchas were not written by R. Pinchas himself but perhaps by his student R. Refael of Bershid who (writing some time later) took the liberty of referring to them as Chassidei Breslov! 

It’s also interesting to note that both the Shpoler Zaide and R. Baruch of Mezhibuzh had issues with R. Nachman, and both were (coincidentally?) taught by R. Pinchas of Koretz!

Either way, it turns out that there is a significant discrepancy between the apparent original handwritten manuscript and the subsequent printed versions.

The difference between the two spells the difference between the Midrash Pinchas -  a work of one of the most respected Chassidic leaders - either endorsing the early Breslov movement, or distancing itself from them in the strongest of terms by going so far as describing Breslovers as no longer being within the pale of Judaism itself!

The question is:

- Was it just a simple printer’s error?

- Or was this indicative of a more sinister agenda?






[1] His father was R. Avraham Abba who was a descendent of R. Natan Shapira, author of Megale Amukot.
[2] R. Pinchas is said to have visited the Besht twice and the latter visited him twice as well.
[3] The Baal Shem Tov is said to have had some followers who were more learned than him. Nonetheless he could still teach them more than they could have learned from books.  It appears as if R. Pinchas may have been one of these, hence the appellation talmid chaver.
[4] See introduction to Shivcho Shel Tzadik (second page); “...R. Nachman was birthed in conflict and defined by it”. This was something R. Baruch of Mezhibuzh already made reference to at his nephew’s brit milah. [‘Ki hamachloket hayeta hechrach hametziut’.]
[5] See Tormented Master, by Arthur Green, p. 100
[6] R. Meir Shapira (1887-1933), also known as the Lubliner Rav, is famous for his introduction of the Daf Yomi learning programme and also for his founding of Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin.
[7] As with many Chassidic books, although it is commonly assumed that they were authored by the Rebbes themselves, they were often written by their students instead.
[8]Lo be’eleh chelek Yaakov.’ See Shivcho Shel Tzadik p. 69
[9] See footnote 8. Shivcho Shel Tzadik p. 69

Sunday, 6 November 2016

100)THE 'SECRET MANUSCRIPT' FROM R. NACHMAN OF BRESLOV:


INTRODUCTION:

The Breslov Movement was originally very small in terms of numbers and followers. Rabbi Nachman (1772-1810)  never had more than a few hundred followers his lifetime. The movements was persecuted by both Chassidim and Mitnagdim and was at one stage was almost on the verge of ‘extinction’. However, over the past twenty years or so it grown so large and popular with many sub-sects and nuances that it has arguably become unrecognizable.

(I maintain strong personal connections with one of the core teachers of the mainstream Breslov community, but now sadly feel that the movement has been hijacked, distorted and has lost much of its truth and wholesomeness.)

Incidentally, the name Breslov is an adaption of the original name Bratzlav. The Chassidim preferred the name Breslov as it is a play on the Hebrew words Lev Basar (‘heart of flesh’ – as opposed to ‘heart of stone’) which will dominate during the messianic era. R. Nachman only arrived in the town in 1802, eight years before he passed away.[1]

MEGILAT SETARIM:

There is one startling chapter in the Breslov tradition which offers a fascinating narrative about a ‘secret scroll’.

This is the story:

Just over 200 years ago Rabbi Nachman  was riding in a carriage between Ladizin and Breslov with some of his closest disciples including R. Natan and R. Naftali.[2] During this trip, Rabbi Nachman spoke in great detail about his view concerning the advent of the Mashiach (or Messiah).

After the ride, none of those present could remember the details of the talk except for R. Naftali and R. Natan (his closest disciple) who wrote down what he had heard in coded form or ‘hints, acronyms and abbreviations’. This was because Rabbi Nachman told his travelers not to reveal the contents to anyone. Thus the text would be in existence but its content would not be decipherable except to those who knew how to crack the code.

Sometime later, in 1809, Rabbi Nachman repeated his messianic discourse and again it was recorded by R. Natan. The second talk took place in the study hall which was next to Rabbi Nachman’s house and it was so secretive that they waited for the Rav of the city to depart from the building before they began the discussion.

Both these recorded versions were put together in a single coded manuscript which became known as Megilat Setarim (or Secret Scroll).[3]

This scroll became a closely guarded secret and was handed down to only one Breslover follower in each generation.

In what may have been an attempt at distracting anyone from trying to find the secret scroll, an editor of R. Natan’s memoirs added in his own words that “the holy manuscript of Megilat Setarim was stolen or lost and we still do not know where it is.

That should have put paid to the quest of ever discovering the manuscript. - But it didn’t.

According to a relatively recently published work on the oral traditions of Breslover Chassidut known as Siach Sarfei Kodesh[4], it appears as if the coded scroll was passed on to R. Aaron Lipvetzker[5], who in turn passed it on to R. Avraham Chazan.

Then, in what may or may not have been another attempt to throw people off the scent, the story took another twist:

While R. Chazan lay on his deathbed, the daughter of R. Lipvetzker, Tzirel, accosted and rebuked him (R. Chazan) for not transmitting the code and interpretation of the secret scroll to the next generation. But R. Chazan had already lost his faculty of speech and, while the coded scroll survived, he died taking the secrets of its interpretation to his grave.

Then amazingly, in 1963 the Megilat Setarim surfaced again when it was smuggled out from behind the Iron Curtain by R. Gedaliah Fleer.[6] The scroll was given to him R. Michel Dorfman, a leading Breslover personality living in Moscow at the time (who had spent almost 7 years in Siberia and was only released on Stalin’s death). He was afraid the manuscript would be confiscated by the Russian authorities so he asked R. Fleer to take it to Israel.[7]

Back in Jerusalem R. Fleer showed the manuscript to R. Lippel[8] (a student of R. Avraham Sternhartz[9], another major exponent of Breslov, who had escaped from the Soviet Union in 1940). R. Lippel claimed R. Sternhatz taught him how to break the code of the script while the two of them were still in the Ukraine.

At first R. Lippel refused to divulge the code to R. Fleer but eventually did, on the condition it remain a secret[10]. R. Fleer made copies of the text which he distributed to some members of the Breslover community in Israel but withheld the ‘code’ and interpretation as to its meaning.

Sometime later with the emergence of the popularity of the once tiny and close knit group of Breslovers, word leaked out of the existence of the elusive Megilat Setarim, and the secret was no longer a secret.

Researchers, such as Dr. Zvi Mark[11] from Bar-Ilan University have tied to crack the code and the following picture - which paints a young,  very gentle and universal Messiah - emerges:

The Messiah, according to text, would begin his work already as a young child. He would then marry while in his teens and assume a leadership role. Far from being a vengeful religious leader with a destructive apocalypse he would instead take lead the world without any violence whatsoever.

On the contrary, he would use music and healing of illness through innovative new medicines, to unite all humanity, Jew and non-Jew, in peace and goodwill.

There is also a reference to a ‘general redemption’ as well as a ‘personal redemption’ that will occur in messianic times. The latter is when Mashiach will reveal to every individual their personal spiritual status as well pointing out which spiritual aspects and traits need to be improved upon.

Allegedly, the exact date of the Messiah’s arrival is missing from the current text and it seems that was lost with the passing of R. Chazan.

-----------------------

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Rabbi Nachman had much to say, in his published writings, about the Messiah:

SHLOMO EFRAIM:

Apparently Rabbi Nachman believed the Messiah would come soon after the birth of his son, Shlomo Efraim. Accordingly, his son would play a part in, if not actually be, the Messiah himself. But when his young son passed away  one year and two months later, he said that Mashiach would be delayed by more than a hundred years.

“THERE IS ONE TZADIK”:

Although extremely controversial, subject to much interpretation and admitted censorship, the work describing the life of Rabbi Nachman, Chayey Moharan, contains the following passage:

He (Rabbi Nachman) presented the teaching at the morning meal...he said there are seventy nations divided between the domains of Esau (Christianity) and Ishmael (Islam). Each of these domains is composed of 35 kingdoms, and they will be conquered in the future by the two messiahs Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David. 

And there is one tzadik in whom these two messiahs are combined.

He said several other things, more than have been printed.

At that point the table broke because so many people were pressing around him.”[12]

The inference being that whenever the expression ‘there is one tzadik’ was used, his disciples knew exactly to whom he was referring – possibly to himself as Mashiach ben Yosef – the precursor to Mashiach ben David.

THE STORY OF THE BREAD:

Not all of Rabbi Nachman’s famous stories have been published. One of them is the ‘Story of the Bread’, which describes among other things how Rabbi Nachman allegedly ‘received the Torah into his own body’. This material has also been recently published by one of the new populist Breslov groups that have emerged who believe that now is the time to ‘reveal all’.

OTHER REFERENCES TO ‘MEGILAT SETARIM’:

I counted 10 references to Megilat Setarim in Siach Sarfei Kodesh. Here are six of them (my loose translation follows):

R. Natan said;The (apocalyptic) war of Gog and Magog is not mentioned in Megilat Setarim. The implication being that the (battle will instead an ideological one) directed against the spirit of atheism that will be prevalent at that time.’”[13]

In Megilat Setarim, R. Natan and R. Naftali reveal the order of the arrival of the Redeemer. It is known that our master (Rabbi Nachman) said; ‘In the future nothing will remain of the great Russia except for a small mound and a small tree’. “[14]

“...It is written in Megilat Setarim that during the lead up to the Messianic age there will be (world) leaders and kings who will not want to partake in warfare and will rather desire to dwell in quiet and tranquility...but they will be forced to do battle against their will.”[15]

R. Lipvetzker once asked R. Naftali; ‘You heard Megilat Setarim from our master (Rabbi Nachman). What is its status now?’ R. Naftali responded firmly; ‘Have you not studied our master’s other books? We have a tradition from him that that when his books are widespread throughout the world then Mashiach will come.’ (R. Naftali was reluctant to reveal any more to his questioner, but) after some time he eventually handed the text (of Megilat Setarim) over to him.”[16]

R. Hazan said; ‘Beware of the year TRZ”V, which have the same letters as tzarot (travail).’ –This turned out to be the year Nazis rose to power. It was also the year the Communists closed down the shul in Uman. The Chassidim understood that he knew all this from the Megilat Setarim.”[17]

When the Radziner Rebbe published his book which dealt with the blue (tzitzit) thread, R. Chazan said he had no need for his arguments (in favor of the blue thread) because he had older (and more authoritative) proof, which appears to have come from Megilat Setarim.”[18]



[1] After accidentally spilling wine from Kiddush one Shabbat shortly after his arrival in the town, Rabbi Nachman said; ‘Today we have planted Bratzlaver chassidim!’
[2]This event took place on the 5th of Av 1806.  
[3] This was a combination of Megilat Setarim haRishon and Megilat Setarim haSheni.
[4] This work was first published in the 1980’s. (Incidentally my Breslover teacher did not entirely trust the authenticity of the publication. He mentioned this to me when I was in the process of translating parts of Siach Sarfei Kodesh into English. I subsequently discovered that the compiler issued a prohibition against translating the book into any other language.)
[5] R. Natan did not pass the coded scroll on to anyone because he was outlived by R. Naftali. It was R. Naftali who passed it on to R. Lipvetzker. R. Lipvetzker was a considered a holy man who was apparently born as a result of a blessing his parents received from R Nachman. See Siach Sarfei Kodesh vol. 2, i-258, p. 82.
[6] R. Gedaliah Fleer was originally from Brooklyn, and was the first ‘westerner’ to visit Uman, the burial place of Rabbi Nachman in the Ukraine, after the Second World War. He also was one of the early writers to introduce Breslover teachings to the English speaking world. (I obtained a copy of one of his books about thirty years ago and it left a profound impression upon me at the time.)
[7] According to Arthur Green in his Tormented Master p. 20, note 5. (a book not much admired by those within Breslover circles): “A most important work...Megilat Setarim, which was long thought to have been destroyed, is quoted by N. Z. Koenig, Niweh Zaddikim . pp. 87ff., and apparently still exists.”
According to R. Gedalia Fleer, in his book Against all Odds, the manuscript he personally received from R. Michel Dorfman in Moscow was copied by R. Alter Tepliker directly from the original copy written by R. Natan himself. The actual copy was known as Megillat Setarim Katzar (abbreviated Megilat Setarim). See Against all Odds, p. 216 for a comprehensive reading of more details of the story.
[8] R. Lippel claimed the copy originally belonged to him when he was still living in the Soviet Union. He even said that he had bought it from R. Alter Tepliker’s son for 50 rubles. When he was about to leave the Iron Curtain he gave it to R. Avraham Sternhartz who then gave it to R. Michel Dorfman (who gave to R. Gedalia Fleer who brought it to Israel).
[9] D. 1955
[10] The cracking of the code also took place in the presence of R. Zvi Aryeh Rosenfeld (R. Gegalia Fleers’s teacher).
[11] See The Revealed and Hidden Writings of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, by Zvi Mark.
[12] Apparently an uncensored version of Chayey Moharan is in the possession of some within the Breslov community.

[13] S.S. K. vol 1, TRZ, p. 299
[14] S.S.K. vol. 3, KC, p 49
[15] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-KYG, p. 51 (The last sentence appears to contradict the peaceful tenor of our understanding that Megilat Setarim refers to a non-apocalyptic messianic age.)
[16] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-KPZ, p. 83
[17] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-TKYD, p. 192
[18] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-TKNT, p. 201