I have always been drawn to the teachings of the Rebbe of Kotzk. His approach was predicated upon uncompromising truth and intellectual independence. This allowed him to be fearless and never to succumb to societal pressures.
He knew that Judaism was so much deeper and more profound than the way it was perceived by the masses and bent by religious populism.
These essays, although not necessarily Kotzker in essence, are certainly Kotzk inspired.
The Burial place of R. Yitzchak Kalisz in Warka, Poland.
Introduction
R. Yitzchak Kalisz of Warka (or Vorka) (1779-1848) was a
friend of the Kotzker Rebbe. Unlike his friend, though, he rose quickly
among the ranks of political activists and became the official representative,
not just of Chassidim, but of all Polish Jewry in the early nineteenth
century.
This article – based extensively on the research by
Professor Marcin Wodzinski[1]−
deals with how the Chassidic Rebbe, R. Yitzchak Warka (a student of R. Simcha
Bunim of Przysucha) suddenly found himself regarded as the most influential Jewish
representative in Poland. In those days, Jewish communal affairs and politics were
known as ‘shtadlanut.’ From the mid-1830s, Polish ‘shtatlanut’
was dominated by R. Yitzchak Warka and his hometown, Warka, was regarded as the
Chassidic capital of Poland.
The eighteenth-century Jewish mystical movement
− the Chassidic movement −
was founded by R. Yisrael Baal Shem Tov (c.1700-1760). It has evolved today
into one of the largest and most identifiable of all the Jewish movements. Yet
the causes that led to its appearance are still debated by scholars. While I
take the view that its major influencing factor was its immediate predecessor, the
mystical Sabbatian movement which arose in the aftermath of the false Messiah
Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676), most scholarship tends to seek out other reasons
for Chassidism’s appearance on the scene of history. In keeping with this
majority trend, this brief study explores (and questions) one such view: that
the persecutions following the Khmelnytsky massacres which began in 1648,
coupled with the theological reaction to that violence, were most likely to
have been the overwhelming influence leading to the rise of the Chassidic
movement. Previous scholarship argues that the vehemence of the unrest and
particularly the theological responses to it, led not just to the formation of
the Chassidic movement, but to the birth of the earlier Sabbatian movement in
the first instance, and even to the later conservatism of the Mitnagdic
opposition movement which arose to counter Chassidism. In other words, the physical
persecutions and their spiritual responses spawned not one, but three important
Jewish movements; Sabbatianism, Chassidism and Mitnagdism. Although I do not
necessarily subscribe to the approach that Chassidism emerged primarily as a
reaction to persecution, I do bring support for aspects of it here from a
little-known and under-studied Sabbatian personality who may have been a
critical link between Sabbatianism and Chassidism, R. Heshil Tzoref (1632-1699).
I do this because he introduces a new and unsuspected dynamic. This dynamic is
vengeance coupled with its concomitant theological justification and validation.
The problem is that if one takes the persecutions as a primary cause for the
birth particularly of Chassidism, it becomes very difficult to reconcile a
theology of cathartic vengeance with a spiritual and mystical movement.[1]
The simultaneous emergence of Sabbatianism
and Chassidism
As the seventeenth century fused with the
eighteenth century, the two “major mystical-messianic-charismatic movements,”
as Rachel Elior (2012:85) tellingly describes them, Sabbatianism and Chassidism,
emerged relatively simultaneously. The Khmelnytsky persecutions were still
fresh in the minds of the people who had first-hand experience of its horrors. Both
movements were informal as they did not seek permission from the recognised rabbinic
authorities.
Israel Halpern (1969:55-60) points out that
around this time, less than one per cent of the Jewish population was eligible
to vote for its communal and rabbinic leadership. This was because only the
wealthy, who paid taxes, were permitted to vote. One can understand how, in a
non-representative societal environment like this, charismatic and ground-up
movements could find fertile soil. They offered social elevation and spiritual
status to the average individual. It seems,
therefore, quite feasible to assume that both movements arose in response to the
similar concerns of persecution under Khmelnytsky from without, and societal neglect
from within.
The Khmelnytsky massacres
Although chronologically, Sabbatianism preceded
Chassidism, Elior maintains that both were “spiritual responses to
the tragic circumstances” of the Khmelnytsky massacres, also known as the
Cossack–Polish War. While these massacres are often associated with the
date 1648 when they began, it must be remembered that they continued for about
twenty years up to 1668. This was already two years after Shabbatai Tzvi (the
founder of the Sabbatian movement) had officially been discredited and
branded as a false Messiah when he converted to Islam. It was also just thirty
(or thirty-two, or perhaps only twenty-two)[2] years
before the Baal Shem Tov (the founder of the Chassidic movement) was
born.
Yet even after 1668, attacks against Jews continued.
More than one hundred thousand Jews were killed by the Cossacks between 1646
and 1768 in Ukraine, and Jews were subjected to pogroms in areas where the
Polish army had withdrawn.[3] The
Greek-Orthodox Ukrainian serfs rebelled against the Polish Catholics and the
Jews were caught up in the attacks as they often served as administrators for
the Polish nobility. The Cossacks also attacked the Roman Catholic clergy and
the civilian population, resulting in revenge attacks and “savage reprisals”
by Prince Jeremi Wiśniowiecki (Davies 2005:351).
Documentary evidence spanning a century and a
half between 1650 and the end of the eighteenth century shows how Jews were
emotionally devastated and similarly intent on revenge. Included in this body
of literature is also a strong expression of messianic hope (Elior 2012:86).
The effects and dramatic consequences of the Khmelnytsky massacres are not lost
to Joseph Citron (n.d.:32-33), Jacob Barnai (1995:175) or Moshe Rosman (1982:6) either. Davies (2005:352)
speaks of “[t]he strains of incessant war” which “caused internal
inflammations.” Some of these “inflammations” are also evident in
the Kabbalistic literature produced during that time.
Yehuda Liebes[5]
(2007:7-8) shows how R. Heshil Tzoref had three distinct periods of spiritual
awakening and increased mystical activity. These occurred during the years 1648
(= ת״ח= 408, corresponding to the Hebrew
date of [5]408[6], the beginning of the Khmelnytsky pogroms);
1666 (= תכ״ו= 426, the year Shabbatai Tzvi apostatised to Islam)
and; 1688 (= תמ״ח = 448, a seemingly random date other than
being exactly forty years after 1648). These three dates and phases are
mystically described and interpreted as follows:
1) R. Heshil Tzoref
found a ‘hint’ to the Khmelnytsky pogroms in the Hebrew year ת״ח(408=1648) which he linked to the biblical phrase דֹּ֖ר דֹּֽר (4+200+4+200=408) which is found at the end of the verse מִלְחָמָ֥ה לַיהֹוָ֖ה
בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק מִדֹּ֖ר דֹּֽר, “God
will be at war with Amalek in every generation” (Exodus 17:16). Thus, in
1648 (408) Amalek (represented by Khmelnytzky) is identified as the evil entity
of the generation, and those who fight him wage God’s war.
3) In 1688 − forty years after 1648 (perhaps
corresponding to the biblical delay between the exodus and the promised entry
to the land) − God’s final retribution and victory were to have taken place.
God was going to mete out revenge on Edom which came to represent Christianity
(as Ishmael came to represent Islam). The year 1688 (448) was selected for the
following reason: The biblical Esau (representing Edom=Christendom) was born
while Jacob (representing the Jewish people) was clutching at his heel. The
biblical expression וְיָד֤וֹ אֹחֶ֙זֶת֙ בַּעֲקֵ֣ב עֵשָׂ֔וin the verse, “And his [Jacob’s] hand was clutching (the heel of
Esau)” (Genesis 25:26), has a numerical value of
448.[9]
R. Heshil Tzoref’s elaborate system of mysticism
includes Esau’s grandson, Tsefo (צפו=176), corresponds
in numerology to Polin (Poland) (פולין=176). Samael is the guardian of both Esau
and Tsefo, which means Samael is also the guardian of Poland, hence Poland represents
the Christian the Kingdom of Edom. This construct is strengthened by similarity
between Tsefo (צפו)
and North (צפון). North (צפון=226) is then connected to Polin-Lita (Poland and Lithuania) (פולין ליטא=226). Then R. Heshil
Tzoref relates all this to a verse from Jeremiah (1:14): “out of the north
shall evil break forth,” and R. Heshil Tzoref explains that “when the
messianic redemption arrives, it will first manifest in the north, which is,
Poland-Lithuania.”[10]
It could be said that, over a period of forty
years, R. Heshil Tzoref believed he could reframe, if not cosmically realign,
the three forces of Amalek (1648), Islam (1666) and Christianity (1688), thus
preparing for final messianic era. And in his mystical mind, all these stages are
presented as being supported by biblical verses.
The Tzoref ‘incident’
In a shocking and brutal Sabbatian
mystical interpretation, the vengeance of
1688 is described in sexual terms − but violently so, as assaulting a virgin −
because the year 1688 (448), the last of the three stages, has the same
numerical value as הבתולה (=448=the virgin). Reading between
the lines and considering the appetite for revenge for the blood libels and
massacres against Jews, this may be referring to a reprisal attack to right the
horrors of 1648 and it may have targeted a Christian virgin, perhaps a veiled
reference toMary. It is difficult to sift the
facts from the innuendos, but Liebes writes:
“It seems to me that
this matter was not written about before the event, but was [instead] described
as prophecy after the fact (vaticinium ex eventu) [and it was] an event that
had already occurred on history’s stage, and in the lifetime of R. Heshil. It
is possible that the redemption [to be brought about] by R. Heshil was bound up
with engaging with a virgin of flesh and blood, similar to what we find with
many other messianic characters throughout history. It seems that this sexual
encounter remained within the memory of the Chassidim[11] of R. Heshil for the next generations, and the
words of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov [a follower
of the Vilna Gaon, representing the opposition or Mitnagdic camp opposing Chassidism] hint at this [encounter as well][12]” (Liebes 2007: 8)[13]
Interpreting the Tzoref ‘incident’
It is very difficult to know how exactly to
interpret this apparent event and identify the perpetrator and the victim. But
it is clear that the logic of restorative consequence and catharticvengeance, in one form or another, features in the Sabbatian
mysticism of R. Heshil Tzoref. This must have been fuelled all the more by a
society overcome by the fear of pogroms, persecuted by a proliferation of blood
libels and seeking revenge against those Christians – or
more accurately, the “Bishops of the Catholic Church in the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth” (Elior 2012:102) − who
considered Jew to be “God-killers.” With the irony that Catholic clergy
and civilians themselves subject to attacks by the Cossacks, and their
corresponding reprisals against the Cossacks, it is no wonder that this
ecclesiastical chaos in Poland has been described as “God’s playground”
(Davies 2005). To add to the ironies and chaos of the time, 'Khmyel'nitskiy'
was later remembered (in Soviet Russia) as “a Moses who led his people's
exodus from Polish bondage towards the great Russian homeland” (Davies
2005:353).
“The indignation at
the ‘nation of God-killers’ was inflamed by the belief that the Jews remained
blind to the splendor of the true faith instead of doing penance for their
crime. They had committed the sin of ingratitude and, for this; God, for whom
‘nothing is uglier than ingratitude’, had turned away from them and transferred
His grace to, among other people, the Poles” (Tazbir 1998:235).
Contextualisation is vital in helping to
understand the sentiments of all parties involved in any form of
socio-religious disorder but should never justify outrageous behaviour. Still,
it contributes to the explanation of why ideologies adopt a sense of radical immediacy
and antinomian urgency:
“Sabbatian teachings
entailed messianic hopes of meta-historical vengeance against those who had
murdered thousands of helpless Jews, as well as messianic hopes for redemption
of those who survived” (Elior 2012:87).
R. Heshil Tzoref is regarded by Liebes as one
of the forerunners of the Chassidic movement and is somewhere between Sabbatianism
and Chassidism. This emphasises the effects and influences of the
Khmelnytzky massacres – with their pogroms, ensuing blood libels and
the need for cosmic vengeance and restorative messianism − on Sabbatian
and Chassidic ideology.
Traumatic national events are never to be
minimised in terms of the affected populations. In Jewish history, all roads of
persecution lead to messianism. We see this with the rise of messianism in the
aftermath of the expulsion of Jews from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497
respectively (Biale 1984:314). So too, the Khmelnytsky massacres cannot be
ignored as a major influencing factor in the formulations of Sabbatianism,
Chassidism and Mitnagdism. The problem with this model, of
course, is how to reconcile these movements with their roots in an ignoble
albeit cathartic theology of vengeance.
R. Heshil Tzoref, it seems, faced the same
conundrum. He resolved it by using his mystical interpretations of Exodus 17:16
(מִלְחָמָ֥ה
לַיהֹוָ֖ה בַּֽעֲמָלֵ֑ק מִדֹּ֖ר דֹּֽר), Genesis 25:26 (וְיָד֤וֹ אֹחֶ֙זֶת֙ בַּעֲקֵ֣ב
עֵשָׂ֔ו) and Jeremiah 1:14 (מִצָּפוֹן֙ תִּפָּתַ֣ח הָרָעָ֔ה) as
authoritative proof texts for a treacherous antinomian canonising and theologising
of vengeance.
From a theological perspective, besides the
obvious moral outrage, I prefer the less-popular model where more weight is
placed on the influence the mystico-messianic Sabbatian movement exerted
on the mystico-messianic[14]Chassidic
movement. Although the persecutions were undoubtedly a major and significant
factor, I argue that evidence of a more direct correspondence and intersection
between later Sabbatian rabbinic personalities with their
mystical literature, and the earlier Chassidicpersonalities
with their mystical literature, is far more compelling (like R. Heshil
Tzoref, whose Sefer haTzoref was in the possession of, and praised by,
the Baal Shem Tov).[15]
Bibliography
Barnai, J., 1995, 'The Outbreak of Sabbateanism-Eastern European Factor', The Journal
of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Brill.
Biale, D., 1984,
‘Jewish Mysticism in the Sixteenth Century’, I n An Introduction to the
Medieval Mystics of Europe, Edited by Paul E. Szarmach, SUNY Press, Albany,
313-329.
Citron, J., n.d.,
‘Can Shabbatai Tzvi's Popularity between 1665-66 be explained by his
faithfulness to Jewish Messianic tradition?’, Thesis, University of Manchester.
Davies, N.,
2005, God's playground: a history of Poland, Columbia University
Press, New York.
Elior, R.,
2012, ‘The Origins of Hasidism’, Scripta Judaica Cracoviensis, vol. 10,
85-109.
Halpern, I., 1969, Jews and Judaism in Eastern Europe (Hebrew), Jerusalem.
Heschel, A. J., 1974, A Passion for the Truth, Secker & Warburg, London.
Liebes, Y., 2007, ‘The Sabbatian Prophecy of
R. Heshil Tzoref of Vilna in the writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, the
student of the Gaon of Vilna and the founder of the Ashkenazi settlement in
Jerusalem’ (Hebrew), Kabbalah 17, Idra Press, Tel Aviv, 107-168 (1-91).
Rabinovitz, Z., 1941, ‘Al 'Sefer HaZoref' by
Rabbi Yehushua Heschel Zoref’, Zion, VI, 80-84.
Rosman, M.,
1982, Editor, The Stories of the Pogroms in Poland (Hebrew), Jerusalem.
Schatz
Uffenheimer, R., 1968, haChasidut keMistika (Hebrew), Magnes Press,
Jerusalem.
Tazbir, J., 1998,
‘Anti-Jewish Trials in Old Poland’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 38: Studies
in the History of the Jews in Old Poland in Honor of Jacob Goldberg, Edited by
A. Teller, Jerusalem, 233–245.
[1] This paper is adapted from a larger PhD study which I
am currently undertaking, entitled ‘Sabbatian influences on the Chassidic
and Mitnagdic movements: an excursion into messianic Kabbalah and its
disseminators in the aftermath of Shabbatai Tzvi.’
[2] The year of the Baal Shem Tov’s birth is alternately
given as 1698, 1700 and Heschel (1974:3) gives it as early as around 1690.
[3] According to Davies (2005:353) “The total number
of Jewish casualties in the period 1648-56 has been put at 56,000; the over-all
decrease in the Jewish community through death, flight, and destitution
approached 100,000.”
[4] Thus Alef = 1, Bet = 2, Gimel =
three, and so forth.
[5]Yehuda Liebes is one of the few scholars who
postulates a direct link between Sabbatianism and Chassidism
(Etkes 1996:459), a view which I subscribe to as well and deal with in my PhD
dissertation.
[6] The year 1648 in the Gregorian calendar corresponds
to the Hebrew year ת״ח which is 408. The Hebrew year is
technically הת"ח, 5408, but the millennium letter, in this case ה, or numeral 5, is often
omitted from date calculations.
[7] I notice that the Hebrew year 426 (1666) is eighteen
years after 408 (1648). The number eighteen, or חי,which means “life,”is a very well-known,
obvious and recognisable Jewish symbol of restoration. Perhaps this, amongst
other reasons, was why Shabbatai Tzvi declared 1666 to be the apocalyptic year,
the year of restoration and rebirth after the horrors beginning in 1648.
Ironically, his apostasy took place in that very year.
[8] This
calculation is made despite the fact that the fuller version (דר can also be spelt as דור)
is not found in the biblical text.
[9] This calculation assumes a ‘full’ spelling with an
extra vav in the word אוחזת, although the Torah text has it
written without the vav, as אחזת. Both
the numerical extrapolations from דר דר to דור ודור,
and אחזתtoאוחזתinvolve the
inclusion of extra vavs.
[10] See Kav haYashar, Frankfort, 1705, Chapter
102, where its author R. Tzvi Hirsh Koidanover records this teaching which he
maintains he personally heard from R. Heshil Tzoref (who
in turn heard it from a “certainMekubal (mystic).” The identity
of this “certain Mekubal” is not revealed but considering the general
attention to literary sources in the work, and the overwhelmingly influential Sabbatian
milieu and context in which R. Heshil Tzoref operated, it may quite feasibly
even allude to Shabbatai Tzvi or his ‘prophet’ R. Natan of Gaza.
[11] Here, the term Chassidim is used in its
broader context referring to ‘followers’ in general as R. Heshil Tzoref
(1633-1699) pre-dates the Chassidim of the Baal Shem Tov
(1698/1700-1760). Some Sabbatians referred to themselves as Chassidim.
[12] Without
going into the details of R. Menachem
Mendel of Shklov here, suffice it to say that there is a further allusion to
this ‘event’ in at least one other independent source as well.
[14] Some scholars like Gershom Scholem (1941:329) and his
student Rivka Schatz Uffenheimer (1968:168), however, promote the idea of the Chassidic
movement more as “neutralising” extreme messianism.
It is not the intention of this article to debate the virtues or otherwise of
Chassidim and Mitnagdim nor to attempt to adjudicate the intricacies of their
respective philosophies. Rather, the reader is requested to remain theologically
and emotionally neutral as we take a look at a fascinating historical exchange
involving claims and counter claims.]
THE CHARGE:
As is well known, the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797)[1]
placed the new movement of Chassidism into cherem
(excommunication) and declared them to be heretics with whom no pious Jew
should intermarry[2].
THE WRIT OF EXCOMMUNICATION
The following is an extract from the 1777[3]
excommunication document:
“As you know, new
people have appeared, unimagined by our forefathers...and they associate
amongst themselves and their ways are different from other children of Israel
in their liturgy...they behave in a crazed manner and say that their thoughts
wander in all worlds...And they belittle the study of Torah, and repeatedly
claim that one should not study much, nor regret one’s
transgressions...Therefore we have come to inform our brethren...and to sound
to them the voice of excommunication and banishment...until they repent
completely”[4]
One of the main reasons for this may have been that the
Jewish world was just recovering from the aftermath of tremendous upheaval
following the debacle of the false messiah, Shabetai Tzvi (1626-1676) about a
century before. The Vilna Gaon was therefore highly suspicious of any new
movements.
He also had a number of philosophical issues with some of the
concepts discussed in the Tanya which had become a primary text of many of the
new followers of the Chassidic movement (particularly Chabad). Furthermore, the
Chassidic movement was rapidly spreading, and its opponents feared they might
soon outnumber the mainstream (which indeed they soon did).
He was further concerned that the Chassidic concept of ‘attachment to a rebbe’ was too close
to idolatry and that the movement which at first attracted the simple poorer
and uneducated masses, might degenerate and possibly de-intellectualize
Judaism.
THE VILNA GAON
THE ‘RETRACTION’ CLAIM:
Around 1796, someone falsely claiming to be the son of the
Vilna Gaon, wrote a letter declaring that his ‘father’ had a change of heart,
and had duly retracted his earlier ban and antagonistic sentiment against
Chassidim.
HE COUNTER CLAIM:
When this became known to the Vilna Gaon, he responded with
a counter letter, which stated that it was not true and that the ban and status
quo remained in place.
THE SECOND CLAIM:
The authenticity as to whether or not this counter letter was
indeed written by the Vilna Gaon was in turn brought into question.
THE SECOND COUNTER
CLAIM:
In 1797, the Vilna Gaon wrote another letter in which he
detailed some of the specific issues he had with the Chassidic movement. This
letter was then published and widely disseminated.
The Gaon wrote; “these
are your gods, Israel”[5]
which is the biblical expression used to describe the idolatrous worshiping of
the golden calf – and he applied that directly to the Chassidim. This was a
clear charge of heresy levelled against Chassidim which quickly put paid to the
notion that he retracted his earlier antagonism.
The Gaon was referring specifically to the (now almost
universally accepted Chassidic) idea brought in the Tanya that even inanimate
objects such as rocks and such, have an element of G-d within them.[6]
The Vilna Gaon was so opposed to this concept that he said that Chassidim
proclaim ‘every tree and rock to be a new
(and idolatrous) god of Israel’.[7]
Not only was it a charge of heresy but it was also a charge
of panentheism.[8]
(Again, it is not my intention to debate the virtues or
otherwise of the popular – and beautiful -Chassidic concept of a bechinat nefesh or spark of G-dly spirituality to be found within all physical
phenomena. We are dealing here with the structure of the dispute - not the
structure of the philosophy.)
The Vilna Gaon continued unrelentingly; “These evil evildoers (i.e. the
Chassidim) have fabricated from their
hearts a new law and a new Torah. Their students who followed them have drunk
it and the name of Heaven has been profaned by their hand.”[9]
THE (POLITE) RESPONSE
TO THE SECOND COUNTER CLAIM:
THE ALTER REBBE
Sometime later the Baal HaTanya (1745-1812)[10]
responded with letter (which was first published in 1857) where he put forth
his views regarding the dispute with the Vilna Gaon. Interestingly, he
understood the Vilna Gaon’s theological objections, and wrote:
“This is how HaGaon
haChassid (respectfully referring to the Vilna Gaon) understands the (Kabbalistic)
concept of G-d ‘filling the universe[11]’
– he understands (that Chassidim take)
it literally. And in the honourable one’s view this is absolute apikorsut
(a more polite form of heresy?) because
one is inferring that G-d is mamesh (truly) found in mundane objectsmamesh
(truly). And because of the honourable
one’s letter (referred to above) the (Chassidic) book was burned.
In his (the
Gaon’s) view these sayings (of G-d
‘filling’ the universe) have a hidden
(non-literal) meaning referring to hashgacha
(mere Providence, i.e. G-d controls
the universe but does not literally fill
it with His Being.)
If only I could find
him and present my case to him...”
And the Baal haTanya goes on to say how
he received these teachings from the Zohar and Ari Zal and therefore they were,
in his view, authentic Torah teachings.[12]
So here we have a theological cataclysmic parting of ways
between the Baal haTanya and the Vilna Gaon.
A HARSHER RESPONSE:
TEXT OF TANYA
In the second section of Tanya, however, it seems as if the
gloves had come off.
The Tanya says (referring now to the Tzimtzum concept and not the ‘filling’ of the universe); “...the error of some, who are wise in their own eyes, may G-d forgive them, who erred and
were mistaken in their study of the writings of the Ari Zal, and understood
the doctrine of Tzimtzum mentioned there literally - that the Holy One (literally) withdrew Himself and His essence from this
world (and inferred that) He only supervises
from above.”[13]
A CENSORSHIP?
Who does the Baal haTanya refer to with his harsh words
‘wise men in their own eyes’? There is no way to know for sure, but he was most
probably referring to the Vilna Gaon.
This is borne out by the fact that this very passage was absent
(censored?) from every printed edition of Tanya before 1900. The first edition
of Tanya was published in Slavita in 1796[14].
This was around the time the letters between both antagonists were beginning to
circulate, which means that for just over a century this passage was omitted!
Many believe that by the beginning of the 1900’s, sufficient
time had passed since the great feud had erupted and that the storm had, by
then, run out of range.
WHO WAS ELUDING WHOM?
Generally it is understood that the Vilna Gaon refused to
meet with the Baal haTanya. But there is another take. According to the
previous Lubavitcher Rebbe;
“At that time he (the
Baal haTanya, also known as the Alter Rebbe) secretly visited Shklov, Minsk and
Vilna. The Alter Rebbe spent six weeks in Vilna during that secret mission. He
would wander from one beis hamedrash to another disguised as a visiting
traveller...
But he refrained from engaging the Gaon in discussion, for fear he
would be recognized. He did, however, submit several questions to him through
two of his adherents. ‘I soon learned whom I was dealing with and just how
great his knowledge of the Torah was’, said the Alter Rebbe to his brother.”
So, certainly at some stage, it was the Baal haTanya who
avoided the Vilna Gaon and not the other way around - although we also know
that the Vilna Gaon refused to meet with the Baal haTanya as well.[15]
ANALYSIS:
Thankfully today, for the most part, the feud does not play
out as acutely as it did in earlier times.
Although there are still stark theological
differences, all parties seem quite able to remain accommodating and civil
towards each other.
In hindsight it seems as if Chassidism infused a sense of energy
and spirituality into the mainstream - and on the other hand the strenuous
opposition particularly by the Gaon, helped keep the movement within the
relative confines of the mainstream (which may have unwittingly contributed to
its endurance).
Sometimes even the wine of theology requires the fullness of
time for its fruits to ferment.
[1]
Also known as Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman Kremer, and as the Gra (Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu).
[2]
This was a second excommunication which emanated from Vilna. The first was in
1777, which was taken so seriously that in Brody, for example, the
excommunication was announced at a public trade fair. The excommunication was
quite an unusual step taken by the Vilna Gaon, who rarely took part in public
affairs and generally shied away from public office.
[7]
Ibid. ‘eileh elohecha yisrael – kol eitz
vekol even.’
[8]
Not to be confused with pantheism. Pantheism
is belief that G-d and the universe are identical. Panentheism is the belief that G-d is present in everything, even
inanimate objects.
[12]
The Vilna Gaon was also a kabbalist,
and also accepted the writing of much
of the Ari Zal - except that he believed the Ari Zal may have been somewhat
fallible and therefore did not accept everything in its entirety as received from him. The Gaon (according to the Baal
haTanya) did not believe that everything the Ari Zal wrote had been passed on
to him by Eliyahu the prophet, and that some of his views may have emanated
from his own mind.
[13]
Tanya II, 7 (83a) According to Chassidus,
the withdrawal of G-d (to ‘make space’ for physicality) as part of the Tzimtzum or Contraction process is not literal as nothing could exist were
G-dliness to be literally withdrawn.
However, according to the Vilna Gaon it is taken literally!
[The Rebbe of Kopyst (1830-1900), author of Magen Avot, wrote in a letter to Rabbi
Don Tumarkin; “This...subject of Tzimtzum...the
Chassidim did not take it literally, as opposed to ...the Gaon of Vilna.”]
Regarding ‘filling’ of the universe concept, Chassidim
take it somewhat metaphorically (bechinat
nefesh – an aspect of a G-dly
soul), whereas the Gaon understood that they took it completely literally - hence
his charge of idolatry because accordingly, G-d is now found ‘in every rock and
tree’. (Perhaps the Gaon felt this was too similar to the model of classical
idolatry where every rock and tree had its own god.)
[15]
According to Chabad tradition, the Baal haTanya together with Rabbi Menachem Mendel
Horodoker (also known as Vitebsk) were sent by the Mezticher Maggid to meet
with the Vilna Gaon, but he refused to see them. According to Brisk tradition
the Baal haTanya was accompanied by Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev.
Different observers give different reasons for the
Gaon’s refusal to meet: Some say he was afraid he might be influenced by the
holiness of the Baal haTanya. Others say he felt it a waste of time because of
their irreconcilable theological differences. And some say it was simply
because he considered then to be heretical.
(There is even a letter from the Baal haTanya to his
Chassidim in Vilna instructing them not to waste their time debating with the
followers of the Gaon, also because their differences were irreconcilable.)
Whatever the truth is, they did not meet. One cannot but wonder how (or if)
history may have changed had the two been able to have a face to face exchange.
