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).

463) The discovery of R. Nachman’s Secret Scroll

Megilat Setarim - The Secret Scroll of R. Nachman of Breslov

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Zvi Mark[1] − examines the relatively recent emergence of a work by R. Nachman of Breslov, Megilat Setarim, that was thought to have either been lost or hidden away. 

A cloud of secrecy has always hung over this enigmatic work, particularly concerning the reasons for it to have remained a secret document, but as we shall see, many elements of secrecy surrounded the personality of R. Nachman of Breslov in general. For some reason, secrecy seemed to often go hand in hand with R. Nachman and his teachings:

“We know of one book which R. Nachman hid away, another which he burnt, as well as tales he forbade to reveal to outsiders. So it was that Breslav Chasidim, as a group, enshrouded themselves within a certain air of mystery and kept up a continual discourse concerning hidden works and hidden meanings in their Rebbe’s teaching” (Mark 2010:23). 

402) Was R. Nachman’s Tikun haKelali a ‘fixing’ of Sabbatianism?

 

Kamanets-Podolsk

Introduction

Years ago, when I was in yeshiva, Breslov was a rather unknown Chassidic sect. Today R. Nachman (1772-1810) and his Breslov movement need no introduction as it has become one of the most popular of the Chassidic movements. I spent about fifteen years in the movement and have always been fascinated by the personality of R. Nachman. According to Professor Yehuda Liebes (1995:109),^[1] when it comes to machshvet Yisrael (Jewish theology), R. Nachman is certainly one of its key personalities. However, Liebes boldly maintains that R. Nachman was - at least in his early days (Liebes 1995:109 in the Appendix) - influenced by the secretive yet powerful and widespread Sabbatian and Frankist movements of Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676) and particularly Jacob Frank (1726-1791) respectively.[2] Liebes suggests that in his youth, R. Nachman may have had contact with Frankists who had remained Jewish and who were plentiful in Podolia at that time. Although, Liebes continues, these influencers may have been factors, nevertheless, R. Nachman indeed produced highly individualised and unique teachings (Liebes 1995:109).

240) TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOTIONS OF PRAYER:

ONE NATION TWO SYSTEMS[1]:

INTRODUCTION:   

          

In this article, we will analyse two very different approaches to the concept of prayer and the notion of influencing the Infinite One. 

The first, which is the popular approach, emphasizes much engagement in prayer and highlights the effectiveness of man’s ability to influence G-d. 

The second approach which is Rambam’s view, will come as a surprise to many as it counter-intuitively negates much of the ‘default setting’ of the typical religious personality.

I) THE MAXIMALIST[2] APPROACH:

We hear so much about how we can all engage in a personal relationship with G-d, and talk to Him in abundance about anything and the more often we do so the better. There is even a Psalm for everything.

Here are some sources which convey this idea:                                                                                                      

R. Nachman of Breslov writes that Hitbodedut, which is private, personal and informal prayer in any language one understands, is “the highest asset and greater than everything [else].”

Private prayer should be performed:   

 “...using words that evoke favor, placate and conciliate...

Everything that is in his heart he should express and tell to God...

[I]t is a practice that is accessible to all people, from the least to the greatest...and thereby [he will] come to a high level.”[3]

When R. Nachman was ill, he asked his grandson to pray for him. The child asked first to have his grandfather’s pocket watch before he would pray for him. Only after he got what he wanted, did he cry out “Heal my grandfather” and then continued playing with the watch. The other Chassidim laughed at this but R. Nachman rebuked them pointing out that the most powerful prayers are carried out in such ways of absolute childlike simplicity.

R. Nachman continues:

“It is good to turn Torah into prayer. That is, when one studies...he should make it into a prayer...This manner of conversation rises to a very high place...which results in very great delight on high.”

R. Nachman's student, R. Natan, composed 210 private prayers in a collection entitled Likutey Tefilot,  and readers are encouraged to use these inspirational texts as springboards for their personal prayers, and to: "express our personal needs and spiritual yearnings, whether at home, in the synagogue, in the office, in a quiet park or out in the countryside, etc."

Many have the practice today, with the ever-increasing popularity of the Challah Bake, to use the baking experience as an auspicious time to pray for healing, a marriage partner, happy and healthy children and so on, as the spiritual gates are considered to be open at that time. The baking of Challah becomes a conduit for all blessing to the home and different prayers are said with the addition of each of the seven ingredients; with the eighth ingredient - the soul of the baker - being the most effective to facilitate the blessing.

One Challah baking site suggests: 

“When kneading the challah dough with one’s hands, one can mention the names of each person in their family, sending personal prayers to G-d. It is also an opportune time to pray for others who are in need of blessings. From pouring the ingredients through braiding the dough, prayer can be whispered through each step, and the power of these prayers is strong and far-reaching”.

II) THE MINIMALIST APPROACH:

The following extract from Rambam’s Guide of the Perplexed (Moreh Nevuchim), screams deafeningly against all the above.

Rambam writes about the human condition in which man often considers it necessary to define and praise the Infinite One with, ironically, many finite descriptions and characterizations – such as G-d being Great, Kind, Loving etc.

However, the more one thinks one knows and understands G-d, the more one shows how little one understands the concept and nature of the Infinite, because an Infinite Essence cannot be described nor comprehended.

 

Thus, essentially, the deepest way to praise G-d is not even through prayer, but rather through silence.

[NOTE: Of course, Rambam is not negating the Halachic injunction to 'daven' (pray from a siddur) as he believes it is a Torah obligation to do so - as opposed to (ironically the mystical) Ramban, who says daily prayers are of rabbinic origin, and it is only a Torah obligation to pray during times of trouble.]

RAMBAM’S ‘FAVORITE’ TALMUDIC SOURCE:

Rambam bases himself on a Talmudic source[4] which refers to an incident where someone led the prayer service before R. Chanina. This individual began praying with much flamboyant hyperbole and overstatement describing G-d with numerous and various adjectives such as:

“G-d the Great, the Mighty, the Awesome, the Powerful, the Indomitable, the Awe-Inspiring, the Strong, the Fearless, the Steadfast and the Honored...”

R. Chanina waits for him to finish and then asks the worshiper if he has concluded all his praises. Establishing that the prayer session is now over, he asks him why he went to such an exaggerated extent to praise G-d?

Before the worshipper can respond, R. Chanina says that he personally limits himself to just three adjectives to describe G-d – and he uses these expressions almost begrudgingly and only because he has to. This is because they were used by Moshe in the Torah, and thereafter, incorporated into the official (Shmonei Esrei) prayer by Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly.

Rashi explains that these three adjectives are “Gadol, Gibor and Norah’ (Great, Mighty and Awesome):

R. Chanina then makes the point that overstating one’s prayers is comparable to a king who has thousands of golden coins yet only gets praised for a few specific silver ones. The lesson being that man should not think that he appeases G-d even with very great platitudes.

RAMBAM'S ELABORATION:

Rambam obviously favoured this Talmudic source because he writes:

“Here ends the dictum of this perfect [rabbinic statement]...[It is perfect because had our prayers not been formulated by the Sages, we] should not have had recourse to them in our prayers.”[5]

In other words, were it not for the fact that our Sages obligated us to pray, we would have been even more minimalist in our prayers.

This ‘perfect and well-known’ statement of R. Chanina is Rambam’s favourite rabbinic statement, and he “wishes that all their other statements were like this”:

Rambam lived in a society that was, in his view, unsure where to draw the line between superstition and religion and the populace were dictating spiritual norms and standards to their leadership.

Rambam can’t help but continue:

“Thus what we do is not like what is done by the truly ignorant who spoke at great length and spend great efforts on prayers that they composed and on sermons that they complied[6] and through which they, in their opinion, came nearer to God.”[7]  

In Rambam’s own words, it is only the ‘truly ignorant’ that ‘spend great effort on prayer’.

By saying that these are not things that “we do”, Rambam is clearly differentiating his (and his followers) approach from that of the masses of the “truly ignorant” – an expression he is not averse to using when referring to the mainstream. [See here.]

“For they do not understand those sublime notions that are too strange for the intellects of the vulgar and accordingly took God...for an object of study for their tongues;

[T]hey predicated attributes of Him and addressed Him in all the terms that they thought permitted and expiated at such length in this way that in their thoughts they made Him move on account of an affection...”

Rambam maintains that the intellectually “vulgar” mainstream is unable to understand that they cannot comprehend the Infinite One, and instead they turn spirituality into “an object of study for their tongues” (but not their minds[8]). Thus they overstate their prayers and create and expound on a vast construct of ‘spiritual techniques and technicalities’ in an attempt to create a philosophy - “an object of study” - and try, almost, to bribe and manipulate G-d and “make Him move on account of an affection”.

Rambam, therefore, offers an alternative position:

“Accordingly if you are one who has regard for the honor of his Creator, you ought not to listen in any way to these utterances, let alone give expression to them [i.e. to these philosophies and injunctions to extra prayers][9] and still less make up others like them...and ought not go beyond that which has been inserted in the prayers...

[f]or this is sufficient from the point of view of [Halachic][10] necessity;

[I]n fact, as Rabbi Haninah said, it is amply sufficient...

Solomon...has rightly directed us...: For God is in heaven and thou upon the earth; therefore let thy words be few.[11]”

Thus Rambam suggests that if one is looking for a more realistic G-dly experience as opposed to a formulated or what he considers to be a contrived spiritual one, then Less is More. When it comes to prayer, one should ‘give expression to them” but “not go beyond that which has been inserted in the prayers” and certainly not “make up others like them”.

RAMBAM UNSURE WHETHER TO 'LAUGH' OR 'WEEP':

Rambam even extends his objection to quoting verses of praise from the Prophets!

“They did this especially when they found the text of a prophet’s speech regarding these terms. Thereupon they had full license to bring forward texts that ought to be interpreted, and to take them according to their external meaning, to derive from them inferences and secondary conclusions...

This kind of license is frequently taken by poets and preachers or such as think that what they speak is poetry, so that the utterances of some of them constitute an absolute denial of faith, while other utterances contain such rubbish and such perverse imaginings as to make men laugh when they hear them...and to make them weep when they consider that these utterances are applied to God.”

In Rambam’s system, when we must pray it should be minimalist and not exaggerated beyond that which is prescribed because essentially the deepest way to communicate with the Infinite is through silence.

ANALYSIS:

We have looked at two very different if not extreme ways in which the concept of prayer is dealt with.

One system adopts a More is More approach while the other suggests that Less is More.

As this is not a competition, the intention is not to come up with a ‘winner’ but rather to show just how diverse and complex the various approaches to such a fundamental issue actually are.

Investigation into the sources reveals that these paradoxes surface time and time again - we truly are One Nation with Multiple Systems.

[For more see Rationalism, Mysticism and now Superstition?]

---

[1] A play on "One country, two systems" which refers to the constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China, for the reunification of China during the early 1980s.

[2] A ‘maximalist’ is also defined as ‘one who favors a radical and immediate approach to the achievement of a set of goals or the completion of a program.’

[3] Likutei Moharan II #25.

[4] Berachot 33b.

[5] Moreh Nevuchim 1:59.

[6] This is most likely a reference to ‘inspirational’ spiritual writings.

[7] Translation is from the Pines edition.

[8] In other words, they create a spiritual theology that ‘sounds right’ and ‘makes sense’ especially for the spiritual seeker, but in Rambam’s view, has no relevance in ‘reality’ because the ‘bridge’ from finite to Infinite is too sublime to attempt to articulate.

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 5:2.

192) THE SEARCH FOR R. NACHMAN’S UNLIKELY DESCENDANTS:

A very rare1821 edition of Likkutei Moharan, secretly printed in Breslov, by R. Natan at his illegal press, due to persecution by authorities and others. The city of Ostroh appears on the Title Page, but the actual location (Breslov) was kept secret. "By operating an illegal press, Reb Noson could be construed as putting not only himself but the Breslov community at risk, since there were enough people who would have been only too happy to take collective revenge..."[1]

INTRODUCTION:

After researching R. Moshe, son of the Baal haTanya - where it appears that he (Moshe) converted to Catholicism and thereafter had his approbations removed from his father’s books – it was even more surprising to discover what may have transpired with some of the descendants of R. Nachman of Breslov.

THE MISSION TO TRACE R. NACHMAN’S DESCENDANTS:

Some years ago, according to an article in Ynet[2]- which was copied in RISU (Religious Information Service of the Ukraine) – two leading Breslover rabbis went on a mission to locate some of R. Nachman’s lost progeny, “dozens of whom who were scattered across the former Soviet Union”. Many of these descendants had assimilated and were living as non-Jews.

In one instance, R. Yisrael Pinto of Jerusalem and R. Yisrael Natan Barzel of Uman journeyed to Uzbekistan and identified two older women who were direct descendants of R. Nachman.

During World War Two, a certain Tzvi Herschel fled the Ukraine for Uzbekistan and bore two daughters in his new homeland. They were now old and living in poverty, but in one of their houses was a dusty library filled with very valuable first edition Breslover books, which their father had originally brought along with him. These books turned out to be of great interest to the Breslover community.

The rabbis tried to persuade the women to move to Israel but the matter was complicated because their daughters had married gentiles and now there were grandchildren, some allegedly studying in Catholic institutions. They then paid $5,000 to a Catholic monastery - in a country where the average monthly salary is just $30 – to have the children released. However, there were issues and apparently, the children produced were not the right children.

The Breslovers launched a worldwide campaign to “bribe clerks, priests – all in order to return lost daughters to Judaism...[but] many details still remain confidential for legal reasons.” According to the Breslovers in Uman: “We’ll do anything to get [R. Nachman’s] descendants to Israel.”

“BE CAREFUL WITH MY OFFSPRING, MAKE SURE THEY STAY WITHIN THE HASSIDIC MOVEMENT”:

These were the words spoken by R. Nachman again and again, as if he knew that there were going to issues with his descendants. In the last few decades, dozens of such descendants have been discovered and identified, many of them having no knowledge of their ancestry. And the search is ongoing.

R. NACHMAN’S CHILDREN:

R. Nachman married his first wife, Sashia and had six daughters and two sons. Two daughters died in infancy and his two sons both died within a year or so of their births. The remaining daughters were Adil, Sarah, Miriam and Chaya.[3]

R. Nachman’s wife, Sashia died in 1807 and a month later he got engaged to a woman from Brody, who apparently was the daughter of the wealthy Yehoshua (or Yechezkel?) Tractenberg. It is uncertain what his second wife’s name was, but it has been suggested that it was Devora.

YAAKOV BARON?

To illustrate just how complicated the story becomes, what follows is an extract from a contemporary self-described ‘Catholic Jew’ who claims to be a direct descendant of R. Nachman!

[NOTE: I wish to stress that I have no way of verifying this claim, nor any of the information this writer provides. Some of his suggestions are so radical that I cannot quote them without proper evidence and reliable sources. However, I will share the kernel of this story, because I do recall hearing vague references to something like this from within the Breslov community itself. Also, it is very difficult to find information on some of R. Nachman’s descendants for reasons that may become apparent.]

He writes:

“... groups such as those led by Reb Moshe ben Zalman the son of the Alter Rebbe and some of Rebbe Nachman and Rav Nosan of Nemirov's children and grandchildren [including Rebbe Nachman's daughters Udil Auerbach (Della O'Brien) and Chaya Zaslavski (Catherine Lavin)] also were baptised (though more quietly) and took Gentile names and occupations but within a few generations their descendants also had lost their Jewish identity.”

He also claims that: 

“Rebbe Nachman of Breslov was married twice. His first wife Sashia of Brody (Alexandra Body/ Braude) was the daughter of the secret Frankist Rebbe Benjamin Ephraim Braude (aka Alexander Margoliot/ Sender Brody) of Sheklov. She was the mother of most of his children. His wife died in 1807 and he remarried soon after to Devorah Brody (Braude) a daughter of the Frankist Rebbe of Sheklov and his second wife Rachel Mayer a granddaughter of Rebbe Jacob Frank. In 1808 Rebbe Nachman disappeared with his new wife to Lvov for 8 months to await the secret birth of his son named Jacob ben Rebbe Nachman (BaRoN) who he left with the Frankists to rear. This son later used the name Yankel Baron...”

The writer claims to be descended from the daughters of R. Nachman.

“Yankel Baron (b.1808 Lvov) married Bracha Zaslavski (b.1819) a daughter of Aharon Zaslavski and Chaya (b.1801) a daughter of Rebbe Nachman [i.e. he married his niece]. Bracha's sister Miriam Chaya Zaslavski (1820-1860) married Michael Brennan (b.1820 Sheklov) a grandson of Rabbi Nathan (Nosan) of Nemirov the Chief Disciple of Rebbe Nachman. Michael's father was Moshe ben Rabbi Nathan of Nemirov (BReNaN/ BRENN) who became a follower of the Alter Rebbe's son Moshe ben Schneur Zalman [who had become the leader of the Jewish Catholics (secret Frankists)]. Moshe (b.1795 d.1865 Kilkenny Ireland) and his wife Sarah Auerbach (b.1807) (daughter of Adil and R. Yoska) was removed from the family tree and records of the family by the Jewish community...”

According to this account, Moshe, the son of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi married into the family of R. Nachman. (The reader is urged to read the full story of Moshe as per link above.)[4]

 He continues:

“...I do not want people to misunderstand my tree - not everyone on it became Catholics. The descendants of Yaacov Baron and Bracha (Brocho) Zaslavski remained mostly Jewish. It is Miriam Chaya Zaslavski and Michael Brennan that became Catholics. Their daughter Mary Phoebe (Miriam Feige) Brennan reverted to orthodox Jewish...”

I emphasize, again, that I am not suggesting that this account is accurate. He appears to know his ancestry but even if he is inaccurate on some of the very controversial details, it still shows how confused and entangled the lines became.[5]

Arthur Green writes “...the record on Nahman’s daughters’ marriages becomes somewhat confused...”[6]

‘CONTROVERSIES WITHIN HOUSEHOLDS’:

R. Nachman writes, perhaps rather tellingly, about 'controversies within households':

“The whole world is full of controversy...and even within a household...and children...

For each one in the household represents a particular nation; their challenges to one another are like the wars between the nations...

...this war can spread out among his household...

The controversies that go on in the tzaddik’s house also contain the wars of the nations...”[7]

In another place he writes:

“Believe me, I have the power to make peace with the entire world...but what can I do when there are certain heavenly rungs which can only be attained by means of conflict...”

On Erev Pesach 1798, R. Nachman announced his plan to travel to Eretz Yisrael. His daughter asked what would become of the family while he was away. He replied:

“You will go to your in-laws. Someone will take your older sister as a household servant. Your younger sister will be taken into someone’s home out of pity. Your mother can find work as a cook, and I shall sell everything in the house to cover expenses for the journey.”[8]

"It is also interesting to note that there is no mention of his [R. Nachman's] saying Kaddish for his father."[9]

"When Rabbi Nachman was about eighteen, his mother-in-law [in whose home he was living] passed away. When his father-in-law remarried, the new mistress of the house made it very difficult for the young Tzadik to engage in his usual devotions. He then moved to the nearby town of Medvedevka..."[10]

DEBATE OVER SABBATEAN INFLUENCE:

On the issue of R. Nachman’s relationship with Sabbateans and Frankists, though, there is much scholarly debate. Some say that the influential R. Yehuda Leib of Shpola (the 'Shpola Zeida') accused R. Nachman of being connected to the Sabbateans and Frankists.

According to Mendel Piekarz, there are documents which appear to connect R. Nachman with certain teachings of the false messiahs Shabbatai Tzi and Jacob Frank. This led him to believe that the suspicions and accusation levelled against R. Nachman as being a secret Sabbatean, may have been true.

One document suggests that “...Frank married a Jewish girl from our city (the opponents of the Bratslav Hasidim said she was of the family of MaHaRan (R. Nachman)...there were many [Frankists] there [in Bratslav] who held onto the ways of Sabbatai Sevi...other Hasidim, led by the old one (Shpoler Zeide) accused him of being a follower of that sect and a Sabbatian...”

However, Arthur Green[11] completely discredits the document as an ‘obvious forgery’. He writes: “...hard evidence to support the claim that Nahman was accused of Sabbatianism is lacking.”

He continues: “Lacking authentic historical sources on the nature of the Zeida’s complaints against Nahman, we may attempt some surmises of our own.”

And then he suggests that the Shpola Zaide’s opposition may have been nothing more than a ‘turf war’ or hasagat gevul against “...the young man [R. Nachman] [12] who so obviously and brashly challenged him...” 

One account has it that R. Nachman settled in Zlatipolia where a group "of over a hundred flocked to him on his first Rosh HaShana there. The community invited him to bring his following to the large synagogue...Rabbi Nachman did not approve of the cantor who was to lead the Neilla service that Yom Kippur. When the cantor found himself unable to complete the service, Rabbi Nachman made light of it. Enraged the cantor went to Shpola, a mere eighteen miles away, and complained to Rabbi Leib [the Shpola Zaideh]. This triggered what was to become a lifelong conflict on the part of the Shpola Zeideh."[13]

Another Breslov source suggests the controversy was centred around R. Nachman permitting his followers to imbibe alcohol before the morning prayers in order to pray with deeper emotion.[14]

Another suggestion was that R. Nachman was accused of plagiarising his grandfather, R. Nachman of Horodenker’s teachings, of which he was said to have had a secret collection.[15]

According to Shevachay HaRan[16]: 

"He [R. Nachman] made a joke of this rumor, saying, 'My grandfather was really good to me! He left me lessons fitting each occasion, no matter what happens. It all fits what people need to hear...' 

...The Rebbe said that those who knew Rabbi Nachman Horodenker, knew that his grandfather was not capable of revealing such lessons...he was not an outstanding innovative scholar."

Green is joined by other scholars such as Joseph Weiss and Yehuda Liebes who show that R. Nachman was clearly familiar with the teachings of Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank but that he studied their teachings in order to combat them!

In fact, Liebes shows that part of the main mission of R. Nachman’s life was to struggle against and then to rectify the sin of the Sabbateans. (His Tikkun haKelali, for example, was instituted to combat the overt promiscuity of the Sabbateans. See here for more on the Sabbateans.)

 R. Nachman of Breslov wrote: 

“For that Shabbatai Tzvi...led astray a number of the greatest men of the generation and outstanding scholars...they left the fold and spoke evil regarding the Oral law...but when a Tzadik sweetens their words, he transforms their sayings back into Torah.”[17]

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, Arthur Green does not mention the alleged Christian descendants anywhere in his well-researched book. (I mention this as a great irony because Green denounces any Sabbatean and Frankist influences and makes no mention of non-Jewish descendants – yet I have been told by some Breslovers not to have his book in my library!)

Whichever way one chooses to take the story and the varying and controversial interpretations thereof, there certainly does appear to be a great deal of entanglement and uncertainty one way or the other.

We shall probably never know the real facts - but if lost descendants can be found and brought back to Judaism, then the tumultuous journey over all these generations may have been worthwhile.

---

[1]Through Fire and Water, by R. Chaim Kramer, p.620.

[2] Operation Breslov: Tracing Rebbe’s Descendants, by Akiva Novik, 10.31.10 

[3]There are conflicting accounts as to the number of children.

[4] In the article on Moshe, his wife’s name is given as Shifra - although this does not exclude the possibility of him marrying a second time.

[5]See Rabbi Nachman' s Wisdom, p. 430, for the Breslov version of the Family Tree.)

[6] Tormented Master, by Arthur Green, p. 129. This note is referring to another matter but I quoted it to show that a degree of uncertainty overshadowed at least some factual aspects of their marriages. To give some idea of the degree of speculation regarding just who married who, what follows are some random extracts from an internal Breslov source; Through Fire and Water:  "It is not known when Reb Avraham Ber was born, but he was probably about fifteen years old when he married (notwithstanding the Czar's decree yo marry after the age of 18; since birth certificates were not issued, it was difficult for the authorities to follow up the exact age)...Erb Noson wrote to his son Reb Yitzchak mentioning that he had spent the entire week in Sherevitz for sheva brakhos... Reb Noson does not state who the bride and groom were, but we are assuming they were Moshe Chenkes' daughter and Reb Avraham Ber for the following reasons. We can exclude Reb Noson' s children, as his older sons were already married, while Reb Dovid Zvi did not marry until 1835. If it was Chana Tsirel's first wedding, the celebrations would have been in Breslov, nor Sherevitz, and Reb Yitzchok, as a brother, would have been aware of where Reb Noson was for the celebrations. On the other hand, Moshe Chenkes came from Sherevitz , which was a little village next to Breslov...We therefore conclude that this wedding was that of Reb Avraham Ber to Moshe Chenkes' daughter, which can be dated to October, 1830." (Through Fire and Water, by R. Chaim Kramer, p. 624.)

[7] Sichot 77.

[8] Shivchey II 6.

[9] Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom, translated and annotated by R. Aryeh Kaplan.

[10] Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom. p. 432. 

[11] Tormented Master, by Arthur Green, p. 103, 126.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] Rabbi Nachman' s Wisdom, p. 433.

[14] Yemet haTela’ot, p. 174.

[15] Sichot 211.

[16] Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom p. 347. 

[17] Likkutei Moharan 1:207