445) ‘Mainstreaming’ Chassidism in 19th century Poland

Jakub Tugendhold's Jerobaal

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Marcin Wodzinski[1] − looks at an unlikely defence of Chassidim by Jakub Tugendhold (1794-1871) a member of the Polish Haskalah (Enlightenment movement). The Haskalah is generally regarded as a more enlightened, academic and scientific movement, often in direct philosophical conflict with Chassidism which it regarded as a form of Jewish superstition. The Haskalah movement began in Germany but in the early nineteenth century, it had spread to Poland. The issue of Chassidism was not just one component of the battle of the Haskalah against traditionalism, it became the major point of contention, especially in Warsaw, which became the “primary battleground of this struggle” (Wodzinski n.d.:13). There were one or two voices from within Warsaw that argued somewhat in favour of the Chassidim. Jakub Tugendhold and Marcus Jastrow were among the small number of non-Chassidim who lent their support to  Chassidism. 

301) HOW KABBALAH ‘GOES BACK’ TO FIX A TORAH NARRATIVE:

1906 edition of Eits haDa'at Tov by R. Chaim Vital.

INTRODUCTION:

One often tends to view kabbalistic thought as if it were a homogenous ancient tradition passed down faithfully from generation to generation without any additions or innovations. This article, based extensively on the research and thought[1] of Professor Shaul Magid, we explore how R. Chaim Vital Calebrese of Safed (1543-1620) - considered to be the main student of the Ari^[2] - may have used his experience of contemporary realities to innovate aspects of his mystical ideology.

These ideas are found in R. Chaim Vital’s less examined work, Eits haDa’at Tov, which remained in manuscript form until 1871. Key to the work is his novel interpretation of the biblical community which accompanied the Israelites in the desert, known as the Eirev Rav, or mixed multitude (Ex. 12:38). Later rabbinic literature - and more relevant to our study, zoharic literature -  ascribed much blame to the Eirev Rav who were described as a negative influence on the Jewish people. R. Chaim Vital’s novel approach to this traditional negative view of the Eirev Rav is of particular interest.[3]

16^th CENTURY CONVERSOS BECOME THE NEW EIREV RAV:

Following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal after 1492, marranos and conversos (Jews who had converted to Catholicism and were looking to return to their faith) had moved westwards into Europe and many had gone to Eretz Yisrael and particularly to Safed. The population of Safed had swelled and within one particular year, the village turned into a town which now had the largest Jewish community in Ottoman Syria, with over 1000 families. Many conversos were hoping to become reabsorbed within the Jewish community, claiming that their previous conversion to Christianity had been under duress - but the Jews were not sure how to deal with them.[4]

Although many rabbis did not trust the sincerity of these conversos, R. Chaim Vital championed their cause and even developed a kabbalistic theology to help their reinstation as Jews. In fact, he went even further by showing how integral the conversos were to the scheme of messianic redemption.

This notion of messianic redemption was very much the theological vogue of the mystics of Safed, particularly under the R. Yitzchak Luria (1534-1572) known as the Ari (or Arizal).[5] The atmosphere of Safed was rich with messianic tension and both the Ari and his student R. Chaim Vital had expressed their claims to the role of Messiah. The appearance of a multitude of conversos in Safed played into the hands of this messianic drama because they were equated to the Eirev Rav of biblical times, who also didn’t know if they were non-Jews or Jews or somewhere in between.

R. Chaim Vital records that the Ari confirmed that the conversos were indeed the spiritual equivalent of the Eirev Rav and it was his (R. Chaim Vital’s) duty to facilitate their absorption back into Judaism and Torah.[6]

R. CHAIM VITAL’S VIEWS ON THE EIREV RAV ARE IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE ZOHAR:

R. Chaim Vital’s comparison of conversos to the Eirev Rav, produced what Magid refers to as a “counter-narrative” to the hitherto negative manner in which traditional rabbinic literature - and significantly the Zohar - portrayed the biblical mixed multitude. The Eirev Rav were often blamed and made a scapegoat for the sins of the Israelites. The Zohar goes so fas as to say that the Eirev Rav were evil, dangerous, and even demonic.

However, the new Lurianic narrative found redemptive features and qualities within the Eirev Rav and, by extension, within the conversos. The ancient Eirev Rav had finally been mystically vindicated and that was to become the model through which to deal with the matter of contemporary conversos.

The radical significance of this vindication should not be lost, particularly because it stood out against the foundational mystical work, the Zohar.

MYSTICAL POLITICS?

Why was there suddenly such an unusual about-face in an ancient mystical interpretation of the Eirev Rav? Considering the relatively large numbers of conversos who had descended upon the mystical town of Safed, it not impossible that there was not some form of political consideration at play.

Magid points out that although a mystic, R. Chaim Vital was also concerned about and involved in communal affairs and “held strong opinions on important matters”. The Eirev Rav “may have been a vehicle for fashioning new identities, perhaps proto-messianic identities”. Historical documents show how Rabbinic courts in Safed were continuously dealing with such matters of Jewish identity at that time.[7]

Magid shows how:

“Vital was indeed invested in the realia of his world, especially on the issue of the conversos, and used his exegetical skills to convey his position on this matter under the guise of his metaphysical or, in this case, kabbalistic-exegetical writings.”

The Eirev Rav and the conversos, although separated by thousands of years, had dimensions that were similar to each other. The Eirev Rav been present at the revelation at Sinai and the conversos had once been Jews, but both were not entirely regarded as a fully-fledged Jewish community.

THE TIKKUN:

The ‘re-judaization’ of the conversos and accepting then back within the Jewish fold was to be one of the final steps in the process of bringing about the messianic age that was expected to have been immanent. A tikkun or rectification of the how the Eirev Rav was viewed and treated in the past was to be effected through a new approach by absorbing the conversos back into Judaism.

Now, as a pre-requisite to the final redemption, the Safed mystics were going to rectify the failed biblical mission of the Eirev Rav and finally bring them home through the guise of the conversos.

R. CHAIM VITAL’S INNOVATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EIREV RAV:

The Eirev Rav and its converso counterparts (or reincarnations) were explained to have existed in a spiritual twilight zone. R. Chaim Vital said that at Sinai they experienced (or ‘saw’) the G-d’s voice, or kol but did not hear or understand the words, or dibbur.[8] Magid describes their position as having “a claim to and a stake in the covenant while not being fully a part of it”.

THE EIREV RAV’S DEPENDENCE ON MOSHE:

Because the Eirev Rav did not have the same status as the Jewish people they felt like, what Magid terms, “excluded insiders”. R. Chaim Vital evokes compassion for their spiritual plight as they want to be part of the people but G-d turns them away at every opportunity and seems only concerned about His people. It was only on the insistence of Moshe that the Eirev Rav remained.

According to R. Chaim Vital’s Eits haDa’at Tov:

[The Eirev Rav][9] said to Moses, ‘‘We do not, God forbid, disbelieve!’’ This is because it [revelation] had already become certain for them (nit’amet lahem). They said, ‘‘We acknowledge the truth of God and his Torah, and we also know that we are not fit like Israel to receive it. Yet we are also not, God forbid, equal to the other nations because we have converted….For this reason we should have a higher status from all the other nations. That is, we received the Torah through you [Moses]. ^[10]

On this view, an interesting shift took place after the Sinai experience. The Jews became less dependent on Moshe while the Eirev Rav became more dependent on him.

Know that God took Israel out of Egypt. This is not the case with the ‘erev rav, who were taken out by Moses, as it says, who you took out of the Land of Egypt (Ex 32.7). It does not say ‘‘I [God] took them [the ‘erev rav] out.’’ Therefore the ‘erev rav are called ‘‘Moses’ people’’ . . . They are no worse than the other nations, in fact, they are better since they came [out] in order to convert…^[11]

THE GOLDEN CALF BECOMES UNDERSTANDABLE:

According to R. Chaim Vital, while not condoning it, the incident with the Golden Calf becomes somewhat justifiable. In order to understand this, one must be aware of the complicated and intimate relationship that developed between Moshe Rabbeinu and the Eirev Rav. He even calls the Eirev Rav the ‘Am shel Moshe’, or Moshe’s people.[12] The Torah also says that G-d told Moshe to go down the mountain because his (Moshe’s) people had sinned.[13]

Many commentaries understand that the Golden Calf affair occurred because the Jewish people were afraid that Moshe had perhaps died on Sinai, or even abandoned his people. After all, he delayed to come down. However, the Zohar understands that it was the Eirev Rav and not the Israelites who were most concerned about Moshe. This difference comes about depending on how one reads the following verse from Shemot (32:1):

וַיַּ֣רְא הָעָ֔ם כִּֽי־בֹשֵׁ֥שׁ מֹשֶׁ֖ה לָרֶ֣דֶת מִן־הָהָ֑ר וַיִּקָּהֵ֨ל הָעָ֜ם עַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֤וּ אֵלָיו֙ ק֣וּם ׀ עֲשֵׂה־לָ֣נוּ אֱלֹהִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֵֽלְכוּ֙ לְפָנֵ֔ינוּ כִּי־זֶ֣ה ׀ מֹשֶׁ֣ה הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֶֽעֱלָ֙נוּ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְנוּ מֶה־הָ֥יָה לֽוֹ׃

When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who shall go before us, for that man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt—we do not know what has happened to him.”

Most commentaries take “the people” to refer to the Israelites. The Zohar takes it to refer to the Eirev Rav, and as mentioned, viewed them as a demonic entity because they built the calf.

R. Chaim Vital bases himself on this zoharic interpretation but rejects that they were irretrievably evil. They just need the intermediary effect of their leader, Moshe – while the Israelites would have been able to carry on even had Moshe died on the mountain.

According to Eits haDa’at Tov:

They [the Isrealites] already heard the voice of God in the Ten Commandments and they already entered into a covenant and oath with God. This covenant would not have collapsed with Moses’ death…

[The Eirev Rav knew that] God wanted to reject them. It was only Moses who accepted them against God’s wishes . . .

[The Eirev Rav]^[14] immediately approached Aaron and said Come make us a god [elohim] who shall go before us . . . (Ex 32.1) because Aaron was a partner with Moses in taking them out.[15]

The Eirev Rav need a Moshe more than the Israelites. Their spiritual existence depended upon the intermediary support and intervention of a Moshe, an Aharon or…a Golden Calf to defend them (perhaps even from G-d) until Moshe returned.

Eits haDa’at Tov continues recording the view of the Eirev Rav:

This is not for the purpose of idolatry; God Forbid, we only desire the living God. The calf is a likeness [of the divine] like the Tabernacle, and the cherubim with human faces, where I [God] will dwell . . . Therefore, the reason [for the calf] is that when Moses was here (kayam) he protected us like a merciful father. He was, for us, like an elohim.[16]

R. Chaim Vital supports the Eirev Rav further by arguing that they only experienced the voice of God but not his words, and therefore did not hear the commandment against making images. For this reason, the Golden Calf was not their transgression! This is why Aharon agreed to assist them.

Ultimately, R. Chaim Vital agrees that they sinned, but only when they tried to equate their status with that of Israel. In other words, their sin was not the calf but that they tried to draw Israel into the worship of G-d through the agency of intermediaries. They could use intermediaries, but not Israel. Had they simply worshipped the calf, even as an Elohim or intermediary, while making a distinction between the intermediary and G-d, it would have not been a tragic event.

Once Israel worships Elohim through any elohim, they refute their unique status and relationship to God as YHVH and, by extension, diminish their experience at Sinai to the experience of the ‘erev rav.[17]

DRAWING ISRAEL INTO SIN:

The Eirev Rav draw Israel into the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf (according to the Midrash). R. Chaim Vital develops a theology as to why they did so. Since the Eirev Rav were desperately trying to become part of the people, they had to show that the Israelites were no better than them.

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY:

The style of mystical literature in general and the Zohar, in particular, may be termed replacement theology. This means that Moshe in the story of the Eirev Rav may be replaced by the Moshe of the generation. Accordingly, R. Chaim Vital, with his messianic ambitions would be the new Moshe who champions the new Eirev Rav, or conversos.

Thus the essence of the Eirev Rav remained hidden and dormant until the time just before redemption. Then, as a tikkun and prerequisite to the revelation of the Messiah, they must finally be absorbed back into the Jewish fold.

The Zohar, in principle, even hints at such notion:

[T]he problem of the ‘erev rav will be resolved when Moses returns.’[18]

Magid emphasises this point very poignantly:

Paradoxically, it is the excluded insiders (the ‘erev rav / the conversos) who carry the weight of redemption. By shedding their status of exclusion and by Israel acknowledging their covenantal importance, the final stage of exile comes to a close.

THE LOST REMNANT OF MOSHE:

This was the time when Safed was the centre of a messianic fervour (that later went on to contribute to the fever of messianism of Shabbatai Tzvi[19] who was born just six years after R. Chaim Vital’s passing).

R. Chaim Vital took this replacement theology very seriously. The connection between Moshe and the Eirev Rav existed in the physical world because in the spiritual world the two were part of the same fallen soul of Adam. Thus Moshe and the Eirev Rav were inextricably attached to each other. Moshe showed compassion to the Eirev Rav because they were a part of his own spiritual makeup. Additionally, he too was raised in Egypt and he understood them as they were also largely Egyptians. He was, on this view, simply returning a lost component of his own soul to Judaism. And the corollary is also true because the Eirev Rav needed Moshe just as much, as he was their only gateway to G-d and tikkun. If the Eirev Rav were a part of Moshe, they were also a part of G-d and His people. Moshe was bent on helping the Eirev Rav convert fully because they were a lost part of his soul.

R. Chaim Vital develops this notion more by saying that the Eirev Rav were the negative part of Moshe’s soul (because after Adam sinned, all the souls that came from his root contained a mixture of good and evil).

Moshe had to return and fix his Eirev Rav for his mission to be completed. Magid describes this as “the struggle for Moses to reunite the lost remnants of his soul in order to fulfill his role as the archetypal Jewish leader—that is, the Messiah.”

This is why Moshe felt more responsibility for the Eirev Rav than for the Israelites.[20]

[Later, the Sabbatian ideologue, R. Abraham Miguel Cardozo (1627–1706), who was also a converso and student of Nathan of Gaza, writes, ‘‘In the future Messiah the King will don the garments of a Marrano, and on account of that the Jews will not recognize him.’’][21]

This idea of ‘fixing’ the negative is also found in another of R. Chaim Vital’s writing, Sha’ar haGilgulim, where he mentions that lofty souls like Avraham, David and even converts can dodge the negative kelipot, by being born through sin.[22]

CONVERSOS BECOME THE NEW EIREV RAV:

We have seen how R. Chaim Vital intertwines the fate of the Eirev Rav with the fate of Moshe. Interestingly, both[23] die in the desert and neither reach the land of Israel – their missions uncompleted.

It is most likely that R. Chaim Vital is speaking in metaphor and alluding to his role as a Moshe in supporting the new Eirev Rav, the conversos.

In the ensuing messianic drama playing out in Safed, it appears that the influx of conversos could now rectify and complete the work started in biblical times. These souls had been in limbo since the time of Moshe, waiting for a historical opportunity to replay and rectify the ancient events. Although Eits haDa’at Tov does not specifically mention conversos, it seems that this is its message and R. Chaim Vital can assume his role of Moshe/Messiah and finally fix the soul of Adam by reconnecting the lost Eirev Rav to Moshe - and the covenant at Sinai is remedied and restored.

ANALYSIS:

Technically we must remember that the Torah only tells us that the Eirev Rav left Egypt during the Exodus. 

The Midrash adds that they were present at Sinai.

Medieval commentary informs us that they caused Isreal to serve the Golden Calf soon thereafter. 

The Zohar presents the evil and demonic character of the Eirev Rav.

Now Lurianic Kabbalah adds another layer where not only is the biblical narrative amplified and enhanced - but essentially rewritten as playing out in the present with the promise of a  retroactive tikkun and rectification of the original events of the past. 

---

[1] Shaul Magid, The Politics of (Un)Conversion: The ‘‘Mixed Multitude’’ (‘Erev Rav) as Conversos in Rabbi Hayyim Vital’s ‘Ets Ha-Da’at Tov.

[2] See The Battle for the Soul of the Arizal, in Root Causes of the Sabbatian Movement,.

[3] It must be pointed out that Magid describes his analysis of Eits haDa’at Tov, as a “speculative leap” because the work does not directly equate the Eirev Rav to conversos. However, based on a literary reading of the text and being cognitive of the historical context, the “leap” may not be so “speculative” considering that the work follows the typical Kabbalistc style of writing where the ‘intelligent will understand’.

[4] See The Sanhedrin/Smicha Story.

[5] See Root Causes of the Sabbatian Movement.

[6] R. Chaim Vital, Sefer haChezyonot, Aescoli edition, 1954, p. 222

[7] Werblowsky, Joseph Karo: Lawyer and Mystic (New York and Oxford, 1962).

[8]Although in a very different context, Rambam uses a similar description to differentiate between what Moshe experienced and what the Israelites experienced at Sinai. See The Guide of the Perplexed, 2.33, p. 364, Pines’s edition (Chicago, 1963).

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Eits haDa’at Tov, 77c.

[11] Eits haDa’at Tov, 77b.

[12] See also the Zohar 1.25a.

[13] Ex. 23:7.

[14] Parentheses mine.

[15] Eits haDa’at Tov, 104c.

[16] Eits haDa’at Tov, 104d.

[17] Eits haDa’at Tov, 106d. For more on the distinction between Elokim, Havaya and Ein Sof see the paragraph The Coded Wording of R. Eibeschuetz's anti-Sabbatian Ban in Unimaginable Writings of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz (and follow the other links provided there).

[18] Zohar 2.181b.

[19] See link in note 4.

[20] Eits haDa’at Tov, 173a.

[21] Inyane Shabbatai Zevi, ed. A. Friedman (Berlin, 1912), 88.

[22] Sha’ar haGilgulim, Introduction 38, p. 369, ed. Bnei Aaron. This concept, too, was taken up by the Sabbatians, although to a far greater extent than it was probably meant.

[23] That is, those of the Eirev Rav who did not get absorbed into the Israelites.

253) R. YAAKOV EMDEN’S SURPRISING VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY:

R. Yaakov Emden's Siddur, Beit Yaakov

INTRODUCTION:

In this article we will explore R. Yaakov Emden’s unusual, fascinating and little-known writings on Islam and particularly Christianity.

We will begin, in Section One with an overview of some of the many sources scattered throughout his numerous works in which he deals with these matters; and then, in Section Two, we will try to examine the possible reasons behind such unusual writing by a rabbi, and try to understand the historical context in which he wrote.

I have (once again) drawn extensively from the research of Rabbi Professor Jacob J. Schacter from Yeshiva University.[1]

SECTION ONE:

R. EMDEN’S VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY:

R. Emden writes that Jesus and the founders of Christianity never intended to divert Jews away from the Torah, and that their target market was only the gentiles to whom they wished to teach the Seven Laws of Noah. In his view, these founders affirmed the requirement of Jews to observe the Torah as ‘an everlasting covenant’ which can never be abrogated.

‘FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN’:

R. Emden comments on the teaching in Pirkei Avot:

“Every gathering that meets for the sake of Heaven will have an enduring effect.”[2]

He interprets this to refer to Christianity and Islam who:

“...have emerged from us and built their altars on the foundation of our divine religion...

Compared with the nations of the world who preceded them, who did not recognize God...their gathering [i.e., of these religions] is considered for the sake of Heaven.”[3]

“THE THREE OF US’:

He places all three faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam into one category, by referring to “the three of us.” 

He refers to:

“Jews, Christians and Muslims, three leading faiths (sheloshah ’umot rashiyot) . . . that erected their fortresses on the foundation of the Torah of Moses, our teacher, may he rest in peace, and who have spread in the world.”[4]

PREPARATION FOR MASHIACH:

R. Emden, like Rambam before him, believed that the purpose of Christianity and Islam was to prepare the multitudes of non-Jewish people in this world for a future era where faith, respect and order will prevail.

Rambam had long since written in (the uncensored version of) his Mishneh Torah:

“All these matters relating to Jesus of Nazareth and the Ishmaelite (Mohammed) who came after him only served to clear the way for King Messiah, to prepare the whole world to worship God with one accord...[5]

Along similar lines, R. Emden writes[6]:

“Thus the Messianic hope, the Torah, and the commandments have become familiar topics -topics of conversation (among the inhabitants) of the far isles and many peoples, uncircumcised of heart and flesh. They are discussing these matters and the commandments of the Torah...

They have accepted upon themselves the majority of the Ten Commandments, in addition to many admirable traits that they have affirmed . . . . They have given honor to God, the Lord of Israel, and to His Torah and have made known His glory among the nations who knew Him not.”[7]

Schacter points out, interestingly, that R. Emden was not the only one writing about such matters. A century earlier, R. Moses Rivkes wrote:

“These nations in whose shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled and amongst whom we are dispersed do believe in creatio ex nihilo, in the Exodus, and in the fundamental principles of religion (ikkerey ha’dat), and their entire intent is to [worship] the Maker of heaven and earth.”

HARBOURING JEWS:

R. Emden also writes that, according to his understanding, both Christianity and Islam were responsible at various stages of Jewish history, for protecting and harbouring Jews from further destruction:

“Were it not for them, the small crumbs [of Jewish life] would have already been consumed, our hope would have been lost among the nations who hate Israel out of religious jealousy.”

Although admitting that historically, this was clearly not always the case, R. Emden went even further by commending Christians for sometimes protecting the Talmud and other texts from obliteration, and for encouraging the printing of Jewish religious literature which included Tanach, Midrash, mystical literature and even Halachic and responsa literature:

“I saw in a Christian book that in past years many of them would be diligent in the analysis of Gemara [and would translate many tractates into Latin]. And behold still today there are found among them many learned ones who love our Talmud and study it.”[8]

‘DISCLAIMERS’ IN HIS PRAYER BOOKS:

R. Emden printed some ‘disclaimers’ as postscripts to his prayer books informing the readers that all references to ‘idol-worshipers’ must not be taken as relating in any way to modern-day Christians:

 “Let this be known that wherever idolaters and the like are mentioned, the reference is not to [members of] Christian nations who possess faith and are men of superior ethical behavior (ba‘aley ‘emunah ‘anshey middot me‘ullot)...”[9]

Similarly, he writes:

“That which we have mentioned several times in our works is well known, that all those who

believe in the Torah of Moses (be they from whatever nation) are not in the category of idol worshipers and the like even though they do not observe it [the Torah] fully because they are not commanded to do so.”[10]

It could be argued that because of the ever-present watchful eyes of the Christian censors, R. Emden added these postscripts to his prayer books and he therefore did not intend them to be taken seriously by Jews. However, because of the all-pervasiveness and intensity of such sentiment scattered all across his writings, it seems evident that he sincerely held such views.

In another section of his prayer book, which appears not have been written for the censors, R. Emden writes that the expression with which we open the Passover Haggadah, “May all who are hungry come and eat with us” fascinatingly refers also to gentiles (nochrim), and he regards this as ‘obvious’.[11]

VIRGIN CONCEPTION:

In a most interesting and surprising statement, R. Emden writes that it is possible for a virgin to conceive. This is not as (textually) controversial as it seems as he bases this on an earlier Talmudic source which says that a virgin can conceive without intercourse. He also cites the Amora, Shmuel, who claimed that a woman can be a virgin even after intercourse.[12]

MORE THAN ONE JESUS:

R. Emden also writes that there was more than one Jesus at the time of the beginning of Christianity. One was the founder of the new religion and the other is referred to in not such ingratiating terms.[13]

THE TRINITY:

The concept of the Trinity has long been a theological thorn in the side of rabbis, who generally regarded this as a clear form of idolatry. However, R. Emden wrote:

“Gentiles... are not worshipers of avodah zarah [idolatry] but, rather, follow the customs of their ancestors.”[14]

Also:

 “Our Sages have already said that Gentiles (Beney Noah) are not commanded regarding ‘association’ (shittuf) [a term used to describe the Trinity].”[15]

   

DISTINCT CATEGORIES OF CHRISTIANS:

In all his writings on Christianity, R. Emden divides Christians into two categories which he refers to, in what Schacter calls the almost ‘technical terms’ of pikchim (intelligent) and tipshim (unlearned) Christians. Of course, in these writings he is referring to the former.

R. Emden further makes the distinction between earlier and contemporary gentiles. It is the more recent generations whom, he suggests, have a ‘better’ belief system than the earlier generations:

“The nations these days are believers and are people of faith more than those from before, in earlier years.”[16]

Again, this seems to reflect Rambam’s view of humankind’s theological progression over time ‘aliyat hadorot’ (the advancement of the generations) as opposed to ‘yeridat hadorot’ (the decline of the generations).

SECTION TWO:

INTO THE MIND OF R. EMDEN:

R. Jacob J. Schacter offers  some possible explanations, as well as context for R. Emden’s unusually tolerant views on other faiths:

1) AN ENQUIRING MIND:

It is possible that R. Emden was simply inquisitive and interested in multiple things including other faiths. R. Emden admitted this in his autobiography:

“My heart was always inclined to know [and] to examine worldly matters as well, nations and faiths, their characteristics and dispositions, their histories and wisdoms.”[17]

And elsewhere he wrote that he yearned:

“...to understand fully the ways of the world and the behaviour of people; to uncover the hidden treasures of nature, the form of the structure of the world and the divisions of the lands, seas, rivers, mountains, and valleys; the divisions between states, languages, religious faiths and cultural patterns (ve-ha-datot ve-ha-nimusim), the events of history...”[18]

2) ‘TO MINGLE COMFORTABLY’:

Schacter suggests that besides a sense of general inquisitively, R. Emden was aware that socially, there was far more interaction between Jews and Christians in his day, than in previous times. It is possible that he was concerned about how the Jew would react during such encounters.

This appears to have been an issue for him because he wrote, also surprisingly for a rabbi, that it was necessary “to mingle comfortably with people (li-heyot me‘urav ‘im ha-beriyot).” The expression ‘beriyot’ generally refers to all people including non-Jews. It is possible, therefore, that he just wanted to foster better relations between Jews and those of other faiths.

3) THE ‘PARTIAL EXILE’:

This desire to ‘mingle comfortably’ with all society may have stemmed from his very interesting (if not controversial) take on the circumstances of the ‘exile’ society in which he lived.

Commenting on the words of the Passover Haggada “Now we are slaves, next year we will be free,” he writes that as opposed to the Egyptian exile from which we could not escape, if we are not happy in Europe, we can leave and go to Israel and be there ‘by next year’. See footnote for full text.[19]

Certainly, R. Emden knew he wasn’t living in idyllic messianic times, but he was evidently quite happy with his life in Europe at that time.[20]

4) THE SABBATIAN FACTOR:

There could be another, this time more strategic, explanation as well. This involves the very significant historical context in which R. Emden lived and worked. First some background:

R. EMDEN MUST BE SEEN AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF SHABBATAI TZVI:

Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676) claimed that he was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. 

At one time, his followers may have numbered more than half of the Jewish population,[21] and they even included many respected rabbis. He introduced some strange practices into Judaism and distorted the mystical tradition. 

When he eventually converted to Islam and it was clear that he was a false messiah, the Jewish population was thrown into a crisis of faith (which is often swept under the carpet of Jewish history) and the repercussions spread far and wide.

Most went back to their original ways, but many remained on in underground and secret – and sometimes not so secret - cells. They were known, ironically, as the ‘Ma’aminim’, or Believers, and also ‘Shabbtaim’, or Sabbatians. These secret Sabbatians often posed as authentic religious Jews and continued to plague the Jewish community for many generations, The extent of their influence should not be underestimated.

Arguably, the fiercest opponent to, and exposer of numerous secret Sabbatians - some of whom had even infiltrated within the ranks of the rabbinate - was R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776).

[We have dealt with R. Emden’s opposition to Sabbatianism in numerous other essays. See Shabbatai Tzvi – Roots Run Deep, and here and here.]

In 1756 - about 70 years after the death of Shabbatai Tzvi - a Sabbatian orgy[22] embellished with Christian symbolism was conducted in Poland by the new Sabbatian leader Jacob Frank, who also claimed to be the messiah and who later converted to Christianity. Frank and some of his followers who masqueraded as traditional Jews, were arrested.

At a subsequent rabbinical conference in Brody, the rabbinate placed all the Sabbatians, now also known as Frankists, under a ban of ex-communication.

These Sabbatians, feeling unfairly targeted and aggrieved, appealed to Bishop Dembowski of Kamenetz-Podolsk for protection, claiming that their fellow Jews were persecuting them because they had adopted some mystical Christian symbolism.

A debate, or rather a trial, was held between the Christian clergy and the rabbis. The rabbis argued that it was incorrect of the Church to consider the Sabbatians to be in any way connected to Christianity as they were, in fact, a brand new religion – not Jewish and not Christian.

The rabbis knew this was a good argument because the Church had declared it illegal to start a new religion, and the punishment for such an innovation was death. And because the punishment by the Church was so severe, the rabbis consulted with one of the great and authoritative rabbis of the time, R. Yaakov Emden to ascertain whether their strategy was permissible, as it would place the Sabbatians in mortal danger.

R. Emden was an obvious choice as a consultant on this case because, just a few years earlier, he had gone so far as to excommunicate the high profile Chief Rabbi R. Yonatan Eybeschutz - who was also one of the most prominent rabbis of the time - on suspicion that he too was a secret Sabbatian! The accusation was that R. Eybeschutz had amulets of a Sabbatian nature and that he was therefore an imposter.

Back in Brody, R. Emden did not disappoint his legal team. He ruled that under the circumstances it was permitted, nay required, to hand them over to the Church and to put the Sabbatians in a position where they may lose their lives!

And then R. Emden then wrote and expounded at great length on the virtues of Jesus and Christianity.[23] These praises of Christianity were not just in relation to this particular case involving the Sabbatians, because throughout his various writings[24], even from earlier years, such confirmations and affirmations of Christianity frequently occur.

Although it certainly would have been in R. Emden’s strategic interests during the debates if he could show natural affinities between Christianity and Judaism, one cannot say that that was his sole objective.

He went on to tell the Church that the Sabbatians dare not be accommodated by the Christians because they were a new religion and their sexual immorality had intrinsically become part of their creed. This, he said, was contrasted by the virtuous Christians, who:

“... have certain precious attributes and just morals...”

R. Emden also pointed out that the Sabbatians were claiming to believe in the Christian Messiah while at the same time claiming to be Jews. This was, therefore, a new religion, not Christianity and not Judaism; and it ought to be viewed by both as a common enemy.

By showing how Judaism was so understanding of, and accommodating towards Christianity, he clearly would have the Christians on his side. He needed to remind the Christians that according to their classical beliefs, the Jews had to keep their Torah, and now the Sabbatians were slowly eroding Jewish observance.

R. Emden was well-read in the New Testament and often quoted from it. He reminded the Christians that:

“The Nazarene and his apostles (ha-Notzri u-sheluhav) did not, God forbid, come to abrogate the Torah from Israel.”[25]

This he again contrasted with the Sabbatians who, he said, wanted to uproot the Torah from the Jewish people.[26]

Perhaps R. Emden’s views can best be summed up in the words of R. Schacter himself:

“While many of Emden’s statements in favor of Christianity were expressed before his ferocious opposition to that [Sabbatian][27] movement, his later obsession with it created a particular context in which to understand his attitude toward that religion.”

SOME SCHOLARLY DEBATE:

Schacter  strongly disagrees with Yehuda Liebes’ interpretation of R. Emden’s motivation for his tolerant views towards Christianity. Liebes argued that there was a disconnect between R. Emden’s extreme disdain for Sabbatianism and his exceptionally favorable attitude towards Christianity; he considered this to be a “paradox and contradiction.”[28] In other words, R. Emden’s negatives feelings towards the Sabbatians would have had no direct impact on his favourable views towards Christianity.

[For a similar understanding, see R. Yaakov Emden’s ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ with regard to Maimonides.]

Schacter completely disagrees with this notion of disconnect and while he believes R. Emden to have been sincere, he maintains that:

“In fact...these are fully compatible positions; attacking Sabbatians and favoring Christians are two sides of the same coin...

It is a matter of no small interest that it is precisely in the context of a most extreme anti-Sabbatian argument—one that went so far as to suggest that adherents of this movement should be killed—where Emden expressed himself most favorably about Christianity.”

CONCLUSION:

Some fascinating questions remain for the Reader to consider:

Were R. Emden’s views on Christianity somewhat strategic and expedient - although apparently still sincere - nevertheless influenced by the existential threat to Judaism posed by the Sabbatians and Frankists and by his desire to unite with the Christians against what he hoped was a common enemy?

Or, did R. Emden’s views represent an attempted rabbinic shift in how Christianity was to be perceived?

If it did, then it would place him within the same theological camp as the Meiri (1249-1315) four hundred years earlier. [See The Chief Rabbi’s Retraction.]

Or was R. Yaakov Emden, as he describes himself, simply inquisitive, enquiring of mind, and just expressing his altruistic and independent thoughts on Christianity while working towards a state of mutual respect and compatible co-existence?

POSTSCRIPT:

Historically, in a sad irony, despite all the efforts of R. Emden, Bishop Dembowski sided in favor of the Frankists and also ordered the burning of 10,000 volumes of the Talmud in Poland; and by 1790, 26,000 Jews were recorded as having undergone baptism in Poland.

Sefer Shimush by R. Yaakov Emden (Amsterdam 1757 or 1758) depicting Bishop Dembowski drinking in celebration after burning books of the Talmud.

Describing similar events of that time, the (controversial) Cherson Letters, tell of a victory in Lvov against a Bishop Sokolski in 1759 and of prevention of the burning of books - to the extent that that day, the 26^th of Tammuz, was declared by the Baal Shem Tov, to be the first Chassidic holiday. According to the letters, the Baal Shem Tov participated in, and actually won that debate.

[See 26 Tammuz-The Chassidic Holiday that never was.]

---

[1] Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbatianism, and Frankism: Attitudes Toward Christianity in the Eighteenth Century, by Jacob J. Schacter. All translations are by R. Schacter unless otherwise indicated.

[2] Avot 4:11

[3] Eitz Avot (Máramarossziget 1912) p. 40b–41a.

[4] Gottlieb, “Resen Mat‘eh,” 318.

[5] Hilchot Melachim 11:4. Translation from A Maimonides Reader, by Isadore Twersky (New York, 1972) p. 226.

[6] R. Schacter points out that R. Emden is selective in what he chooses from Rambam who also had some negative things to say, just a few lines earlier, about Christianity “changing the Torah and causing the world to err and serve another beside God.”

[7] Lehem Shamayim, vol. 2 (Altona, 1768), 49b. This version is in accordance with R. Emden’s own correction of his text which first read: “They have accepted upon themselves the majority of the Seven [Noahide] Laws.”

[8] Eitz Avot 58b.

[9] Siddur Amudey Shamayim, 418b.

[10] Siddur Sha‘arey Shamayim,159b.

[11] Siddur Sha‘arey Shamayim, 25a.

[12] Iggeret bikkoret (Zhitomir, 1867), 25a–b.

[13] Haggahot ve’chiddushim on Sanhedrin 107b and Avodah Zarah 17a.

[14] She’elat Ya’avetz 1:41.

[15] Etz ’Avot on ’Avot 4:11, 40b, and She’elat Ya’avetz 1:41

[16] Mor uKetziah, vol. 2 (Altona, 1768), 27a, no. 329

[17] Megillat Sefer, 96.

[18] Luah Eresh, first printed in Etz ’Avot [Amsterdam, 1751], 76b).

[19]  R. Emden writes: 

“One should not say: What is the point of the expression of freedom that we observe on this night [of Passover] if, after all, we are still in exile?...

To this he [the author of the Haggadah] responds that this is not considered a true exile, for even if we are today in a land not our own, next year we can be in the Land of Israel if we want. No one is stopping us. Even if, God forbid, the time of redemption will not yet arrive, nevertheless the Land of Israel is before us (cf. 2 Chr 14:6) to come and dwell in it at any time.

This is not similar to the exile of Egypt where we were indentured slaves and like captives imprisoned for backbreaking labor, clay and bricks . . . . [But now] all the nations and kingdoms acknowledge us as the seed that God has blessed (Isa 61:9). They treat us as free, to be under our own jurisdiction, to move our dwelling place from country to country in accordance with the fullness of our desire. On the contrary, it is a singular act of kindness that they accept us to dwell in their lands with the compassion of God on us. Therefore this is not considered servitude.

And if you will say that, on occasion, we live under the hand of a harsh kingdom that presses its yoke on us to be as slaves, therefore it [the Haggadah] points out that, with it all, there is ample room in the land for us (Gen 34:21) to [enable us] to dwell in another land as this very day (Deut 29:27).

[Siddur Sha‘arey Shamayim, 25b.]

[20] This is not to say, as Shacter points out, that R. Emden did not experience anti-Jewish sentiments during his time in Europe.

[21] R. Emden writes (in his Sefer Hit’avkut, 75b–76a) that certainly the Sabbatians in the Jewish community of Moravia (today the Czech Republic) were in the majority, and still ascendant.

[22] The Sabbatians were morally promiscuous and had some strange rituals that they managed to find various mystical and twisted kabbalistic justifications for. They believed in the idea of ‘purification through transgression.’

[23] Seder ‘olam rabbah ve-zuta’ u-Megillat ta‘anit (Hamburg, 1757), 32b–36b, and

“Meteg laHamor,” pp. 15a–21a.

[24] Such as Etz Avot, and Torat haKenaot.

[25] Gottlieb, “Resen mat‘eh,” 303.

[26] Torat haKenaot 69a.

[27] Parenthesis mine.

[28] Liebes, Sod ha-’emunah ha-Shabbeta’it, 209.