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).

390) A History of Torah Observance: The widespread rejection of Judaism is certainly tragic. But is it unusual?

Photo by Federico Di Dio photography on Unsplash

A Guest post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton

Some appear to assume that the current state of Jewish observance - where only a small minority of Jews are Torah-loyal - is an historical anomaly. The centuries and millennia preceding the European Enlightenment, so the thinking goes, saw more or less universal halachic compliance, and it was only through a combination of hostile external and internal 18th Century forces that we lost most of our population.

But I'm not sure that's true. First of all, mass defections seem to have been common through most periods of Jewish history. And second, Jewish life could hardly be considered "settled" during the early modern period (c. 1450-1800) that preceded the Enlightenment. In other words, while things may not be great right now, I'm not sure they were ever all that much better. There has always been free will and bad choices have always been an option.

350) Messianic Parallelisms

 

Introduction

In this article I want to show fascinating parallelism between the twelfth-century story of David Alro’i; the seventeenth-century episode of Shabbatai Tzvi; and a modern event from a completely different culture and context. By comparing these three stories, we might come to a better understanding of modern messianism which is popular within the Jewish world today. And, surprisingly, it may have a stronger component relating to basic sociology and psychology than to spirituality.

307) SEFER HATZOREF AND THE STORY OF THE ‘LOST’ STOLIN GENIZA:

 

                      The library stamp of R.Yisrael Perlow of Stolin 

INTRODUCTION:

Some years ago, Professor Yitzhak Y. Melamed discovered what looked like a stamp from the famous lost Karlin-Stolin Geniza or Archive.

He made the discovery quite by accident as he was perusing through a two-volume list of Jewish library markings and stamps that the Allies had found and then catalogued after the Second World War. This catalogue is now held at the University of Chicago’s Regensburg Library. The Allies created this catalogue to document the Jewish books that had evaded destruction by the Nazis.

After the war, it was thought that the once-great Stolin Geniza had been irretrievably lost. However, from time to time rare Kabbalistic manuscripts had surfaced in, as Melamed puts it, “the murky world of Hebraica dealers”. One such manuscript was bought back by the Stoliner Chassidim themselves and another was purchased by the Jewish National Library of the Hebrew University. These, together with his accidental find, gave Melamed hope that the great Stolin Geniza and library had not been completely lost or destroyed. This article is based extensively on Professor Melamed’s intriguing investigation into the Stolin Geniza and his account thereof.^[1]

298) UNIMAGINABLE WRITINGS OF R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ :

    ואבוא היום אל העין

                                                           VA AVO HAYOM EL HAAYIN

Woe upon the eyes that see it and the ears that hear it and those who keep silent   - R. Yechezkel Landau, the Nodah beYehuda, after reading the mystical treatise VaAvo haYom el haAyin.^[1]

INTRODUCTION:

In 1724, the itinerant Polish-Lithuanian traveller and bookdealer, Moshe Meir Kamenker must have known about the explosive nature of one of the books he peddling. The book was entitled VaAvo haYom el haAyin (And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, Gen. 24:42) whose authorship has been traced to R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz, arguably the most respected and prestigious rabbi of that era.

R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz was embroiled in one of the most vitriolic rabbinic controversies - probably since the time of Maimonides (1135-1204) - with R. Yakov Emden, after being accused of his secret involvement in the Sabbatian messianic movement of the false messiah Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676).

[For more background to the controversies see The Discovery of Notarized Amulets of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz and follow the links provided there.]

In this article, based extensively on the research of Professor Pawel Maciejko[2], we explore the story and some of the content of the book found in the satchel of this book pedlar, which shocked the rabbinic world and exposed the nature of Sabbatian ideology and R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz’s alleged connection to it.  

NOTE TO READER:

This article may upset sensitive readers although I have made every effort to leave out the unimaginable and extremely graphic details while still attempting to capture the essence of the work.

THE STORY:

THE BEIT MIDRASH OF ZOLKIEW:

The bookseller Moshe Meir Kamenker was associated with the kabbalistic Beit Midrash of Żółkiew. R. Chaim Malach had taught there and it became an important centre for the dissemination of secret Sabbatian mystical literature. This was a time when Sabbatians had well infiltrated the ranks of mainstream religious Jewry and it was difficult to know who was who. It was also the time when the Chassidic movement was beginning to emerge.

In 1724, one of R. Chaim Malach’s students, R. Feishel of Złoczów (Zolotchov) caused a stir when he announced that he was a follower of Shabbatai Tzvi. This was even more surprising as R. Feishel was a prominent Torah scholar who knew the Talmud by heart. R. Feishel also happened to be the bookseller, Moshe Meir Kamenker’s brother-in-law. And Moshe Meir Kamenker’s brother was Leib Buchbinder, who two years later was to become the father of Jacob Frank (1726-1791) the founder of another messianic movement whose followers were known as the Frankists (a more radical branch of the Sabbatians).

THE ‘CHASSIDIM SCHULLE’ OF MANNHEIM:

There is no doubt of Moshe Meir Kamenker’s subversive Sabbatian credentials and leanings. Moshe Meir Kamenker’s travels led him through Prossnitz (the centre for followers of another Sabbatian, and another messianic claimant, R. Leibelle of Prossnitz) and then eventually on to Mannheim. The reason why Moshe Meir Kamenker went to Mannheim was to bring books and be associated with the Sabbatian Beit Midrash in that city, which was known as the Chassidim Schule headed by R. Isaiah Chassid. R. Isaiah Chasid had been previously associated with R. Avraham Rovigo and his kabbalistic yeshiva established in Jerusalem around 1701. Moshe Meir Kamenker and R. Isaiah Chassid wanted to proclaim R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz as the Messiah.

Maciejko’s (2014:iii) research reveals that in all likelihood, on Moshe Meir Kamenker’s arrival in Mannheim, he mistakenly thought he had made contact with a Sabbatian colleague but instead, he met up with an opponent the Sabbatian movement. This person duly reported him to the community authorities who detained him, searched his bags and found a number of manuscripts which were subsequently seized.[3]

EX-COMMUNICATING MOSHE MEIR KAMENKER:

The rabbinic courts of Frankfurt and Mannheim investigated the matter and after threatening some members of the Chassidim Schulle with ex-communication, it became clear that Moshe Meir Kamenker had supplied its rabbi, Isaiah Chassid, with some Sabbatian material from R. Leibelle Prossnitz and, more damningly, with material from none other than R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz![4] These findings proved to be the first known writings of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz to be publicised. A signed letter from R. Eibeschuetz to R. Isiah Chassid was also discovered amongst the texts in the satchel, ironically, telling him not to publicise any of these writings.[5]

Sometime later, the  Beit Din of Frankfurt ex-communicated Moshe Meir Kamenker and the entire sect of Sabbatians, who, because of their numbers, called themselves the believers (kat haMa’aminim). The mainstream opponents were labelled as deniers or Kofrim. This case highlighted the extent of the vast network of secret Sabbatians operating across Europe.

‘REPENTANT’ SABBATIANS:

Of interest, is that this ban of ex-communication stressed that Sabbatians must be identified and prosecuted no matter the status or religious scholarship exhibited by the members of this group. This was obviously a problem and great concern at that time. Many important rabbis continued to believe in Shabbatai Tzvi even after his death in 1676 and well into the next century. Furthermore, there was little trust in repentant Sabbatians as they generally remained secretive and subversive. The bans of ex-communication made it clear that they could only be rehabilitated back within the community after producing a written affidavit signed by three reliable rabbinical authorities.

The rabbinic courts were wary of repentant Sabbatians because R. Isaiah Chassid who headed the Mannheim Beit Midrash had already denounced Sabbatiansm only to openly return to it later.

In all, three bans were issued simultaneously by three prominent Jewish communities in three different countries. These bans were an attempt to present a united front against the Sabbatians.

R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ AS AUTHOR OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN?

According to R. Yakov Emden[6], when R. Isaiah Chassid read the writings which were brought by Moshe Meir Kamenker (and which were attributed to, although not all signed by, R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz) he knew they were from him and he declared that R. Eibeschuetz certainly had the holy spirit resting on him as he revealed secrets far deeper than the Ari had through his Lurianic Kabbalah during the sixteenth century.

These writings in the satchel, as we shall see, were so explosive and shocking, that R. Yechezkel Katzenellenbogen - who was the main signatory of these bans issued from the three Battei Din -wrote to the famous ‘Sabbatian hunter’, R. Moshe Chagiz, to ask for his help in eradicating these texts of the ‘sect of believers’ which were found on Moshe Meir Kamenker. Particularly, what they considered to be R. Eibeschuetz’s work, VaAvo haYom el haAyin.

While R. Moshe Chagiz identified the work as emanating from R. Eibeschuetz, R. Katzenellenbogen was not willing to single him out in person because of his prestige in the community.                             

According to R. Yakov Emden, the three courts that issued the bans, also knew that some of the manuscripts distributed by Moshe Meir Kamenker had been written by R. Eibescheutz but were reluctant to publicise the matter for fear of upsetting his wealthy supporters.[7]

Thus R. Eibeschuetz’s name does not appear on the bans, but Moshe Meir Kamenker’s name does and he unfairly bears the brunt of the attack becoming its scapegoat. This was a classical case of ‘shooting the messenger’.

R. Katzenellenbogen then requested of the rabbi of Frankfurt, Yakov Cohen Poppers to contact R. Eibeschuetz’s brother in Prague, and get him to speak to R. Yonatan to ascertain whether these allegations of Sabbatian involvement were true or not. The brother reported back stating that R. Yonatan was indeed involved with the movement, but only in the sense of infiltrating it to gather strategic information.

So far, because everyone was gently, if not fearfully, skirting around the issue, no official mention was made of the ‘elephant in the room’, the text of VaAvo haYom el haAyin.

However, Maciejko’s outstanding and meticulous research has allowed him to reconstruct the events, and from letters and other writings relating to this investigation, it became clear that various witnesses did make reference to this explosive work.

Maciejko (2014:vii) explains that during the investigations of the Batei Din, a past student of R. Eibeschuetz by the name of Binyamin Chassid, had sent a copy of VaAvo haYom el haAyin to his father R. Michael Chassid who was the rabbi of Berlin.

R. Michael Chassid was of the view that Sabbatians were not just mistaken in their beliefs (as R. Akiva was, thinking that Bar Kochba was the Messiah) but instead, they were acutely aware that their teachings were at variance with Torah values, and they were intent on subverting Judaism. When he received the copy of VaAvo haYom el haAyin it proved to be the last straw for him and he was determined to expose R. Eibeschuetz.

 CLOSING RANKS TO PROTECT R. EIBESCHUETZ:

The problem now was that R. Eibeschuetz was protected by many leading rabbis including Chief Rabbi David Oppenheim of Prague, who it was believed had threatened to take any Jew who spoke badly of R. Eibeschuetz to the Christian authorities.

An aura of secrecy and protection thus prevailed hindering any true investigation of the Sabbatians and their ideologues who were so deeply entrenched within the mainstream community.

ONLY TO RABBIS SPEAK OUT:

Amazingly, notwithstanding a golden age of rabbinic leadership, only two rabbis were prepared to speak out publically against the Sabbatians calling for their exposure, no matter their standing in rabbinic circles. They were R. Moshe Chagiz and R. Michael Chassid. R. Moshe Chagiz boldly called for the drastic step to ex-communicate all the students who had studied under R. Eibeschuetz. Even R. Yakov Emden, who was later to become the greatest Sabbatain exposer, felt that at that time it was better not to draw attention to works like VaAvo haYom el haAyin. This, even after reading the work and proclaiming that: “Nothing like this was ever seen or known from any heretic or disbeliever of this world.”[8]

To confuse matters even further, the supporters of R. Eibeschuetz claimed that the three abovementioned bans of ex-communication were forgeries. This was given momentum by R. Eibeschuetz’s wealthy father-in-law, R. Yitzchak Spira who sent letters to other Jewish communities supporting the notion that the bans were fraudulent.

R. EIBESCHUETZ’S ANTI-SABBATIAN BAN:

Then on September 16, 1725, in what many believe was a disingenuous strategic move, R. Eibeschuetz issued a ban against the Sabbatians. The ban also called on all to distance themselves from the book dealer Moshe Meir Kamenker and his ‘false writings’, who had again become a scapegoat, this time for the (alleged) Sabbatians.[9]

Most rabbis were prepared to accept and believe that R. Eibeschuetz’s ban was genuine, and for the next twenty-five years, he remained vindicated until the issues of the Sabbatian amulets surfaced around 1750.

THE CODED WORDING OF R. EIBESCHUETZ’S ANTI-SABBATIAN BAN:

Maciejko (2014:xi) draws our attention to the fact that most rabbinic bans of ex-communication use a relatively standard form of verbiage, especially when their target is the same entity. However, R. Eibescheutz’s ban against the Sabbatians did not follow the template of the three earlier West European anti-Sabbatian bans.

R. Eibeschuetz’s ban referred Shabbatai Tzvi who had “raised his hand against the Torah of Moshe”, “descended into the abyss of the Sheol”  and “took upon himself everlasting infamy”.

While on a cursory reading of this ban it would appear that R. Eibeschuetz was sharply condemning the evil Sabbatians, a deeper reading reveals something most unusual: 

No self-respecting Sabbatian wold have found these expressions offensive in the least. After all, their leader Shabbatai Tzvi proudly abolished Torat Moshe and replaced it with a Torah Chadasha, or new Torah which was to be relevant to the messianic era. 

Similarly, he did indeed descend into the depths of evil Kelipot, or husks in order to ‘elevate’ them in mystical preparation for messianic redemption. 

Furthermore, he took on “everlasting infamy” as a badge of honour as he suffered in his cosmic and messianic mission.

And even when R. Eibeschuetz wrote: “…everyone who believes in Shabbatai Tzvi denies the God of Israel and His Torah”, that too didn’t bother Sabbatians because Sabbatian Kabbalah, with its roots in Lurianic Kabbalah [see Root Causes of the Sabbatian Movement] distinguished between Ein Sof and Elokei Yisrael (see How are we Supposed to Pray?]. According to some models of Kabbalah and certainly according to Sabbatain Kabbalah, Ein Sof is so removed from the “God of Israel and His Torah” that they found justification to reject that lower level of Elokei Yisrael, as their aim was to reach a 'higher' level of G-d.

Accordingly, seasoned Sabbatain kabbalists would not have found R. Eibeschuetz’s ban objectionable. On the contrary, it would have resonated with them as if it were some form of code. Sabbatians were known to have used codes similar to this - hidden within seemingly benign writings - in their communications with each other.

And even when R. Eibeschuetz wrote what seemed to be an insulting phrase referring to Shabbatai Tzvi as a “dead dog”, a Sabbatian well-versed in his Kabbalah would know that the Zohar (Raya Mehemna)[10] has Moshe Rabbeinu speaking of the Messiah as a “dead dog”.

Another suspicious element evident in R. Eibeschuetz’s ban is the matter of the signatories. For example, while it claims to represent the elders of the Prague community, two elders out of four are missing. The Chief Rabbi of Prague, R. David Oppenheim did not sign the ban but R. Simcha Poppers signed the ban and he was a known Sabbatian.[11] Another rabbi who signed the ban was Avraham Fesseburg and he is known to have made the statement that if R. Eibeschuetz believed in Shabbatai Tzvi, so would he.[12] And yet another rabbi, Yakov Hamburger would go on to support R. Eibeschuetz twenty-five years later during the amulet controversy.

MORE EVIDENCE ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN:

R. Eibeschutz’s ban against the Sabbatians in 1725, nevertheless, proved to be effective as it put paid to any real discussion on his suspected authorship of VaAvo haYom el haAyin.

However, Maciejko’s (2014:xvi) research reveals that:

All the testimonies from the 1720s that do attribute the work to a concrete author, without a single exception, identify this author as Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschütz.

Contemporary scholarship^[13] also concurs the R. Eibeschutz was the author.

Maciejko continues:

Doubts concerning the attribution of Va-Avo to Jonathan Eibeschütz arose for the first time only during the amulet controversy of the 1750s, when the purported author made a halfhearted and highly ambiguous statement which was interpreted by some as a denial of his authorship.[14]

However, based on the earlier evidence from 1725:

Some of the testimonies allow us to trace the paths of dissemination of concrete copies of the manuscript that originated from Eibeschütz’s yeshivah in Prague and were brought to Mannheim (by Moses Meir Kamenker), Berlin (by Binyamin Hasid), or Lissa (by an anonymous former student of Rabbi Jonathan)…. and no attempt to attribute the book to someone else was made.

Interestingly, in trying to deflect authorship of the explosive document away from R. Eibeschutz, it was purported that Jacob Frank was the true author. This was clearly not possible as Frank, born in 1726, would have been just one year old at the time.

THE THEOLOGY OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN:

Like much Kabalistic literature, VaAvo haYom el haAyin calls G-d the Ein Sof, the Infinite or literally the One with no End. The work begins with a question: If G-d is Infinite, then why is He called the One with no End, and not the Ein Reshit or the One with no Beginning?

The answer is that it all depends on the perspective. From G-d’s perspective, He is conscious of beginnings. In the beginning, G-d created. From our perspective, we are conscious of endings.

We can only know G-d by working from the end or the bottom upwards.

This type of theology led the Sabbatians to indulge in sin and promiscuous activity as they wanted to know G-d from the ‘End’ in order to get closer to the ‘Beginning’. And because He is Ein Sof, there is no place devoid of G-d.  G-d, according to them (and other mystics), can be found even (or especially) in sin.

The author of VaAvo haYom el haAyin writes:

[E]verything that is prohibited in the lower worlds… is the force of unification and construction in the upper realms.^[15]

This is similar to the concept of ‘veNahfoch hu’ where the physical and spiritual realms are said to be inverted relative to each other.

For us, it seems as if the cosmos is the most important thing, but instead, VaAvo haYom el haAyin describes it as insignificant and as a G-ldy ‘waste product’ (to use a euphemism). I have seen similar descriptions even within the writings of later Chassidut.

But in VaAvo haYom el haAyin, G-d’s ‘physiology’ is depicted very graphically to the extent that it would be considered blasphemous. It takes the well-known concept of corporeality (that G-d has some form of body - a popular mystical concept that Rambam was opposed to) [see The Notion that G-d has a ‘Body’ - In Early and Modern Rabbinical writings] to the next unimaginable level.

Earlier works like the Shiur Komah, depict G-d as having sexual organs, and later mystical works like Lurianic Kabbalah describe dynamic relationships between various aspects of the Godhead. Although there is a large body of apologetic literature, both written and oral, that explains that these images are not to be taken literally, some depictions are so graphic that they transcend the boundaries of poetic licence or descriptive analogies. In VaAvo haYom el haAyin, the imagery has gone too far for a theological discussion to remain within respectable parameters.

Maciejko (2014:xxvi) describes how VaAvo haYom el haAyin depicts:

the various stages of creation as a series of sexual acts, but it argues that the exploration (in thought and deed) of various aspects of sexuality is in itself a redemptive act of mending the world (tikkun olam).

During the act of creation, VaAvo haYom el haAyin describes G-d losing consciousness (a state known as tardema) and it is the duty of the Jewish people, and humanity in general, to restore that G-dly consciousness, through the kabbalistic notion of tikkun (Maciejko 2014:xxix).

Maciejko (2014:xxxiv) writes that in VaAvo haYom el haAyin:

Eibeschütz draws upon the Lurianic teachings, yet he strips the myth of all of its pathos and grandeur…

[After the act of creation t]he Holy Ancient One…has removed himself from the lower worlds and folded into himself. The God of Israel…loses both his virile powers and any interest in his creations.

According to this, G-d is now in exile. Exile is a central theme of Lurianic Kabbalah and seized upon by Sabbatianism - and because G-d is in exile, He is alienated from His creation. The Messiah is the only being who can redeem and restore both G-d and creation.

I have only shared, in the broadest terms, a minuscule amount of the content and lewd imagery of VaAvo haYom el haAyin as I am unable to repeat or write further about such matters.

REACTION TO THE WORK:

Whoever read VaAvo haYom el haAyin, whether they were for it or against it, agreed that it was unlike anything they had ever seen before.

The Sabbatian kabbalists believed that VaAvo haYom el haAyin revealed deeper secrets than both the Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah. But the mainstream readers like R. Moshe Charif of Pressburg referred to it as “bizarre and appalling”[16] and R. Yakov Emden said it was  “obscene”[17].  R. Moshe Chagiz said that such vile ideas had not ever even come into the minds of the “ancient idolaters”[18]. R. Yechezkel Landau, also known as the Nodah beYehuda, wrote:

This book is that of a complete heretic, who does not merely deny a particular tenet of belief [kotsets be-neti’ot], but who uproots and destroys the very fundaments of Jewish faith… I did not find such heresy even among all the religions of the Gentiles that ever existed…and [it] denie[s] the providence of the Ein Sof.[19]

The work VaAvo haYom el haAyin shocked everyone one way or another. For some Sabbatians, it was a masterful mystical work that surpassed any previous Kabbalah, while for the opponents it was just vile, appalling and basely pornographic. It was felt that a line had been crossed, even for those who follow the mystical tradition.

As Maciejko puts it:

[I]t is blatantly pornographic..in fact, it is possibly the only truly pornographic text ever written in the rabbinic idiom.[20]

ANALYSIS:

Granted, VaAvo haYom el haAyin is an extreme example of an otherwise common mystical theology that was prevalent during the eighteenth century. While the content of the treatise is unimaginable, what strikes one even more so is the respected personalities who were involved and implicated in perpetuating such ideas.

It also shows that the common distinction made between ‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’ Kabbalah - where it is said that the former is dangerous while the latter is just theosophy at best, or theurgy at worst - is not entirely true. Theoretical Kabbalah is not always just inspirational and benign.

---

[1] Quoted in Yakov Emden, Petach Einayim, 8v . 

[2] Coitus interruptus in And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, by Pawel Maciejko (2014). There was a revised edition in 2016.

[3] Yakov Emden, Torat haKenaot, p. 74.

[4] Yakov Emden, Edut beYakov, fol. 66r ; see Me’ir Benayahu, Ha-Havurah ha-Kedoshah shel Rabbi Yehudah Hasid ve-Aliyata le-Erets Yisra’el, Sefunot 3-4 (1960), pp. 131- 179.

[5] [Prager] Gachalei Eish, Vol. I, fol. 67r.

[6] Yakov Emden, Beit Yehonatan haSofer, fol. 4v.

[7] Yakov Emden, Sefer Hitabbkut, fos. 1v-2r .

[8]Yakov Emden, Megillat Sefer, p. 89.

[9] [Prager] Gachalei Eish, fol. 121v .

[10] Zohar III, 125b.

[11] Yakov Emden, Torat haKena’ot, p. 121.

[12] Yakov Emden, Beit Yehonatan haSofer, 3r.

[13] See Moshe Aryeh Perlmuter, Rabbi Yehonatan Aybeshits, pp. 131-146, and Yehudah Liebes Sod ha-Emunah ha-Shabbeta’it, Jerusalem 1995, p. 344 n. 85.

[14] See R. Eibescutz’s Luhot Edut, Altona 1755, fos. 3r -4v.

[15] VaAvo haYom el haAyin, 5r.

[16] Yakov Emden, Megillat Sefer, p. 89.

[17] Yakov Emden, Torat haKena’ot, p. 85.

[18] [Prager] Gachalei Eish, Vol. I, fol. 60v.

[19] Yakov Emden, Petach Einayim, 8v . 

[20] See Yehudah Liebes, ‘Ketavim Hadashim beKabbalah ha-Shabbeta’it mi-Hugo shel Rabbi Yehonatan Eybeschits’ in: Sod haEmunah, pp. 103-237.

296) ROOT CAUSES OF THE SABBATIAN MOVEMENT:

 

INTRODUCTION:

The Sabbatian movement is the name given to the followers of the false messiah Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676). At the peak of the movement, around half or even more than half of the Jewish population at that time, including prominent rabbis, believed that Shabbatai Tzvi was the Messiah.

Historians have not reached consensus as to the influences which gave rise to the Sabbatian movement. While Scholem acknowledges the significance of the Khmelnytsky massacres which occurred between 1648 and 1657 - which left between one hundred thousand and five hundred thousand[1] Polish Jews dead (Dubnow 1916:1:156-157) - as a factor leading up to the Sabbatian movement, he takes the view that the causes are more nuanced.

Scholem (1973:1) writes:

The weightiest argument against overestimating the causative role of the massacres of 1648 follows from a consideration of the difference between the Sabbatian outbreak and previous messianic movements. This difference lies in the extension, in space and time, of Sabbatianism. All other messianic movements...were limited to a certain area....

Never before had there been a movement that swept the whole House of Israel.

Because, in Scholem's estimation, “the whole House of Israel”, was swept into the vortex of Sabbatianism, the reasons for its emergence had to be more fundamental and theologically underlying.

Scholem argues that if, as many posit, the massacres were the main cause Sabbatianism, the movement would have been localized to Poland. However, the movement did not even start in Poland but in Palestine - and, also, there were notably few Polish leaders of the Sabbatian movement.

It spread to wherever Jews were living which included Yemen, Morocco, Persia, Kurdistan, Holland and Poland. Scholem suggests that the Jews of Morocco would probably not even have been aware of the massacres.

Historically, with previous messianic claimants, the movements died out very soon after the claimant was shown to be false. In the case of Shabbatai Tzvi, however, the movement did not dissipate but persisted for generations. Its root causes, therefore, had to lie deeper.

One cannot claim that economic conditions were the cause, either, because Sabbatianism was equally embraced by the impoverished communities of Poland as well as the wealthier communities of Constantinople, Amsterdam and Hamburg.

Furthermore, the Jews of Persia, Yemen and Morocco were experiencing some manner of persecution, yet they did not resonate with Sabbatianism any more than the Jews who lived in relative freedom.

With other messianic movements, once the messiah was shown to be false, the people experienced great disappointment and crises of faith, some followers lingered for a while and then the movement wilted away. This was not the case with Sabbatianism as the movement continued to survive and even prosper.

One cannot say that the Sabbatian movement comprised of the rabble and poorer classes because as Scholem (1973:5) attests:

All the more surprising is the real proportion of believers and unbelievers within the ruling class. All later statements notwithstanding, the majority of the ruling class[2] was in the camp of the believers [in Shabbatai Tzvi][3], and the prominent and active part played by many of them is attested by all reliable documents....

The essential correctness of this picture is not impugned in the least by the ‘revised version’ of events that was put forward afterward by a kind of self-imposed censorship.”

The movement knew no social boundaries because there were millionaire patrons like Amsterdam based Abraham Pereira who offered all his wealth to Shabbatai Tzvi. There were also beggars from the poorest regions, who joined together in Sabbatian fellowship.

For all these reasons, the intriguing roots causes of this movement must, therefore, have been deeper than any other messianic movement before.

LURIANIC KABBALAH:

Scholem understands the deep-seated roots of the Sabbatian movement as originating in something far more theologically universal than any one particular historical event. That universal influence was Kabbalah - specifically Lurianic Kabbalah - as it originated during the sixteenth century, in the mystical town of Safed in northern Ottoman Syria, now Israel. The Sabbatian movement was to use and abuse Lurianic Kabbalah as a mainstay for their messianic enterprises.

Mystics and mystical teachings became so popular that the quiet town of Safed which started out with just twelve hundred inhabitants, became a bustling centre of Kabbalah with eighteen thousand Jews, by the end of the sixteenth century (Giller 2001:14).

In contrast to medieval Kabbalah which remained the domain of a select few, Lurianic Kabbalah soon to spread from Safed throughout the Diaspora. R. Yitzchak Luria Ashkenazi, known as the Lion or the Ari, passed away in 1572, just fifty-four years before Shabbatai Tzvi was born. Lurianic Kabbalah had already created a defacto earlier movement so “highly charged with messianic tension” that it found its outlet and “discharge” just decades later in the Sabbatian movement.

The writings of the Ari were first printed in 1630, just four years after Shabbatai Tzvi was born. Scholem (1973:24) reminds us that the masses considered Lurianism to be the “final and ultimate revelation of kabbalistic truth,“ and the distillation of the Zohar appropriate to that generation. Without this powerful and popular mystical foundation, the Sabbatian movement would never have been able to take root, develop and – importantly - continue to perpetuate itself after the demise of its leader.

Scholem (1973:22) writes that at the time of the genesis of the Sabbatian movement:

“...kabbalistic esotericism and messianic eschatology were intertwined and acted in combination.”

What the Ari did that was so appealing to that generation (Scholem 1973:26), was to perfect the concepts of exile and redemption and elevate them to cosmic and divine levels thus removing them from a narrow historical interpretation. Scholem put it succinctly: “Lurianic kabbalism hinges on the idea of redemption.”

Exile and redemption now existed even within the Godhead, within the fabric of creation and was no longer just a tenet of faith with a future utopian promise. Because the interconnectedness of exile and redemption was so primary to God and creation, it was a short step to translate that, with immediate effect, into historical reality on the ground.

 “In the popular mind, the history of the world was essentially the drama of God seeking to perfect His true image and ‘configuration’ and of man seeking to promote this aim by means of good work.”

Many of these Lurianic ideas were being perpetuated and popularised amongst the masses by preachers and moralists, and they would have emphasized the more dramatic, spectacular and immediate aspects and potential effects of this ideology.

Scholem maintains that trying to try to find a basis for these concepts within the Zohar, would be in vain as they are a uniquely Lurianic reworking of broader Zoharic ideas:

“There is something startlingly novel about this kabbalistic explanation which regarded exile not merely as a test of our faith or a punishment for our sins, but first and foremost as a mission. The purpose of this mission was to raise the scattered, holy sparks...”

These “holy sparks” are explained by R. Vital as follows:

“[Egypt, or exile, represented the Kelipot, or unclean husks which the holy sparks had to elevate. M]any sparks got entangled there and Israel too was enslaved there. Even the Shekhina [God’s Pressence] was exiled with it in order to raise the sparks that were there....For that reason Israel had been condemned to bondage among the seventy nations, so that it might extract the holy sparks that had fallen among them.”[4]

We must also remember, though, that even what we refer to as Lurianic Kabbalah is not a monolithic mystical literature. In other words, when we refer to Lurianic kabbalah which Lurianic Kabbalah are we referring to?

THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE ARIZAL:

1) On the one hand, R. Chaim Vital (1543-1620) claimed to be the foremost student of the Ari who, unfortunately for the theologian, never published any of his original teachings. R. Vital, similarly, did not allow his interpretations of his master’s teachings to be copied. When the teachings were finally published in printed form in 1630, a decade after R. Vital’s passing, they were no longer the original pure Lurianic teachings.

2) Another important student of the Ari was R. Yosef Ibn Tabul (c.1545-early seventeenth century) from North Africa, known as Yosef haMa’aravi or Yosef from the west. He also spent time in the Ari’s kabbalistic circle in Safed, and like R. Vital, he kept his written notes out of public circulation.

3) Additionally, R. Yisrael Sarug, from Egypt and Italy, also claimed to be a foremost student of the Ari, although according to Scholem (1939-40:214-241) he certainly was not. Unlike the former two students, R. Sarug, due to his “missionary zeal” did hold back on publicising his interpretations of the Ari. According to some accounts (Eldridge 2010:9-10), R. Yisrael Sarug obtained stolen copies R. Vital’s writings and between 1592 and 1598, published them in Italy.

4) Yet another student, R. Moshe Yonah, published his own manuscripts in Europe, under the title Kanfey Yonah (the Wings of the Dove).

5) Additionally, most of the writings of the Ari were edited by R. Natan Nata Shapira (1585-1633), the Chief Rabbi of Kracow who later settled in Palestine. Besides a kabbalist, he seems to have been a social activist in terms of criticising the wealthy (of the Diaspora) and championing the poor (of Jerusalem). He never took a salary during his tenure as Chief Rabbi. He wrote:’

[When the Messiah comes, the dead Jews of the Holy Land will arise and] fly in the air like eagles – all this in the sight of the returning exiles. When the returning exiles see that their [Palestinian] brethren have become a new creation and are flying in the air toward the lower Paradise where they will study the Law from the mouth of God, then their heart will fill with sorrow and dismay and they will complain to the messianic king, saying, “Are we not Jews like the others? And why have they become spiritual beings and we not?” Then the messiah will answer them, “It is known to all that God dispenses justice measure for measure. Those of the Diaspora who endeavored to come to Palestine to receive a pure soul, who spared neither money nor efforts and came by sea and by land and were not afraid of being drowned in the sea or captured by cruel masters [pirates]: because they were concerned primarily for their spirits and their souls and not for their bodies and money, therefore they were turned into spirits—measure for measure. You, however, who could have come to Palestine like them, but failed to come because of your cupidity, having made a principal concern of your wealth and your bodies, while considering your souls and spirits a lesser concern: you shall remain corporeal—measure for measure. As for the money that you coveted, behold God shall give you riches…. However they that were not concerned with their bodies and their possessions but only with their spirits, God shall make of them a new creation and lead them into Paradise.[5]

Perhaps the writings of the Ari were edited through this filter of ‘spiritual activism’ of R. Natan Nata Shapira, and this may have had some bearing on its widespread acceptance by the common masses. Scholem may have alluded to this when he wrote that R. Natan Nata Shapira edited most of the “so-called Lurianic writings”, indicating that we do not have the authentic Lurianic traditions.

R. Natan Nata Shapira’s student, R. Berachya Berach wrote:

I have seen a scandalous thing in the matter of kabbalistic studies …,

[T]here have appeared presumptuous men who abuse the crown [of heavenly wisdom], turning it into a spade with which to feed themselves. They write books on kabbalistic subjects, obtain permission to print them, and then hawk them around to “divide [that is, distribute] them in Jacob.” … They reveal hidden and secret things to great and small, and even mingle the inventions of their hearts with [authentic] kabbalistic teachings, until it becomes impossible to distinguish between the words of the kabbalist masters and their own additions….

But even if they contented themselves with merely copying faithfully the words of the kabbalist masters, their sin would be too great to bear, for they make public this wisdom and turn it into common talk....

I know that the rabbis of old kept aloof from this science because they feared it might have been adulterated by unqualified persons, as indeed we now see it has been….

May the sages of our generation forgive me if I say that they are responsible for this abuse, because they grant approbations and licenses for printing [these books], commending, justifying, and extolling them to heaven, whereby they make themselves like false witnesses on behalf of liars.[6]

In effect, there was a veritable battle for the soul of the Ari because all his students and editors brought different interpretations of their master’s Kabbalah and claimed to most accurately represent his teachings. By 1650, Lurianic Kabbalah had become a well-known and well-accepted composite and blend essentially of Vitalian and Sarugian Kabbalah (Scholem 1973:25).

In R. Vital’s autobiographical notes (known as the Book of Visions) from between 1610-12, he describes his teacher, the Ari, as a potential messiah and doesn’t exclude himself from such a role either. R. Vital also saw himself as a reincarnation of some earlier figures in Jewish history (Faierstein 1990:156) and he wrote of himself that ‘half the world exists through my merits” and that he was told by “a woman who was an expert in divining by dropping oil into water...[that] – you will undoubtedly rule over all of Israel in the future.” R. Vital records that the woman said that she “never saw anyone, in my practice of oil divination, on such a high level in this whole generation.” (Faierstein 1990:44).

The Lurianic doctrine was according to Scholem (1973:26) “more likely than any other to increase messianic tension among the people.” This doctrine was based on the assumption that the process of Tikkun, or restoration of the fallen sparks had almost been fully accomplished and achieved, and messianic redemption was at hand. Everything now was dependant on the holy mystic who alone knew how to effect the final rectifications.

Against this backdrop, Lurianic Kabbalah emerged as the mystical literature of “almost unchallenged supremacy” (Scholem 1973:25). Its widespread acceptance set the stage for the inevitable emergence of not just a ‘potential’ messianic figure, but the ‘real’ Messiah, in the form of Shabbatai Tzvi who, as Yehuda Liebes (1993:93) puts it, created:

“the largest, most important, and most sweeping messianic movement that arose in Jewish history.”

Significantly, and perhaps ironically, Scholem considers the Lurianic doctrine in general to have presuppositions that are “essentially gnostic.”

Mystical thinking changed dramatically from the traditional mystical experience to a focus on a cosmic “drawing down” of the messiah, particularly after the emergence of Lurianic Kabbalah. Consider the following text from the seventeenth century kabbalist Moshe Prager who wrote:

Since the year 335 [1575] the souls from the world of tiqqun shone forth, and the Emanator [God] granted him [Isaac Luria] permission to open the supernal sources and channels with the mysteries of Torah; and he [Luria] expressly told us that at the present time esoteric knowledge has become like that which was formerly exoteric knowledge. Although Luria’s disciples discretely concealed his teaching from the years 335–390 [1575–1630], which is the mystery of pure oil.…

The year 390 contains the mystery of drawing the pure oil down on the head of the kingdom of the House of David which is the perpetual union of Ze’ir Anpin with his consort, the mystery of redemption and freedom, the shining forth of the souls from the world of tiqqun according to the degree attained by these souls in the year 390, as is known to us [kabbalists]. From 390 onward we are in duty bound, every one of us, to achieve the tiqqun of our souls in their aspects of nefesh, ruaḥ, and neshamah, and to accomplish, together with our own tiqqun, that of the whole world … [and] to refine and purify the holy sparks by the study of the Zohar and the Tiqquney Zohar according to their Lurianic interpretation.

Scholem points out that Moshe Prager was no Sabbatian, yet clearly the world was seen to have pivoted spiritually since the Ari - and particularly from 1630 when Lurianic teachings were publicised, there was to be a renewed emphasis on redemption.

ANALYSIS:

We must draw attention to the fact that not all scholars agree with Scholem’s well-argued and convincing thesis that Lurianic Kabbalah was the great catalyst that prepared the way for an inevitable messianic outbreak. His former student, Moshe Idel, challenges Scholem on the assumption that Lurianic Kabalah was all that widespread because of the inherent difficulty in understanding its contents. He encourages scholars to seek out wider-ranging explanations for the rise of Sabbatianism (Idel, Fall 1993:79-104).

My analysis of this challenge that Lurinic Kabbalah was difficult and therefore not as widespread as Scholem suggests, is based on contemporary observation of much of modern Jewish mystical approaches. Today, popular groups such as, Chabad and Breslover Chassidism which are largely based on Lurianic Kabbalah, are easily teaching and understanding these concepts of spiritual exile and redemption. Not everyone might understand the intricate depths of the Kabbalah of the Ari,  but everyone is conscious of the basic structures and promises of modern messianism.

Furthermore, even before the popularisation of Lurianic Kabbalah in 1630, the printing presses of Cracow and Lublin were producing large amounts of general kabbalistic material and had been doing so since the sixteenth century. This shows a real demand for mystical teachings, so much so, that even as early as 1570 R. Moses Isserles, known as the Ramah, criticised the “ignorant crowd” for dabbling so enthusiastically in such matters:

Many of the unlettered crowd jump at kabbalistic studies, for they are a lust to the eyes, especially the teachings of the later masters who expounded their doctrines clearly and in detail. And especially now that kabbalistic books such as the Zohar, Recanati, and [Gikatila’s] Sha’arey Orah are available in print every reader can indulge in their study believing that he has penetrated their meaning; whereas in reality it is impossible to understand these things unless they are expounded orally by a master. Not only scholars try to study it, but even ordinary householders, who cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand and who walk in darkness unable to explain [even] a portion of the Pentateuch or a chapter of the same with Rashi’s commentary, rush to the study of kabbalah.… A single coin in a box causes a noisy rattle, and anyone who has merely sniffed a little [kabbalah] preens himself on it and discourses on it in public—but he will have to render account [at the day of judgment].[7]

A short while later R. Shmuel Edeles (1555-1631), known as the Maharsha, expressed a similar sentiment:

[I]t behooves us to protest against those who discourse on it [kabbalah] in public.[8]

If general Kabbalah was in such demand by the “ignorant crowd”, then after 1630 when Lurianic Kabbalah became available, it is most likely that it similarly enjoyed widespread and popular attention.

In 1660, R. Yakov ben Moshe Temerles, a kabbalist who had been actively teaching in Volhynia for many decades, wrote the following about the spread of Lurianic Kabbalah:

They [the kabbalistic mysteries] have spread to all sides, … they are known in the gates, … and the earth is full of knowledge. Verily, all, great and small, are knowledgeable in the mysteries of the Lord. This is my comfort in my affliction: to behold the great desire and longing of our contemporaries for this hidden wisdom, and all—people and priests, small and great—desire to be admitted to the mystery of the Lord and live by it. Surely this signifies that our salvation is soon to come.”[9]

THE KABBALISTIC WORK ‘GALI RAZAYA’ AS ANOTHER INFLUENCE ON SABBATIANISM:

Other mystical works may also have contributed theological influences that gave rise to Sabbatian eschatology. One such work was the Gali Razaya or Revealed Mysteries, attributed to the Moroccon born R. Avraham haLevi Beruchim who became an important part of the circle of Safed Kabbalists. It was he who introduced many of ascetic and devotional practices which became the hallmark of the mystical Safed circle (Scholem 1973:61).

The Gali Razaya became popular and was widely disseminated in written form as well as in oral teaching in the era just prior to the appearance of the Sabbatian movement.

It must be borne in mind, while reading the following text, that the Sabbatians were intentionally promiscuous as part of their theology was to sin in order to repent and thereby, they claimed, become more elevated.

The text deals with the ‘reason’ why so many biblical personalities had relationships with “strange women” who would normally have been considered out of bounds. These include the relationships such as Judah and Tamar, Josef and Potiphar’s wife, Joshua and Rahab, and Boaz and Ruth.

According to Gali Razaya:

Whenever God wants to raise a king or hero to wreak vengeance on the heathen, it is necessary that there be some kind of relationship or rapport between the gentile nations and the Jewish king, so that Scripture should be fulfilled [Isa. 49:17]: ‘Thy destroyers and they that make thee waste shall go forth from thee’..., for whoever is born in order to humble the foes of Israel must have some measure of communion with the ‘left side’.[10]

The ‘left side’ refers to the ‘feminine’ side (that ‘receives’ emanation from the ‘male’ side) of the Kabbalistic model of the cosmic Tree of Life, and it is the source of Kelipah:

All offspring of the ‘pure side’ have a part in the ‘impure side,’ through the females...[11]

Then we read an articulation of this mystical idea that leaves room for much (mis)interpretation:

Know for sure that the ‘other side’ has been permitted to contract marriages between some of its women and the heroes and saints of Israel. The souls of these women are descended from pious gentiles, and the pious gentile thereby acquire a share in the world to come because [in this way] they mingle with Israel. Therefore, whenever the ‘other side’ sends its impure forces to oppress Israel by destroying its religion, it is necessary that an Israelite king or hero, who has some contact with the ‘impure side’ through the daughter of a strange god [a gentile woman], step out against them.[12]

Scholem (1973:62) sums this up as follows:

More than a hundred years before the Sabbatian movement we find a philosophy of history based on a mystical psychology exhibiting striking similarities to some of the doctrines of later Sabbatians...

This theology is related to the doctrine known as “holy deceit” which is paralleled in Lurianic Kabbalah, and which the Sabbatians were very familiar with.

R. Vital wrote that:

[W]hen a soul is exceedingly great [holy], it is impossible to save it from qelippah[13] except by ruse and cunning....

Then R. Vital adds in a personal note:

In my case too, the evil powers did not mind the matter [of my soul coming into this world] because they thought that I was already lost, but God snatched me from them....

They thought it would be to their advantage [to use me for their purposes], but I became their enemy.[14]

Thus, sometimes the birth of a ‘great soul’ has to come about as a result of deceit or even a sinful union and a Tikkun or rectification is thereby allowed to occur.

This notion of ‘holy deceit’ was later to be seized upon by the Sabbatians and even used in the first instance, to bring about a state of redemption.

 

SOURCES:

Dubnow, S 1916. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, trans. Israel Friedlander, 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

Faierstein, MM 1990. Jewish Mystical Autobiographies: Book of Visions and Book of Secrets (Classics of Western Spirituality). New Jersey: Paulist Press.

Scholem, G 1973. Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676. Princeton University Press.

Idel, M Fall 1993. One from a Town, Two from a Clan: The Diffusion of Lurianic Kabbala and Sabbateanism: A Re-Examination. Jewish History 7;2, 79-104. Springer.

Liebes, Y 1993. Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (trans. A. Schwarz, S. Nakache and P. Peli). Albany NY: State University of New York Press.

Giller, P 2001. Reading the Zohar: the sacred text of the Kabbalah. New York: Oxford University Press.

---

[1] According to Eldridge (2010:5), about twenty percent of the Jewish population (90,000 out of 450,000) may have perished during the massacres.

[2] Scholem points out that the ruling class, includes “rich merchants, lay leaders, and rabbis.”

[3] Parenthesis mine.

[4] Chaim Vital, Sefer haLikuttim (Jerusalem 1913), fol. 89a.

 [5] Natan Nata Shapira, Tuv haAretz, fol. 37a.

[6] Introduction, Zera Berach, II (Amsterdam, 1662).

[7] Isserles, Torat haOlah, III, ch. 4.

[8] Edeles, Novellae to B. Ḥagigah 13a.

[9] This extract is from R. Yakov Temerles’ unpublished approbation for a Kabalistic prayer book, which his student, R. Chaim Buchner intended to publish. However, the approbation was eventually printed by Buchner in his introduction to his Or Chadash (Amsterdam, 1672–75).

[10] Gali Razaya, 1812, fol. 23a.

[11] Gali Razaya, 1812, fol. 6d.

[12] Gali Razaya, 1812, fol. 29.

[13] Kelipah or husks.

[14] Chaim Vital, Sha’ar haGilgulim, fol. 65a.