184) IBN EZRA’S ‘SECRET’ THAT IS ‘NOT FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE’:

INTRODUCTION:

[Leaving aside the views of some commentators concerning the authorship of the Book of Devarim - as per previous post - let us now turn our attention to R. Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164):]

In Ibn Ezra’s Torah commentary he sometimes referred to a ‘secret’ which he did not wish to elaborate upon.

However, R. Yosef ben Eliezer Bonfils (14^th century) wrote a commentary on Ibn Ezra, entitled Tzafnat Pa’aneach and in it, he elucidates at length on what Ibn Ezra only hinted at:

It turns out that Ibn Ezra believed that a number of Torah passages were not actually written by Moshe, but were added in by later prophets!

Rabbi Dr Zev Farber points out six instances where the Tzafnat Pa’aneach indicates that Ibn Ezra believed this to be the case.[1]

THE CANAANITES WERE THEN IN THE LAND:

In one example, the Torah verse states:

  

“Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, up to the Plain of Moreh and the Canaanites were then in the land.”[2] 
  

Ibn Ezra then comments on this verse:

“It would seem that the Canaanites took the land of Canaan from a different group [during the time of Avraham] [3], but if this [interpretation] is not correct, then there is a secret here, and the wise will remain silent.”

Tzafnat Pa’aneach then explains:

The word ‘then’ (from; The Canaanites were then in the land) implies that at the time of the writing of this verse the Canaanites were no longer in control of the land as they were when Avraham passed through it.

But we know that the Canaanites were still in control of the land until just after the time of Moshe’s death, so had Moshe written that verse there would have been no need to mention who controlled the land as obviously it would have been the Canaanites:

“It makes no sense for Moses to write “then,” for reason dictates that the word “then” could only have been written at a time when the Canaanites were not occupying the land, and we know that the Canaanites were not removed from the land until after Moses’ death during the conquest of Joshua.

According to this, Moses did not write that word here, rather Joshua or one of the later prophets wrote it...

It would not be appropriate to reveal this secret to average people, lest they make light of the Torah...

Additionally, because of the nations, who tell us, “your Torah was once the truth, but you replaced it and changed it,” for these reasons he says, “the wise will be silent,” for the wise know that this does no damage, only the fools would attack him (Ibn Ezra) for this.”

Amazingly - according to Tzafnat Pa’aneach - Ibn Ezra believed that there was some degree of latitude for extra words to be added to the Torah after the time of Moshe. This broke with the perceived rule that every word of the Torah had to have come directly from G-d!

And the ‘secret’ was that some extra words were inserted into the Torah by either Joshua or a later prophet!

THE TEMPLE MOUNT:

Here is another example:

After the Akeida (where Avraham thought he had to offer his son as a sacrifice) the Torah says:

“And Avraham called the name of that place ‘Adon-ai Yireh’ [Hashem will appear], which is today known as ‘on the mountain of Adon-ai Yeiraeh [Hashen has appeared].’”[4]

Ibn Ezra comments:

“The reason of ‘on the mountain of Adon-ai Yeiraeh’ is explained in Devarim.”

At the beginning of Devarim[5], Ibn Ezra explained that the ‘Mountain of Hashem’ refers to the Har haMoriah upon which the Temple was later to be built.

Tzafnat Pa’aneach then writes:

 “Now Moses never wrote in the Torah which mountain [the Temple would be built on], he only wrote, “the place which the Lord will choose” (Deut. 12:11). This implies that Moses did not know which mountain it would be, since [God] did not reveal its name until the days of David. So how could [Moses] say here that “on the Mount of the Lord there is vision”, which implies that Moses knew [that this was the mountain.]”[6]

He continues writing that in later generations, when people were acquainted with the Temple in Jerusalem, it was clear which mountain the Temple was situated upon. However, this was some time after the Torah was written and it was impossible for people to have known this during the time of Moshe.

“Therefore, Moses could not have written this verse. Instead, the later prophets wrote it, as I explained on the verse, “the Canaanites were then in the land” in Parashat Lech Lecha (Gen. 12:6). Look there and you will understand this.”[7]

‘THESE ARE THE WORDS’:

A third example:

The opening words of Devarim begin with: “These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan.”[8]

Ibn Ezra comments (paraphrase):

“... If you understand the secret of the twelve...as well as...“and the Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6), [and] “on the mountain of Adon-ai Yeiraeh” (Gen. 22:14)... – you will recognize the truth.”

Tzafnat Pa’aneach explains:

“Know that the secret of the twelve refers to the final twelve verses[9] of the Torah. There [ibn Ezra] says that in his estimation, Joshua wrote the end of the Torah...”

If you understand the ‘secrets’ behind these verses (i.e.: The secrets of the twelve, the secrets of the Canaanites and the secrets of Adon-ai Yeiraeh) - that they were not written by Moshe – then you will also understand that the first five verses of Devarim, were not written by Moshe either.

These five verses are written in the third person as if narrated by someone other than Moshe. Although other parts of the Torah are also written in the third person, here place names are appended, and:  “If Moses had written it, he would not have needed to offer any allusions, since all of Israel had been there and knew these places.”

MOSE 'WROTE' AND 'GAVE': 

Furthermore, the Tzafnat Pa’aneach continues to state that later on in Devarim it is written: “Moshe wrote down the Torah and gave it to the Cohanim.”[10] 

From the expressions “wrote” and “gave”, which are written in the past tense it “is a proof that this verse was written into the Torah only after the events. Thus Moses did not write it but rather one of the later prophets must have written it.”

ESTABLISHING THE PARAMETERS OF ‘ADDING TO THE TORAH’:

All in all, Ibn Ezra suggested six instances where verses or paragraphs were, in his view, added at some later stage to the Torah. Of course, the question then arises as to what about the injunction against adding any superfluous words, or interfering in any way, with the Torah?

Tzafnat Pa’aneach answers this question in the following manner:

“[Ibn Ezra] says that the rule about adding [extra words to the Torah] only refers to mitzvot, meaning, the Torah is only warning us not to add to the number of commandments and their overall structure, but this has nothing to do with [adding] words [to the Torah]. Therefore, if a prophet were to add a word or two to explain something known from tradition, this is not an ‘addition.’...

And if you argue: Our Rabbis in Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek(99a) said that even if a person were to say that the entire Torah is from heaven except for one verse which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not write but rather Moses wrote down his own words – regarding him scripture states (Numbers 15:31): ‘He has insulted the word of the Lord,’ – this can be responded to, for this only refers to the commandments, as we stated above. It does not apply to the narrative...”

Tzafnat Pa’anech continues in a similar vein:

 “Now if someone were to argue, “But did Rabbi Abraham [ibn Ezra] himself hint towards the beginning of Deuteronomy (1:2) that later prophets added phrases, even verses into the Torah?!” 

The answer: Adding a phrase or a verse to explain that which Moses said, or to add a clarification is not the same as adding an entire parasha. A phrase or a verse is an explanation, but an entire parasha is an addition.”[11]

REACTION TO IBN EZRA:

As one can imagine, not all the commentators were impressed with Ibn Ezra’s radical interpretations.

Ramban, for example, in his commentary on the Song of Songs, writes that anyone who claims that Ezra the Scribe (one of the last of the prophets) added verses to the Torah[12], is considered be to a heretic.

Even though, as R. Chaim Dov Chavel points out, that commentary was not actually written by Ramban but rather by the earlier Kabbalist, R. Ezra of Gerona - still, it indicates a typically hostile attitude to these interpretations put forward by Ibn Ezra.

In short, it would be fair to say that Ibn Ezra’s view - that some sections of Torah were added by later prophets - is very much a minority position.[13] Yet these views still made their way into a position of prominence by being printed in standard editions of Mikraot Gedolot alongside all the classical commentators!

ANALYSIS:

Perhaps what is most fascinating is that Ibn Ezra was reluctant to openly expound upon his thesis - and that only two hundred years later, for some reason the Tzafnat Pa’aneach was quite prepared to speak about such matters (although with the proviso that this was not for ‘average people’).

Furthermore, the expression ‘Sod’ or ‘Secrets of the Torah’ is generally a synonym for lofty, mystical and Kabbalistic concepts. However, here, Ibn Ezra uses it in its literal context. In other words, his hypothesis was really meant to be kept a secret.

Could it be that Ibn Ezra believed that there were, in fact, two truths: one for ‘average believers’ and another for ‘the wise’?

---

[1] Seven Torah Passages of Non-Mosaic Origin According to Ibn Ezra and R. Joseph Bonfils, by Rabbi Dr Zev Farber.

[2] Bereishit 12:6.

[3] Parenthesis mine. The way I understand Ibn Ezra is that there are two ways to look at this verse:

·     Either it was written by Moshe, who informs us that the Canaanites had conquered the land from a previous nation and at the time of Avraham, they were already clearly in control of the land. (See the various opinions of Rashi on this verse and also on Bamidbar 13:22.)

·     Or it was added later by Joshua (or another prophet) who was writing at a time when the Canaanites had already been expelled from the land during Joshua’s conquest,  after Moshe’s death - and referred to the time of Abraham when they still controlled the land (and which they continued to do as long as Moshe was alive). In other words, Moshe couldn’t have said that the Canaanites were ‘then’ (during Avraham’s time) in control of the land – as they continued to remain in control all the time that Moshe was alive.

[4] Bereishit 22:14.

[5] Devarim 1:2.

[6] Translation of Tzafnat Pa’aneach by R. Dr Faber.

[7] Translation of Tzafnat Pa’aneach by R. Dr Faber.

[8] Deuteronomy 1:1.

[9] According to Makkot 11a, it was the last eight verses which were written by Joshua.

[10] Devarim 31:9.

[11] Tzafnat Pa’aneach on Bereishit 36: 31

[12] As in Bereishit 13:6, Devarim 3:11.

[13] For more informative speculation on Ramban’s position, see Ramban on Ibn Ezra’s Heresy, by Gil Student, May 31 20018.

183) FASCINATING VIEWS CONCERENING THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEVARIM:

Or haChaim on Devarim

INTRODUCTION:

If like me, you were brought up believing that Moshe faithfully wrote down every single word of the Torah as dictated to him by G-d (except possibly for the last few verses which describe Moshe’s death - which were either written by Joshua, or by Moshe himself with a ‘spirit of prophecy’ so as to be able to write about his death) - then you may find it fascinating to see what some of our commentators have to say on this issue.

To be clear: This article is not an attempt to definitively state who wrote what and when they wrote it. Rather, the objective is simply to share some interesting - if not surprising - views expressed by some of the Meforshim (Torah commentators) on the authorship of the last book of the Torah, Devarim.

THE BOOK OF DEVARIM:

The Book of Deuteronomy, or Devarim, stands out as being very different from the other books of the Torah. In it, for the first time, Moshe is referred to as eved Hashem (servant of G-d)[1] and ish Elokim (man of G-d)[2]. 

The Jewish people are now referred to as Yeshurun[3].

The place previously known as Kadesh becomes Kadesh Barnea, and a different location is given for Aharon’s death. In Devarim it is Moserah[4], whereas in Bamidbar it is given as Hor haHar[5].

Even the recounting of some stories such as the incident of the spies, the giving of the Torah, and some mitzvot, appear to be dealt with differently in Devarim than in previous books.

Moshe now speaks for the first time in the first person: He says “G-d told me” as opposed to the previous expressions of “G-d spoke to Moshe”.

These and many other examples, allow secular Biblical critics to have a field day.

In this article, however, we will focus on what some Torah commentators (who chronologically preceded the relatively modern discipline of Biblical criticism) had to say on these matters, and we will see how they dealt with some really tough questions.

ABARBANEL:

R. Don Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) wrote his first commentary, not on Genesis, but rather on Devarim. He began writing this commentary while still living in Portugal before the Jews were expelled and he only completed it some twenty years later in Italy. In his introduction to his commentary on Devarim, he writes that this very question of authorship of the Book of Devarim was what motivated him to write his commentary in the first instance.

He was so bothered by this question that he wrote to the leading rabbis of his time for clarification.

He asked:

“My question is whether the Mishneh Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel, that is the book of Deuteronomy, was from G-d in Heaven, and whether Moses relayed the things in it from the mouth of the Almighty, as in the rest of the Pentateuch...all being equally the words of the Eternal G-d without change or substitution?

Or whether this book of Deuteronomy was said by Moses, composed by himself, as his own understanding of the Divine intention in explaining the commandments?”

Abarbanel apparently had great difficulty in accepting that Moshe could have written his own words in the Torah as that would compromise the Divine nature of the Torah.

However, he does ultimately admit that Moshe authored the section dealing with blessings and curses in Devarim:

“One could say that G-d ...did not command him the blessings and curses in detail...

The rest of the Torah, however, was said by Moses in the same words that he heard and received from the Almighty, nothing having been added or detracted... But this does not apply to the curses, for Moses edited [or arranged] these things."

TALMUD:

There is a Talmudic statement expressing the view that the curses found in Devarim[6] were from Moshe and not from G-d:

Abaye states that two different Torah Readers may split up the reading[7] of the curses in Devarim, because “these (curses in Deuteronomy) are stated in the singular, and Moses said them of his own (like the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. They are therefore less harsh and may be interrupted).[8]

The curses in Vayikra (Leviticus), however, are to be treated more stringently and may not be read by two different readers, as they were “stated in the plural, and Moses pronounced them from the mouth of the Almighty.”

Clearly, the simple meaning of this passage of Talmud is that Moshe wrote (at least) the curses section of Devarim by himself as opposed to “from the mouth of the Almighty”.

R. YITZCHAK CARO:

According to R. Yitzchak Caro[9] (1458-1535), who was the uncle and teacher of R. Yosef Caro, the Talmudic sages contradicted themselves: The Talmud in Sanhedrin[10] states “Anyone who says that this verse Moshe said himself, as if speaking for himself, has no share in the world to come.”

Yet, as can be seen from the Talmud in Megillah quoted above, the rebuke section (at least) was said by Moshe “of his own”.

To resolve the contradiction, he had to distinguish between the first four books of the Torah and the book of Devarim. The first four books, he says, were dictated - while the fifth book was said by Moshe himself and only afterwards did G-d command Moshe to write it all down!

R Yitzchak Caro, therefore, presents a curious compromise which allows for both Moshe’s innovation somehow coupled with Divine decree.

R. MEIR IBN GABBAI:

R. Meir Ibn Gabbai (1480- 1540)[11], similarly (but more mystically) suggests in his Avodat haKodesh that the entire Torah was written through Moshe’s prophecy and was later confirmed by G-d. This way everything contained within the Torah is ultimately of Divine origin.  

In his view, the sections which were to have been said by Moshe “of his own”, were not Moshe’s independent writings, but rather the result of a very high level of his unique ‘luminescent clairvoyance’. 

The other prophets were ‘called upon’ but Moshe was able to ‘initiate’ this divine prophecy ‘by himself’ - so while he may have indeed written certain sections, they were nevertheless considered to be on the level of the Divine. 

R. MOSHE BEN YOSEF Di TRANI:

R. Moshe ben Yosef di Trani (1505-1585), also known as Mabit, offers another approach to resolve the difficulty: He believes that the entire book of Devarim was from Moshe. However, that does not at all detract from its sanctity - as the defacement of any letter written anywhere in the Torah renders the entire Torah unfit for use. 

Thus, although authored by Moshe, it (paradoxically) is just as holy as the rest of the Torah which was in its entirety (including Devarim) was “in existence for two thousand years before creation.”[12] 

In this paradoxical view, Moshe wrote Devarim, but it was considered to be spiritually antiquated as if written before the creation. 

[This would be in keeping with the Medrashic notion that "G-d looked into the Torah and created the world." (Medrash Rabbah, Bereishit 1:1)]

R. CHAIM IBN ATTAR:

R. Chaim Ibn Attar (1696-1743), also known as the Or haChaim after his Torah commentary by that name, deals with the question of Devarim as follows: The entire Book of Devarim was written by Moshe, but that only serves to emphasise that all the other four books were completely from G-d, even if they sometimes appeared to contain human narratives.

This shows that while Devarim is holy, the other books are even more holy.

His argument is from the opening words to Devarim: “These are the words which Moshe spoke” – it was only these words of Devarim which Moshe spoke of his own accord which were to serve as an admonishment for the people, “but not even a single letter of all that is contained in the preceding four books of the Torah came from Moshe himself, for those are things which came from the mouth of the Almighty...without any change, even of a single letter.”

ZOHAR:

Amazingly, the Zohar states:

“What we refer to as the Mishneh Torah (Devarim), was said by Moshe himself.”[13]

RAMBAN:

According to R. Moshe ben Nachman (1194-1270)[14], the Book of Devarim must be divided into two distinct segments:

The first section, dealing with new laws that had not been given before, is to be regarded as having emanated entirely from G-d.

The other section which deals with rebuke and elucidation of previous commandments is to be regarded as emanating from Moshe’s own initiative.

ANALYSIS:

Reading the various views we have encountered, one notices how the commentators were grappling with the very difficult matter of reconciling the notion of Moshe having possibly written all or parts of the Book of Devarim, with the apparently counteracting dogma that the Torah was completely Divine.

Although each suggests something different, the common denominator was that they all accepted the initial premise - that all, or parts, of Devarim were authored by Moshe.

They all came up with different ways to reconcile the two opposing notions, some very mystical and others more pragmatic.

Either way, it shows the excruciating honesty of the Meforshim who openly acknowledged that the question of the authorship of Devarim was indeed a legitimate question – and one they weren’t afraid to ask.

An interesting question for further study would be how to reconcile the emergence of an extremely elevated status of  Moshe almost to the level of the Divine - as is evident from some of these sources -  with a system that is not supposed to deify its leaders.

R. Nataf  offers this interpretation: 

"The fact that a human book can be included in the Torah is a tribute not only to Moshe but to mankind more generally...

Hence, had Devarim been like the four books preceding it, it is hard to imagine that there would have been any more volumes of the Bible...other men may have been too afraid or intimidated to even endeavor to understand...the lofty...words of G-d.

Moshe shows us that G-d wants humans to be involved in Torah...

In the same way as the Torah was not complete without Moshe's book, the expansive corpus of Torah will not be complete without its last student's 'book'." [15]

SOURCES:

Who Wrote Deuteronomy, by Dr Shaul Regev.

Redeeming Relevance: In the Book of Deuteronomy, by Rabbi Francis Nataf.

---

[1] Devarim 34:5.

[2] Devarim 33:1.

[3] Devarim 23:15.

[4] Devarim 10:6.

[5] Bamidbar 20:22. (The reason for the name Hor hahar was that the mountain was shaped like an apple on top of another apple - i.e.; a mountain on top of another mountain. See Rashi:  Har al gabei har – ke’tapuach katan al gabei tapuach gadol.) Ramban offers a possible compromise as to the reason for the different place names.

[6] Devarim 28.

[7] Or, the same reader can pause and allow for another Aliya.

[8] Megillah 31b. Translation from Sefaria. This translation suggests that not only were the curses said by Moshe himself, without Divine intervention - but the entire Book of Devarim was likewise written independently by Moshe!

[9] In his Toledot Yitzchak commentary.

[10] Sanhedrin 99a.

[11] A Spanish Kabbalist who based his system predominantly on the Zohar.  His main work was Avodat haKodesh, on which he spent eight years developing his mystical system which is regarded as a forerunner to the Cordovera and Lurianic schools of Kabbalah. He also studied Rambam in great detail in order to better refute his rationalism.

[12] Beit Elokim, Sha’ar haYesodot, ch 33.

[13] Zohar, Parshat Va’etchanan 22, p. 261.

[14] See his commentary to Devarim 1:1.
[15] Redeeming Relevance, In the Book of Deuteronomy, by Rabbi Francis Nataf, p. 15.

182) RABBINIC FORAYS INTO THE MATRIX OF SABBATEAN KABBALAH:

'Eshel Avraham' by R. Avraham Rovigo and R. Mordechai Ashkenazi.

INTRODUCTION:

In this article, we will look at the surprising ease with which some mainstream rabbis of the 1700’s would delve in and out of known Sabbatean writings as if it were the most natural thing in the world.

Sabbateans were the followers of the false messiah Shabattai Tzvi, who, long after his death still continued to secretly follow his mystical teachings and infiltrate the Torah community. [See previous post.] 

Once again I draw from the fascinating and outstanding research of Rabbi Dr Maoz Kahana[1].

We will look particularly at the writings of R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen who was a typical mainstream rabbi - not a Sabbatean - who openly studied Sabbatean Kabbalah:

R. PINCHAS KATZENELLENBOGEN:

R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen (1691-1765) was a descendant of R. Meir, the Maharam of Padua (1482-1564). He served in many communities throughout Europe and eventually settled in Boskowitz in Moravia (Czech Republic) and was known as the Rav of Boskowitz.

Fortunately, we know much about him because he fastidiously kept about two thousand pages of notebooks and diaries, some of which are at the Bodleian Library at Oxford, on all matters Halachic, Talmudic, as well as personal encounters with mystics.

ASSOCIATION WITH R. AVRAHAM ROVIGO AND R. MORDECHAI ASHKENAZI:

‘ESHEL AVRAHAM’:

One of R. Katzenellenbogen’s notebooks, Yesh Manchilin[2], records his interaction with two mystics, R. Avraham Rovigo and R. Mordechai Ashkenazi in the early 1700’s:

R. Katzenellenbogen describes how he met: “A holy and pure man...his faith was in the hidden secrets of Torah, and all the pious (Hasidim) including their most learned and ascetic, would approach him in order to draw living waters from his well of kabbalistic wisdom...My father...also attended him.

...his name was the Sage, our Master, Avraham Rovigo.

His student who served him...Rabbi Mordechai from...Lwow...cleaved unto his master’s Torah and faith until he merited...that a [heavenly] Magid was revealed to him in the form of his perfectly wise rabbi, the same master, Rabbi Avraham Rovigo.”

[In other words, R. Mordechai Ashkenazi allegedly merited to be taught by a Maggid or angelic being which resembled his teacher R. Avraham Rovigo, apparently while his teacher was still alive!]

“He studied the wisdom of the Kabbalah with him, and revealed secrets to him until he [R. Mordechai] wrote a book...called Eshel Avraham[3] [so named after his teacher] Rabbi [Avraham Rovigo].

...since I know that...R. Mordechai was not learned enough to be versed in Talmud, he must have obtained the knowledge as a gift from heaven for serving the great man [R. Avraham Rovigo].

...for I have known him [R. Avraham Rovigo] from youth – his countenance is like an angel of G-d, and his appearance is majestic...and every Shabbat I would go to him to receive his blessing.”

The Eshel Avraham was "based on a new interpretation of the Zohar he [R. Moredchai] received from heaven."[4] R. Mordechai Ashkenazi claims that through the principles revealed in this book one can understand more of the Zohar in three months than others have been able to achieve in many years.

 Then R. Kahana drops a bombshell: 

“Abraham Rovigo and his student Mordecai Ashkenazi were not, however, merely ordinary kabbalists. The pair played an important role at the center of the dissemination of Sabbatean teachings in the early eighteenth century.”

R. AVRAHAM ROVIGO:

R. Avraham Rovigo (1650-1713), a wealthy collector and publisher of Kabbalistic manuscripts, claimed to be the recipient of revelations by otherworldly maggidim. He had studied under the renowned Kabbalist R. Moshe Zacuto in Venice, but broke away from him after Zacuto became an opponent of Shabbatai Tzvi. 

R. Avraham Rovigo's signature.

Rovigo chose instead to remain a supporter of Sabbateanism, known as one of the ma’aminim or believers.[5] In 1701 (or 02) he and his followers established a Kabbalistic Sabbatean yeshiva in Jerusalem.

UNABASHED SABBATEAN INFLUENCE:

Surprisingly, Rovigo and Ashkenazi’s combined work Eshel Avraham, has the enthusiastic approbations of very many great rabbis of the period even though both the author and his teacher were known Sabbateans:

R. KATZENELLENBOGEN’S PRAISE OF ‘ESHEL AVRAHAM’:

R. Katzenellenbogen, unashamedly and quite openly, acknowledges and praises the greatness of the authors and the book Eshel Avraham, and thus effectively declares himself as having being influenced by known followers of Sabbateanism!

Importantly though, R. Kahana goes on to make the point that despite this - R. Katzenellenbogen (who associated with avowed anti-Sabbateans like the Nodah biYehuda) was NOT a Sabbatean!

This amazingly shows how easy and common it was for some rabbis of that time to move in and out of Sabbatean teachings, even though they knew full well that Shabattai Tzvi had already been shown to be a false messiah decades earlier in 1666.

ALLUSIONS TO THE ‘FAITH OF SHABBATAI TZVI':

R. Kahana draws our attention to R. Katenellenbogen’s expressions in his aforementioned notebook, like “his faith was in the hidden secrets of Torah” and “R. Mordechai...cleaved unto his master’s Torah and faith”, which may indicate that R. Katzenellenbogen was aware that both Rovigo and Ashkenazi were adherents to an almost distinct ‘faith’– that of messianic Sabbateanism. Also, later in reference to another work, Or Yisrael, R. Katzenellenbogen refers similarly and clearly to ‘the faith of Sabbatai Zevi’.

Amazingly, R. Katzenellenbogen was still prepared to admire and continued to consult many of these Sabbatean mystical teachings.

‘TIKKUNEI TESHUVA’ BY NATHAN OF GAZA:

R. Katzenellenbogen, furthermore, also had a manuscript copy of a Kabbalistic composition of about fifteen pages, entitled Tikkunei Teshuva.[6]

This composition contains the following note:

“Tikunei Teshuva (penitential rectifications), sent from Gaza, instituted by our most dignified teacher, Rabbi Nathan the Prophet Ashkenazi.”[7]

This is a reference to R. Natan haAzati (Nathan of Gaza) who was the prophet and messianic endorser of Shabbattai Tzvi.

And R. Katzenellenbogen identified the copier of this clearly Sabbatean composition as none other than R. Avraham Rovigo!

R. Kahana writes:

“Just as the reference to Nathan of Gaza did not lead Katzenellenbogen to burn the Sabbatean manuscript, or even remove it from his house, so Rovigo’s affiliation with Sabbateanism, clearly established by the manuscript, failed to induce the author [Katzenellenbogen][8] to repudiate his youthful relationship with the latter.”

THE 'VERSE FOR THE NAME':

Additionally, R. Katzenellenbogen claimed (like R. Mordechai Ashkenazi) to have seen R. Avraham Rovigo in a dream where he was taught the Biblical verse which corresponded to his name. (This is a practice whereby a Biblical verse - which begins with the same letter as the first letter of one’s name and ends with the same letter of the last letter of the name – is recited, often at the end of the Amidah prayer.) 

And more than fifty years later, R. Katzenellenbogen wrote that he continued to recite it every day “since I merited from heaven that he (R. Rovigo) show it to me, and I heard it from that holy, pure mouth.”[9]

Again, the fact that R. Rovigo was a Sabbatean who taught Sabbatean practices, did not at all deter R. Katzenellenbogen in the slightest.

‘LEST ANYONE SUSPECT ME OF BEING ONE OF THEM’:

About two years later, in 1758, R. Katzenellenbogen added another comment, as if to cover himself from suspicions of Sabbateanism, in that selfsame manuscript:

“Now I have observed in this book that he [R. Avraham Rovigo][10] calls Nathan of Gaza a true and righteous prophet... the same man who prophesied falsely regarding Sabbatai Zevi...who caused a great stumbling-block.

Lest anyone suspect me, G-d forbid, of being one of them, far be it for [me].

However, we do not criticise...[R. Avraham Rovigo][11], that G-d fearing righteous man...for in those days, in the year 1666, most communities in Israel believed in those strange matters [that Sabbatai Zevi was the Messiah][12].

But their disgrace has since been revealed, and no more need be said.”[13]

The fact is that by the time R. Katzenellenbogen wrote this last note (in 1758), the Council of the Four Lands has already banned the possession of Sabbatean literature two years earlier (in 1756)[14] – so perhaps he felt it necessary to explain why he still possessed such writings.

THE OPENLY SABBATEAN ‘OR YISRAEL’:

'Or Yisrael' by. R. Yisrael Yaffe.

In R. Katzenellenbogen’s notebooks[15], he again wrote concerning another Sabbatean work, Or Yisrael, from which he had also studied from. It was authored by R. Yisrael Yaffe.

R. Yisrael Jaffe (1640-1702) had witnessed the suffering brought about by the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648. Thereafter, he dedicated his life to the study of Kabbalah in order to understand why G-d had permitted those terrible tribulations. He rebuked rabbis who did not study Kabbalah and composed his Or Yisrael to encourage the study of mysticism. He repeatedly made use of the word ‘Tzvi’ in his work. He claimed constant heavenly visions and visitations by Elijah the Prophet and spoke urgently about messianic redemption.

The Or Yisrael also came with very many respected rabbinic approbations:

Note R. Katzenellenbogen’s angst when he wrote about R. Yisrael Yaffe’s Or Yisrael:

 “When I was [serving as rabbi][16] in the community of Markbreit, a book entitled Or Yisra’el came into my possession. I realised that this man [the author, R. Yisrael Yaffe][17] was a great Kabbalist. I learned wonderful ideas from this book, which I studied literally every day.

However, when I came to realise from his words that he was a believer in the faith of Sabbetai Zevi[18]...I realised that it was a mitzvah to withdraw from the study of this book, so that I should not be drawn into error...

I said that just as I will receive reward for expounding it, so will I be rewarded for withdrawing from it.

Subsequently, however, I retracted and said to myself: why should I refrain from studying this book? It is entirely comprised of kabbalistic explanations, elucidations of the Zohar, and clarifications of the words of the Holy Ari...

All his teachings are insightful, becoming and in good taste. If he is in error of his belief, I will make sure not to follow his mistake, just as R. Meir learned Torah from ‘Aher’[19] by eating the pulp of his words and discarding the rind etc.

I did not want to hold back from the book any longer, but I was confused as to what to do; I would not read it on a regular basis as before, but only occasionally, etc.

[This remained the case] until one time, [a certain individual] appeared to me in a dream and greeted me with peace, and I answered him with peace.

I asked him who he was and he replied that he was Elijah the Prophet.

Among other things, he encouraged me to study the book Or Yisra’el, praising it highly.

I awoke perturbed by this dream and I said myself: who am I that Elijah the Prophet should reveal himself to me?

This dream must be a worthless message that the deceiving and destructive forces have sent to mislead me...

After this incident, which happened in about 5483 (1723), I withdrew my hand from that book, only reading it on the ninth of Av [!], or the occasional halacha which cannot lead one astray, and even this only once or twice a year.

Several years passed during which I did not so much as glance at it...

Nonetheless, this last summer [1756] I have occasionally returned to the book, for he was truly a great and cherished kabbalist, all of his words are in good taste, and composed with perceptive understanding.

And if he was in error - I said to myself – now that I have reached old age [G-d] will assist me and teach me the way of truth, and until the day of my death he will lead me in straight paths...”

This is a fascinatingly personal and honest account of R. Katzenellenbogen’s angst which he experienced over what R. Kahana calls ‘the allure of forbidden knowledge’. He squarely rejected Sabbateanism and he was not a Sabbatean but he had no issue with delving into Sabbatean mysticism wherever he could see its value.

ANALYSIS:

The Sabbatean movement was no mere footnote to Jewish history, although it is often portrayed as such. Its subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) influence can be seen in the Judaism that was to emerge during the 1700s and continues to exist within some trends of Judaism to this day.

R. Nachman of Breslov wrote: 

“For that Shabbatai Tzvi...led astray a number of the greatest men of the generation and outstanding scholars...they left the fold and spoke evil regarding the Oral law...but when a Tzadik sweetens their words, he transforms their sayings back into Torah.”[20]

This underscores what we have seen regarding many of the leading rabbis of the 1700’s. It appears as if forays into some forms of Sabbateanism may have been more common than imagined.

According to an account in Shivchei haBesht, Shabbatai Tzvi came in a dream to the Baal Shem Tov, to ask for a rectification. This rectification was to be done “soul with soul, spirit with spirit, and breath with breath...the Baal Shem Tov said that Shabbatai Tzvi had a spark of holiness in him.”

This again shows that the Chassidic movement felt that some Sabbatean elements were considered redeemable. 

But it wasn’t just the Chassidic movement, because even rabbis like Menachem Mendel of Shklov, the student of the Vilna Gaon may have been attracted to elements of Sabbateanism.[21]  And R. Kahana writes that Sabbateanism presented: “...an attraction common to Hasidim and Mitnagdim, Sephardim and Ashkenazim alike.”

Gershom Scholem writes that Sabbateanism didn’t just influence Judaism in its various forms, but even non-Jewish thought systems: 

“Sabbateanism is the matrix of every significant movement to have emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, from Hasidism, to Reform Judaism, to the earliest Masonic circles and revolutionary idealism.”

[Definition of 'matrix' - the set of conditions that provides a system in which something grows or develops.]

Sarena Di Nepi writes: 

“Sabbateanism has recently been the subject of renewed interest among social and religious historians. Attention has been focused on the vicissitudes of Sabbatai Zevi himself as well as on the movement that gathered around him in 1665 and 1666, and that would continue to express itself through activist missionizing and subterranean conventicles [secret religious meetings] in the decades and even centuries that followed.”[22]

With Sabbateanism exerting such widespread influence (arguably according to some, including aspects of Chassidism, modern Messianism, revival of popular Mysticism, Communism and even Zionism – let alone apparent inroads into the non-Jewish world, as many Sabbateans and Frankists converted to other faiths) – it should not come as a surprise that many in the rabbinical world continued to delve in and out of Sabbateanism as well. See R. Ya’akov Koppel Lifschitz and Sefer haTzoref and Chemdat Yamim and Shabbatai Tzvi.

Might one say that in terms of sheer numbers alone - with most Jews having initially been Sabbatean followers of Shabbatai Tzvi - the movement was probably larger and more successful than many of the other religious Jewish movements which were to rapidly follow on its heels!

That energy, as we have seen, did not just dissipate into thin air.

---

[1] The Allure of Forbidden knowledge: The Temptation of Sabbatean Literature for Mainstream Rabbis in the Frankist Movement, 1756 - 1761, by Maoz Kahana.

[2] ‘There are Those who Bequeath’, published in 1986 by R. Isaac Dov Feld.

[3] This was a commentary to selections of the Zohar, based in part on dreams.

[4] Kabbalah, by Gershom Scholem, p.275.

[5] See The Hebrew Goddess by Rafael Patai, p. 209.

[6] This short manuscript is contained within another larger manuscript of Shulchan Aruch haAri Zal. This was not a work of Halacha, as the name would suggest, but rather a compilation by the Ari Zal’s students of their teacher’s Kabbalistic customs, practices including the use of amulets.

[7] Hebrew Oxford manuscript, MS Mich. 36, 214a

[8] Parenthesis mine.

[9] P. 259a of the manuscript. This entry was made in 1756.

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Parenthesis mine.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] P. 259a of the manuscript.

[14] As well as other subsequent events such as the burning of Talmuds after the disastrous Kamenetz-Podolsk debate with the Frankists and their recognition by the authorities.

[15] Oxford manuscript MS Heb. E. 130

[16] Parenthesis mine.

[17] Parenthesis mine.

[18] This was apparent already from page four of the book.

[19] The Talmud records that the great R. Meir continued to study under the rebel sage turned heretic, Elisha ben Avuya who was referred to as ‘Acher’ the ‘Other’.

[20] Likkutei Moharan 1:207

[21] See Yehuda Liebes, The Vilna Gaon School. Sabbateanism and Das Pintale Yid. 

[22] CFP: Sabbateanism in Italy and its Mediterranean Context. International Conference. Roma, January 20-22, 2019