481) Religion and (or) Social Justice: A Jewish Perspective

Loius Rabinowitz (1906-1984): Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of Johannesburg and the Federation of Synagogues of Transvaal and the Orange Free State

 A conference presentation:

Abstract

This paper suggests possible approaches to religion and social justice and social cohesion. It adopts a dialectical rather than a didactical methodology and examines tensions between insular religion and social outreach towards the ‘other.’ This outreach would include the marginalised classes and different factions within one’s own religion, as well as the ‘other’ who is not of the same religion. Regarding outreach towards the 'other' of another religion, this writer makes two pragmatic assumptions: 1) all religions can act either as incubators for cross-cultural and inter-religious coexistence (without fear of assimilation), or as promotors of exclusionism; and 2) the theological seeds nurturing both these outcomes lie dormant inside every religion. At some stage, therefore, a choice has to be made either to reach 'in' or to reach 'out.' To illustrate the vast spectrum of theological choices available within Judaism, I have tried to locate two polar opposite data points. I searched for the most fundamentalist, extreme and exclusionist statement about the ‘other’ that I could find within Jewish teachings − and then contrasted that with the most radical inclusive teaching that I was able to locate. I intentionally searched for the two most daring, disturbing and extreme ends of the spectrum. What emerged was a sufficient range of surprisingly flexible material between those two extremes to allow either for a choice of religion exclusive of social justice or inclusive of social justice and outreach to the 'other.' I suggest that all religions have similar spectrums, and that recognition and acknowledgement of these spectrums - and the subsequent awareness by the different faith groups of the available legitimate theological choices within their religions - could assist in religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

A       Introduction

No discussion on Jews and social justice, or anything else for that matter, can ever be considered a conclusive conversation. Jews today broadly range from somewhere between ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Religious Zionists, Anti-Zionists, Chassidim, Mitnagdim, Sefaradim, Ashkenazim, Yemenites, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionists, Atheists and Jews who operate outside any of these designated structures. Even in the golden age of Talmudic Judaism, on just about every single issue, there was more focus on discussion and debate than on consensus. This makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to formulate the official ‘Jewish perspective’ on anything. Hence the subtitle of this article, ‘A’ Jewish Perspective. This article is written from the perspective of an Orthodox rabbi.

No discussion on Jews and social justice should omit the glaring reality that, as a noticeable rule, the further removed the group is from the right of the religious spectrum, the more it tends to be active in matters of social justice.

“There are a large number of non-religious Jewish organizations engaged in philanthropic, political and social action that have…taken stands on contemporary issues” (Biale 1989:70).

There are exceptions and things are changing and we see this, particularly in the allied field of first responders, for example, which has significantly drawn from the right of the religious spectrum. 

B       Rabbis and social justice

From a South African perspective, great strides were made under the previous Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris in the area of social justice as the country moved away from the period of apartheid. I had the privilege of working with him on many of his outreach projects and acted as his emissary on a number of occasions.

Cyril Harris wasn’t the first orthodox rabbi to do so. Going back to the 1950s Chief Rabbi Louis I. Rabinowitz had also been a great advocate of social justice. He wrote:

“The Jew, rendered fearful by the sense of insecurity, which comes from being a vulnerable minority in all countries, has been afraid boldly to proclaim that such and such an act is contrary to the ethical principles of his faith. The layman … rejects the implications of these [classical Jewish] teachings, and accuses the rabbi of indulging in ‘politics’ and/or expressing thoughts which may not be palatable to the government in power. I am sure that the reader will be wryly amused to hear that a member of my congregation wrote a letter to the Council asking them to forbid me from speaking on the native question, but to confine myself to Jewish ethics” (Louis Rabinowitz 1955:198).

The first rabbinic position I served in, around the 1990’s, was in a large community synagogue where I was quite vocal about social injustice. The board asked me to rather just speak about Pirkei Avot, a basic work on Jewish ethics. 

C       Forthrightness as a point of departure

It is easy to be an ambassador of any religion. Each religion has its store of salient and attractive gems of universalistic teachings that convey peace, tolerance and harmony. What we don’t hear about − until a deeper and concerted enquiry into the core classical texts is undertaken − are those primary sources that remain hidden within the pages of the old tomes which present a somewhat different or nuanced perspective towards the rest of humanity.

Judaism is no different. It has its share of statements concerning the ‘other’ that would shock most modern minds, including Jews themselves. Take the second-century sage of the Roman Judaea period, R. Shimon bar Yochai. If you google him, you will find an abundance of wonderful sayings associating him with joy and celebrating him with dancing and bonfires. But he was the same person who bluntly claimed that even the best of the non-Jews should be killed![1] Now, if one would stop at this point, it would paint a rather dangerous and negative picture of Judaism, limiting the scope (let alone possibility) of Jews engaging with Gentiles.

On the other hand, we find very different teachings emerging from Shmuel Yarchina’a,[2] the head of the Talmudic academy of Nehardea in Babylonia, and known for a softer approach to Halacha (Jewish law).[3] He certainly did not promote killing anyone, even allegorically. He taught that a Jew was not allowed to deceive anyone, be they Jew or Gentile,[4] and that  “Before the throne of the Creator, there is no difference between Jews and non-Jews.”[5]

Working with these two sample texts representing very different approaches to the ‘other,’ it is tempting to try and reconcile them. One could say that R. Shimon bar Yochai, living in Roman Judaea, who had witnessed the Romans torture and execute his teacher, R. Akiva, was filled with bitterness and resentment towards the Romans. So much so that he uttered his disturbing statement at a time of great anguish. This is in contrast to Shmuel Yarchina’a who lived in Babylonia where Jews had lived (and would continue to live for almost a thousand years) in peaceful coexistence with Babylonians who were not viewed as the enemy.

This study does not seek to reconcile such expressions but adopts a more forthright and less apologetic methodology. It certainly is possible to reconcile R. Shimon bar Yochai and Shmuel Yarchina’a, and considering the historical context, that may be an appropriate response. However, there are many other textual examples one might bring that express similar ethical contrasts where the historical contexts are identical. I, therefore, propose that the point of departure should be a forthright acknowledgement and admission that theological and religious texts, by their very nature and within the same religion, are often in tension with each other. Being cognisant of these tensions does not mean one is disloyal to one’s religion. Rather it is an indication that sufficient religious texts have been fairly consulted and that the student is subsequently in a greater position of strength and truth. 

D       Recognising a theological evolution of ideas

No matter how rooted a religious teaching may be in its classical texts, there is often evidence of an evolutionary process and some development of ideas. In Judaism, there are various rabbinic eras spanning the last two thousand years, including the periods of the Tannaim (10-210CE), Amoraim (210-500), Savoraim (500-650), Gaonim (650-1038), Rishonim (1038-1500) and Acharonim (1500-present). Each period was built upon the foundations laid out by the previous age, but the transmission was never static.

In the field of what today is referred to as social justice, we notice a distinct trend away from exclusiveness towards inclusiveness. This does not mean that the trend is reflected in practice by all the adherents, but at least it is visible in the textual strata developing over the different periods. There is no doubt, however, that the earlier texts often displayed a more open aversion towards the ‘other.’

“Much of the anti-gentile sentiment and legislation in rabbinic Judaism was influenced by the Bible’s aversion to idolatry” (Schwarz n.d.: 24).

The Torah tells of Abraham’s rejection of the idolatrous ways of his family and his culture, and idolatry is identified as a major concern during the biblical period. Later, during the Talmudic times (which comprised the Tannaic and Amoraic periods), biblical idolatry was equated to incest and murder and all three became cardinal sins for which Jews must lay down their lives if these three sins could not be avoided.

The problem with this equivalence was that all non-Jews (except Muslims) became associated with idolatry, no matter what their religion was. And because the injunction against idolatry was so severe, rabbinic teachings began to emerge equating the practice of idolatry to the denial of the entire Torah.[6] Some Jews, therefore, felt it incumbent upon themselves to treat non-Jews with less dignity. As a result, we find rulings permitting Jews to keep lost items of Gentiles without having to return them.[7]

“Yet by the middle ages, prominent rabbis issued decisive rulings to correct any impression given by earlier rulings that gentiles could be treated unfairly” (Schwarz nd.:24).

Around this time, R. Menachem Meiri (1249-1316), under the influence of the rationalist thinker R. Moses Maimonides (1138-1204), espouses probably the most radically liberal view on Christianity and Islam that is to be found in all of rabbinic literature.  He posits that the notion of idolatry has absolutely disappeared from society (barring what he refers to as some fringes or ‘extremities’ of civilisation). Idolatry, in his view, has essentially become extinct and replaced by more developed religions. 

“As such, long standing restrictions on commerce and social relations between Jews and gentiles were eliminated” (Schwarz n.d.:25).

This was a watershed moment for Jews and social justice but for some, it was too much and theories abounded that Jesuits had corrupted the Meiri texts to make them favourable towards Christianity. In any event, the Meiri texts somehow got ‘lost’ to history and some were allegedly only discovered a century or so ago. Because of the disappearance of the Meiri texts from the continuous line of the mainstream body of Jewish religious texts (known as the Mesorah), many rabbis were reluctant to rely on the ‘newly discovered’ texts especially since they contained such radically progressive ideas about other religions. R. Haym Soloveitchik, however, shows that many of R. Meiri’s ideas were indeed available and not ‘lost’:

“Rather, Meiri’s works had previously fallen stillborn from the press. Sensing its alien character, most scholars simply ignored them...” (Soloveitchik 1994:120-1).

Accordingly, many of R. Meiri’s writings had always existed but were ‘ignored’ because of their ‘alien character’![8] This illustrates just how difficult it sometimes is to integrate concepts of social justice into traditional religious systems, and how easy it is to ‘lose’ attempts at social change when they do emerge.

Historically, Jews had often been marginalised by the cultures and societies in which they found themselves, but by the 19th century, European Jews were (temporarily) treated more fairly. In Germany, R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, a leader of neo-Orthodoxy, taught that Jews needed to conduct themselves with exemplary social awareness. He taught that Jews treating non-Jews unjustly was worse than Jews treating Jews unjustly because the reputation of the entire nation was at stake (Schwarz n.d.:25).

We have seen that although some earlier Talmudic texts were rooted in the biblical notion of Gentiles being equated to idolaters, there was a subsequent evolution of theological thought by rabbis like Maimonides, Meiri, Hirsch and others towards social justice often in the face of persecution and pogroms.

“The differences between social justice in the Hebrew Bible and social justice in rabbinic literature are the result of innumerable changes that Judaism underwent in the intervening centuries (Novick 2019:546).

Nevertheless, many of these more socially aware rabbis were marginalised and said to not represent the essence of Judaic thought − but still, a process and evolution had begun. 

E       The two mandates of justice and holiness

Two paradoxical mandates appear to emerge from the Torah. Abraham is told to perform “justice and righteousness,”[9] while Moses is told that his people are to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[10] Justice has a wider social connotation while holiness relates to an internal religious structure. These two mandates have always been in tension with each other as it is difficult to strike a balance and create harmony between these ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ manifestations. Furthermore, “This paradox is common to virtually all religions” (Schwarz n.d.:18). Religions probably face their greatest challenge in how they acknowledge this paradox and deal with it to try to resolve these innate tensions. 

F       How much power and aid to give to the poor

Another difficult question that religion needs to grapple with is its relationship to the poor (let alone the question of which poor – ‘our’ poor or ‘their’ poor?). This poor class is also often considered an 'other.' How does religion accurately define a ‘poor’ class of people, and how does it suggest that we treat them without humiliating them?

One notices that the rabbinic view was certainly to encourage charity (tzedaka) but it had no programme to try to alleviate poverty:

“[T]he numerous measures for support of the poor in rabbinic literature, and the institution of charity in particular, reflect a conservative rather than a transformative impulse. That is, they aim to maintain the poor, not to eliminate poverty” (Novick 2019:543).

For this reason, we see that the biblical injunction requires a poor person to be given “enough [to meet] what he lacks.”[11] This is interpreted by the classical rabbis as not to remove poverty from poor individuals but simply to sustain them. On the other hand, individuals who had wealth but lost it are required to receive more lavish assistance according to the standards they were used to. This implies that the rabbis were more concerned with maintaining the boundaries of society rather than trying to perfect society:

“[N]o attempt was made to eliminate poverty as such or to share political power with the poor…law and tradition sought to control and limit the most glaring inequities of this reality, but they did not prescribe systemic transformations” (Biale 1989:68).

The same idea is expressed in the Babylonian Talmud which interprets the biblical verse “There shall be no needy among you”[12] − not to suggest a utopian ideal society where there is no longer poverty − but more pragmatically as a cautioning against giving away too much of one’s wealth to the poor, thereby rendering oneself poor in the process (Novick 2019:543). Thus, the classical rabbinic world sought to maintain a functioning and just society without attempting to create an ideal utopia by alleviating poverty. 

G       Rabbinic views on redistribution of wealth

Modern societies debate the question of whether to construct their contemporary systems of social welfare based on kind-hearted charity or legal justice. In other words, is welfare a right or a privilege? From a rabbinic perspective, there is no debate because the Hebrew word for charity (tzedakah) is by definition related to tzedek, which means justice.

“Assistance to the poor is not a discretionary matter; it is obligatory and falls in the realm of justice” (Biale 1989:68).

The Talmud teaches that:

“Even a poor person who is sustained from charity must also perform charity” (Babylonian Talmud, Gitin 7b).

Maimonides describes charity not so much as an act of kindness but as the repayment of a debt to society, almost as an obligatory Jewish tax. He may have been reflecting the view expressed in the Talmud which describes a poor man who insisted that he would only eat fattened fowl and aged wine. When he was challenged for his audacity and nerve for being a burden on the community, he simply responded "Do I eat what is theirs? I eat what is God's."[13] In a sense, charity (tzedaka) is a form of ‘voluntary’ (although it does carry a religious obligation), non-threatening and non-violent economic ‘redistribution’ of ‘universal’ wealth, without passing through the tendentious minefields of social politics:

“it is…a form of redistribution of the wealth that is originally God's” (Biale 1989:68).

Rabbinic charity may have been a form of redistribution of wealth but, as mentioned, it never proposed a plan to alleviate poverty entirely. It did, however, establish well-formulated and structured societal mechanisms to mediate poverty. While accepting that poverty may always remain part of the human condition, rabbinic Judaism taught that the highest form of charity was not a monetary donation but:

“a loan, or the forming of a partnership with the poor person for the transaction of some business enterprise, or assistance in obtaining some employment, so that the poor will not be forced to seek charity from his fellows." (Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Matanot Aniyin 10: 7).

Biale (1989:68) explains that for centuries, one of the “central activities” of Jewish communities was philanthropy. Anyone who had lived in a community for more than thirty days had to contribute to the community fund. Those who refused to contribute could have their property expropriated by the Jewish courts. The communal structures discouraged public begging and created what in essence was an official poor stratum of society by requiring the poor to register as recipients of communal funding. This way the poor were subtlety designated as an 'other' within the larger group. 

H     Full circle

Let us get back to the 'other' from another religion. We began this study with a radical Talmudic statement from the second-century R. Shimon bar Yochai that even the best of the non-Jews should be killed. We shall conclude with an equally radical statement, this time taken from the early and yet-to-be-censored versions of the mystical work known as the Zohar.

Yehuda Liebes’ research has drawn attention to a little-known statement that has been censored from the Zohar and only found in earlier manuscripts. It deals with the Torah’s unusual description of Moses’ burial (presumably by God) and his burial place, the location of which no one knows “until this day.”[14] Liebes (2016:613) points out that the text states that Moses was buried together with Jesus and Mohammad (שקבורת משה היא עים ישו ומוחמד).[15] However one understands this Zoharic conceptualisation, the fact remains that a text exists portraying the three leaders of the Abrahamic faiths being buried together which represents some form of inclusivity and coexistence. 

I       Conclusion

We have now come full circle. We have located the two radical texts at opposite and extreme ends of the spectrum. The first advocates the annihilation of the ‘other’ while the second describes the ‘others’ in a state of rest with each ‘other.’ We have thus identified the scope and range of the blank canvas we have, to choose either a theology of inclusivity or exclusivity. We are not compelled or restricted one way or the other.

This study has used the contemporary, politicised and loaded term ‘social justice,’ loosely, to describe all and any attempts at religious coexistence, without in any way calling for assimilation, or compromise of any religion’s core traditions, principles and values. It has used Judaism as an exemplar − but all religions have similar spectrums − and it argues that it is not the religion but the religious individual who must choose which of the existing seeds, within that vast and diverse theological spectrum, to sow and nurture.

This writer encourages other religious leaders to locate and make known similar spectrums found within their respective theologies, to emphasise that the choice is not limited to religion or social justice – it can include religion and social justice. Faithfulness to religion can sometimes demand faithlessness to humankind if that is what the faithful are seeking. It can also demand faithfulness to humanity. It depends on the choices made from within the spectrum. 

Bibliography

Biale, D., 1989, ‘Jewish Statements on Economic Justice’, A Cry For Justice: The Churches and Synagogues Speak. Edited by Robert McAfee Brown and Sydney Thomson Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 64-77.

Haym Soloveitchik, H., 1994, ‘Rapture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy’, Tradition 28, no. 4, 120-121, n. 54.

Liebes, Y., 2016, ‘Todato haAtzmit shel haGaon miVilna viyechiso el haShabtau [The Thought of the Vilna Gaon and his attitude towards Sabbatianism]’ (Hebrew), in Chalamish le Maayano Mayim, Kovetz Mechakrim, 603-622.

Marc Saperstein, M., 2015, ‘“Rabbis, Stay Out of Politics”: Social Justice Preaching and Its Opponents, 1848–2014’, Jewish Culture and History, vol. 16, no. 2, 127-141

Novick, T., 2019, ‘Social Justice in Rabbinic Judaism’, Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law.

Rabinowitz, L.I., 1955, Sparks from the Anvil: Sermons for Sabbaths, Holy Days, and Festivals, Bloch Publishing, New York, 198.

---

[1] Jerusalem Talmud, Kidushin 66b.

[2] Shmuel was called Yarchina’a because he was an expert astronomer and specialised in calculations of the new moon (yareach).

[3] Shmuel was known to be lenient in his interpretation of the Law for others but was stricter in his interpretation for himself (Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan 24a,26b). He permitted a fire to be kindled on the Sabbath for a woman in childbirth or for someone who was ill (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 79b). 

[4] Babylonian Talmud, Chulin 94a.

[5] Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 57a. 

[6] Sifre Deuteronomy 54.

[7] Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 38a. 

[8] Other scholars reiterate the notion that some Meiri texts always existed, but offer a different explanation for their obscurity. They suggest that the reason why they were not often published was simply ‘on account of their exceptional length’ (Virtual Judaica, Hiddushei ha-rav ha-Meiri).

[9] Genesis 18:19.

[10] Exodus 19:6.

[11] Deuteronomy 15:8.

[12] Deuteronomy 15:4.

[13] Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot 67b. 

[14] Deuteronomy 34:6

[15] According to Raya Mehemna:

דאתמר בי, (ישעיה נג ט) ויתן את רשעים קברו, בתר דקבורה דא בגין אבא ואימא, דאינון בגלותא עם ישראל, אתקיים בי קרא, ולא יטמא... דהא קודשא בריך הוא ושכינתיה בגלותא, דאיהי קבורה לון, ואנא קבור בינייהו

Compare this to Zohar III 126a (Raya Mehemna):

זוהר ח"ג קכו ע"א (רעיא מהימנא): דאתמר עלי (ישעיה נג ט) ויתן את רשעים קברו, ולא אשתמודען בי, ואני חשיב בעינייהו בין ערב רב רשיעייא, ככלב מת דסרח בינייהו

I thank Professor Liebes for sharing these sources with me.

480) What did the Kotzker Rebbe say?

 

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Yaakov Levinger[1] − examines the authenticity of many of the sayings popularly attributed to the Chassidic Rebbe, Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1869). 

Many sefarim (books) have been published, claiming to present anthologies of the teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe. I have collected these books over the years and always found them to be of immense interest. These include publications like Emet miKotzk Titzmach (The Truth Sprouts from Kotzk) and Emet veEmunah (Truth and Faith). With time, more and more books purporting to contain the teachings of the Kotzker Rebbe began to emerge and soon they appeared in the English language as well, most notably in the iconic works of R. Avraham Yehoshua Heschel who, growing up in Warsaw, actually knew older people who had travelled to the court of the Rebbe in the Polish town of Kotzk. 

479) R. Yitzchak of Warka and the rise of the Chassidic movement in Poland.

  

The Burial place of R. Yitzchak Kalisz in Warka, Poland.

Introduction

R. Yitzchak Kalisz of Warka (or Vorka) (1779-1848) was a friend of the Kotzker Rebbe. Unlike his friend, though, he rose quickly among the ranks of political activists and became the official representative, not just of Chassidim, but of all Polish Jewry in the early nineteenth century. 

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Marcin Wodzinski[1] − deals with how the Chassidic Rebbe, R. Yitzchak Warka (a student of R. Simcha Bunim of Przysucha) suddenly found himself regarded as the most influential Jewish representative in Poland. In those days, Jewish communal affairs and politics were known as ‘shtadlanut.’ From the mid-1830s, Polish ‘shtatlanut’ was dominated by R. Yitzchak Warka and his hometown, Warka, was regarded as the Chassidic capital of Poland. 

 

478) 'Fixing' broken Messiahs

The extreme messianic mysticism of the students of the Vilna Gaon (Part II)

 

Kitvei haGramam, recently published writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov

Introduction

This article is a continuation of the previous post and deals with the surprising and extreme messianic mysticism of the students of the Vilna Gaon. It is a technical excursus into the Kabbalah of the Mitnagdim and it shows their conceptualisations surrounding the possibility that the Vilna Gaon was the Messiah and part of his messianic mission was ‘fix’ the previous ‘broken’ Messiahs including the Christian Messsiah as well as Shabbatai Tzvi. It makes liberal use of coded gershaim (inverted commas) and germatria (numerical values) because, as the reader will soon see, these topics are sensitive if not audacious, especially as they were written in the aftermath of the false Messiah Shabbatai Tzvi. This Kabbalah resembles the writing style of another Lithuanian mystic, R. Heshil Tzoref.

477) The extreme messianic mysticism of the students of the Vilna Gaon

 

Kitvei haGramam, recently published writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov

Part 1

Introduction

This article follows on the previous two articles where:

1) Arie Morgenstern had claimed a strong messianic basis to the Vilna Gaon’s teachings.

 2) Immanuel Etkes counterclaimed, however, that “The Gaon of Vilna had no special messianic teaching, Kabbalistic or otherwise” (Foreword by David Biale in Etkes 2024:viii). 

3) We now turn to a third approach, that of Professor Yehuda Liebes, who, based on recently published source documentation, points out just how far the Vilna Gaon and his students’ mystical messianism actually extended. (This is Part 1, to be followed by Part 2, next week.)

 

Note: Sensitive readers may be uncomfortable with some of the unusual source references in the writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov to previous Messiahs in both Sabbatianism (the movement of Shabbatai Tzvi) and Christianity! These views form part of the messianic theology of the students of the Vilna Gaon that the “new Messiah” must effect a Tikun (spiritual rectification) for all the “previous Messiahs.”

 

A Sabbatian connection?

According to Liebes, there can be no question that the students of the Vilna Gaon were drawn towards Sabbatianism:

ידוע היה שתלמידי הגר״א בארץ ישראל החזיקו בכמה מנהגים שבתאיים

“It was known that the students of the Vilna Gaon [who settled] in the Land of Israel adopted a number of Sabbatian customs” (Liebes 2003:1).^[1]

For example, they nullified the recitation of the Kinot (dirges) in the Tikun Chatzot (Midnight petition);^[2] omitted a verse from Lecha Dodi;^[3] and relied on the controversial Sefer Chemdat Yamim which was suspected of being a Sabbatian work (Liebes 2003:1, Morgenstern 2006:131). [see Kotzk Blog: 118) 'CHEMDAT YAMIM' - THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL BOOK EVER?] While these may seem like insignificant omissions and practices, in the charged atmosphere of intensely religious, especially messianic environments, small acts and even single words, can take on tremendous significance. What seems now like obvious indications of Sabbatian affiliation, was missed by previous researchers who would never have entertained such suspicions when it came to the ostensibly straight-laced Mitnagdim and Perushim from Lithuania.

R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov writes with almost open references to Sabbatian ideology and is fully aware of the Sabbatian content of his teachings. Whether or not this was rooted directly in the Vilna Gaon is difficult to assess at this stage, although we do know that R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov was particularly close to the Vilna Gaon, especially in the latter’s last years. He was also responsible for collecting and publishing his teacher’s writings (Liebes 2003:2-3).

The writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov and his student R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver (Wildmann)

Liebes acknowledges that until recently, suggesting any affinity between the Mitnagdim and Sabbatians would have been preposterous. However, recent findings:

מחוגו של הגר״א...מגלים זיקה מפורשת אל השבתאות

“from the group of the Vilna Gaon, reveal an explicit connectivity with Sabbatianism” (Liebes 2003:2).

These recent findings include the publication of the two-volume set of כתבי הגרמ״מ ז״ל (Kitvei haGramam zal − Writings of the Gaon, Rabbi Menachem Mendel, zal)^[4] in 2001. The frontispiece refers to the “holy writings” of the “Godly Kabbalist” who was a “talmid muvhak (main student)” of the Vilna Gaon, and that the material in these volumes was gathered from his hitherto unpublished manuscripts. There still remain other unpublished writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov (Liebes 2003:3). In a manner that is surprisingly similar to the ‘revelation’ of R. Nachman of Breslov’s hitherto secret writings [see Kotzk Blog: 463) The discovery of R. Nachman’s Secret Scroll], the editors of the 2001 published work of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s autographic manuscripts, Kitvei haGramam zal – which were “wondrously revealed” and facilitated by R. Shmuel Aryeh Stern – claim that this too is a sign of the imminent redemption. Also, in a strikingly similar manner to R. Nachman of Breslov, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov warns his readers to uphold the secrecy of his teachings:

כמה דברים הוצרכתי להסתיר ולדבר בדרך רמז, כי אסור לגלות אפילו מפה לאוזן כו׳

“I have had to hide many things and speak [only] in hints, for it is forbidden to reveal [these teachings] even from mouth to ear [let alone to publish them]” (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov in Frumkin, Toledot Chachmei Yerushalayim, vol 3, 1929:160, footnote 2).^[5]

In another source but similar vein, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov writes:

אוי לי שצריך אני להיות הוליך רכיל ומגלה סוד...אבל ראיתי עני עמנו ב״י...עת לעשות כו׳

“Woe is me that I have to be deceitful and reveal secrets…but I see the [spiritual] poverty of our people, the House of Israel…[and] it is now time to act etc.”^[6] (Extract from a previously unpublished manuscript of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.2, 2001:90).^[7]

In another source but similar vein, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov writes:

אגלה סתרי פלאות...מחמת אשר ישוטטו רבים והלכו אחר שטותם...עד שמדיחין את האמת מפני השקר. לכן עת לעשות לה׳

“I will reveal awesome secrets…since many have stumbled and followed their foolishness…to the extent that they have pushed aside the truth in favour of the false. Therefore, it is now time to act for God…”^[8] (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Menachem Tzion, 1885:13a).^[9]

In this source, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov explains that the only reason he is prepared to “reveal awesome secrets” is for the sake of the evil ones who have stumbled. Liebes does not doubt that to “reveal awesome secrets” meant to reveal Sabbatian secrets.  One may have thought that these evil ones who stumbled refer to the Sabbatians, but Liebes (2003:4) maintains that it refers to the Chassidim. The idea that R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov intentionally draws from Sabbatian thought (Liebes 2003:5) and makes an enemy of Chassidism, sets a most unexpected tone in this Mitnagdic group’s ideology and its choice of which of the two ‘evils’ to back.^[10] This interpretation is based on other evidence of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s vitriol when it came to the Chassidim and his encouragement for people to break all ties with the Chassidim (Liebes 2003:5). 

Paradoxically, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov objected to the Chassidim making a god out of their leaders while he elevated his leader to the same level, only he kept it secret (Liebes n.d.:41). This is based on שמ[א] ח״ו הוא יאחז עצמו לצדיק זה או אחרים ח״ו יתלו אמונתם בו... which applies to the Chassidim, while the Mitnagdim  keep this a secret ...אז הוא בסוד קל שקי (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Derech haKodesh, 36-37).

R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s gravitation towards Sabbatianism may have been related to his interest in other earlier strands of mystical messianic Tikunim (spiritual rectifications). Based on new revelations in the recent publication of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s manuscripts, Liebes (2003:5) suggests that these included the Tikun developed by Shabbatai Tzvi and R. Natan of Gaza which even encompassed their conceptualisation of effecting a Tikun for Jesus (Scholem 1973:217, 272, especially 284-287, 296, 306). It seems that R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov was similarly determined to finally effect the ultimate Tikunim. R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov could do this because, in his conceptualisation of messianism, there was an “associative connection” and parallelism between Christianity and Sabbatianism that existed already from the early days of R. Natan of Gaza^[11] (Liebes n.d.:18-19). Liebes (n.d.:18, footnote 133) suggests that R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov saw a necessary progression of Messiahs from Jesus to Shabbatai Tzvi to the Vilna Gaon and then − after the Vilna Gaon’s passing − to R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov himself! (Liebes 2003:39).^[12]

       R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, based himself on the teachings of the Vilna Gaon who compared this world to the world of ‘Tohu’ (emptiness) (Gen 1:2) where freedom of choice allows for the world to either be fixed or destroyed by humans. This era of total freedom of choice would last until the end of the six thousand years in the Jewish calendar when freedom would be withdrawn and a new messianic epoch would begin where the choice of God would prevail. In the meanwhile, however, humans are in an extremely powerful position and are afforded complete independence to hasten or delay the arrival of the Messiah through their actions and choices. This theology of absolute freedom of choice has tremendous bearing on R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s notion of ‘fixing’ previous failed Messiahs because “even Messiahs can fail and delay the Redemption” (Liebes n.d.:43) due to bad choices. But these failures can be redeemed. Additionally, in the case of Shabbatai Tzvi, there was an almost universal and unprecedented yearning for the Messiah and that energy should not be allowed to dissipate in vain. The grassroots Sabbatian messianic awakening can be conceived as building blocks and potential for the future and true Messiah (Liebes n.d.:48). 

R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov often writes in Aramaic, seemingly to mimic the Zoharic style of Kabbalah:

עד שיבוא הגואל ופריק יתיה והאי פרוקא בני ליה כמלקדמין

“…until the Redeemer comes to redeem us, and this Messiah will be built up from the previous [Messiah/s]” (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.2, 2001:163-4).^[13]

In a similar sense, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov writes in a heavily coded phrase replete with gershaim (inverted commas):

וצניע״ו זר״ע קוד״ש גי׳ בראשית...ראשית התעוררות האהבה והקליטה

“[The phrase] ‘The holy seed is hidden’ has the same numerical value (913) as ‘Bereishit’ (‘In the beginning,’ Gen 1:1). [The Hebrew letters of ‘Bereishit’ are the same as ‘R. Shabbatai [Tzvi],’ בראשית = ר׳ שבתאי]…[who] initiated the [messianic movement and the] awakening of love and the ingathering [of the people]” (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.1, 2001:166).

Here it seems that Shabbatai Tzvi is being acknowledged and praised for creating a massive messianic “תעוררות, awakening” due to his being a “זר״ע קוד״ש, holy seed” or holy potential. This holy potential − which must be built upon yet remedied – should remain “צניע״ו, hidden or secret” knowledge. The value of this spiritual and messianic hunger that had been established within the population by Shabbatai Tzvi must not be underestimated.

Shabbatai Tzvi’s spiritual awakening was seen to be the fulfilment of the prophecy of Amos (8:11) who spoke of a “רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ, hunger in the land”) which was not for bread but rather to hear “the words of God.” R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov is particularly aware of the value and potential of this spiritual awakening and he alludes to it in his comment on Ruth (1:1) “וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ, and there was a hunger in the land.” He writes:

זהו ׳ויהי רעב בארץ׳...וס״ת צבי...ובהן כלל האמונה הנשארת בארץ...נשאר הרשימו...בסוד ׳רעב בארץ׳

“And this is the meaning of ‘And there was a hunger in the land’ [Ruth 1:1]…[where] the last letters [of this Hebrew verse make up the name] Tzvi. [The last letters of ויהי רעב בארץ make up the name צבי[...and this [hunger] represents the Emuna [faith] [Emuna has the same numerical value as Tzvi = 102] that [still] remains in the land…because [indeed] a residue [of this awakening still] remains…[And all this falls under the] secret [interpretation of] ‘hunger in the land.’ (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Menachem Tzion, 1987:2-3).

      In a very difficult, highly coded and perhaps slightly corrupted extract that is not easy to understand, we find two references to ‘Shabbatai’ (שבתא"י) and possibly also to Jacob Frank (מאדי"ם) in the writings of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov:

...סוד שבתא"י מאדי"ם. כי מבין סוד הנקוד"ה אמצעית, שהן סוד שכנו"ת, ויקרא ש"ם מן זה סוד חש"ך גי׳ שבתא"י מאדי"ם, ור"ת ש"ם

(R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.2, 2001:171).^[14]

This strange expression שבתא"י מאדי"ם  (Shabbatai Maadim?) is used elsewhere in R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s writings.^[15] I will not even attempt to translate this difficult extract save to say that מאדי"ם (Maadim or meiEdom?) seems to be related to Edom which often refers to Christianity. This may allude to Jacob Frank who converted to Christianity. The ‘new Messiah’ will ‘fix’ the ‘first Messiahs’ of Sabbatianism and Frankism – Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank, respectively (Liebes 2003:11).^[16]

The name Shabbatai occurs frequently in R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s writings. Shabbatai can either refer to the planet Saturn (Shabbatai) or Shabbatai Tzvi. According to Liebes (2003:12) and Idel (1997:179), common messianic references to the planet Saturn (Shabbatai) were obvious intimations for Shabbatai Tzvi. Thus, according to Liebes, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov also used the planet Shabbatai as a facade to hide his Sabbatian references. 

R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s main student and the most important Kabbalist in the school of the Vilna Gaon, was R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver (Wildmann). Following the typical coded writing styles of secret Sabbatians, he references tell-tale expressions like תתי״ד, which is the numerical value of Shabbatai Tzvi (400+400+10+4=814); אל תמירנו, which is an allusion to המרת דתו or the apostasy of Shabbatai Tzvi; and, צדיק באמונתו יחיה, where the first letters correspond to צבי, Tzvi (Liebes 2003:18).^[17]

Both R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov and his student R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver made frequent references to the controversial Nekuda − or ‘Pintele’ − and even interpreted it more pointedly than the Chassidim. R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov discusses two Messiahs. Shabbatai Tzvi is the first Messiah and he is associated with the first-century Talmudic rabbi turned heretic, Elisha ben Avuya, also known as Acher.^[18] The first Messiah, Acher, must be ‘fixed’ by the second Messiah corresponding to R. Akiva:

ר׳ עקיבא בסוד...ויצאה נשמתו באחד, שהוא תיקן מה שקלקל אח״ר...וזה שורש הנקודה של ד׳ של אחד...וזה הנקודה שורש של זה השער, צדיקים יבואו בו...כי התורה ממתקת הכל...תור״ה גי׳ סמא״ל לילי״ת...עו״ן ופש״ע וחטא״ה

“R. Akiva [corresponds] to the secret of…his soul departing [while he recited] Echad, [and he] restores what Acher had damaged…This is the root of the Nekuda of the Dalet of Echad…and this Nekuda [corresponds to] the root ‘This is the gate [to the Lord]…Tzadikim pass through it’ (Ps. 118:20)…[This method is effective] because the Torah sweetens everything…[The word] ‘Torah’ has the same numerical value [611] as ‘Samael Lilit’…[and also the same numerical value as] ‘[forgiving] iniquity, transgression, and sin’ (Ex. 34:7)” (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.2, 2001:116).^[19]

The Nekuda plays a very significant role in this teaching because it still relates to the first Messiah, Shabbatai Tzvi. This is reminiscent of Sabbatian Kabbala where:

היוד היא הנקודה ונשמת המשיח

“the Yud is the Nekuda and soul of the Messiah” (Liebes 2003:28).^[20]

This is because “the root of the Nekuda” is the “gate” through which “Tzadikim pass through” (צדיקים יבואו בו). The first three letters of the Hebrew phrase make up the word צבי, or “Tzvi.” Also, in the text are two references to a Nachash (snake), which was a symbol associated with Shabbatai Tzvi because it has the same numerical value (358) as Mashiach. The נחש הקדמוני (primordial snake) has to be countered by the other snake, the נחש הטהור from the side of holiness. But it goes deeper, because although the second Messiah ‘sweetens’ the first, Shabbatai Tzvi remains a necessary Nekuda and the ‘gateway’ in the unfolding of the messianic program (Liebes 2003:27,36). [See a similar approach of R. Nachman of Breslov who also attempted to repair Shabbatai Tzvi with his Tikun haKelali: Kotzk Blog: 402) Was R. Nachman’s Tikun haKelali a ‘fixing’ of Sabbatianism?]

R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver, refers to the Messiah who redeems Shabbatai Tzvi − in what appears to be the only known reference to this term − as נחשא דחיי (the snake of life). This may have been based on an interpretative reading of the biblical copper snake (Num. 21:9) which restored life (וָחָֽי) to those bitten by the snakes in the wilderness. He explains the function of the נחשא דחיי (the snake of life) is to rectify the first Messiah:

והוא נחשא דחיי, וע״י יתבערו אותם דאתיין מסטרא דנחש הקדמוני

“This is the ‘snake of life,’ and through him are removed those who come from the ‘earlier/primordial snake’” (Wildmann, Afikei Yam, vol. 1, 1994:37-8).^[21]

The question, of course, is who does R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver identify as the final Messiah who redeems Shabbatai Tzvi? In the same text by R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver, just a few words earlier, are two references to אליהו (Eliyahu or Elijah). While one reference certainly refers to אליהו, Elijah the Prophet, the other reference adds the coded gershaim (inverted commas), often used by Sabbatians, to make אליה״ו. Liebes comments about the context of this teaching:

קשה לקרוא דברים כאלה על אליהו בספרו של רי״א, בלא לקורשם לרבו הנערץ, ר׳ אליהו גאון מוולנה 

                         

“It is difficult to read these words about Eliyahu in the book by R. Yitzchak Isaac [Chaver], without connecting them to his admired rabbi, R. Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna” (Liebes 2003:37).^[22]

In the Vilna Gaon’s commentary on the Torah, the word הואי״ל appears, also with similarly coded gershaim (inverted commas). This word הואי״ל is taken from הוֹאִ֣יל מֹשֶׁ֔ה בֵּאֵ֛ר אֶת־הַתּוֹרָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את, “Moses undertook to expound this Torah” (Deut. 1:5). In the interpretation of the Vilna Gaon on the word הואיל in this verse, he says that at the end of days, Eliyahu will come back to earth as the ‘Moses of the last generation,’ and expound on the Torah in its deepest sense. The word הואיל (“undertook”) has the same letters as אליהו (Eliyahu).  The Vilna Gaon writes וסוד נעלם הוא, that this concept “is a hidden secret” (Vilna Gaon, Aderet Eliyahu, 1887:331). Eliyahu can either refer to Elijah the Prophet or to R. Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaon.

Identifying the Vilna Gaon as the Messiah would have resonated with R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov who refers to the new Messiah as a גר (stranger). In his view, the new Messiah is considered a ‘stranger’ or ‘outsider’ because he is allowed to delve into matters that no other Jews should engage with:

והגואל...נכנס בתוך התהום...והוא דוגמת נפש הגר ממש, שחוקר מה שאסור לחקור לישראל

“The Redeemer…enters into the abyss…and absolutely resembles the stranger, who investigates that which is forbidden to investigate” (R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.2, 2001:167).

The students of the Vilna Gaon promoted the idea that he was not just a great Torah scholar, but also an exceptional secular scholar. Although some of his students, like R. Chaim of Volozhin, tried to deny the Vilna Gaon’s engagement with secular wisdom and even misrepresented the evidence thereof,^[23] we know that that was not the case:

“[i]t is widely recognized that the Gra had a personal interest in general knowledge, especially the exact sciences; the evidence is abundant” (Shuchat 2023:6). 

R. Yisrael of Shklov corroborates this view with some detail:

“This is what he [the Gra] said: All knowledge is necessary for [understanding] our holy Torah… He knew them all thoroughly and mentioned them: algebra, trigonometry, geometry, and music which he praised greatly…He knew human anatomy and all things relevant to this…And regarding the wisdom of philosophy he said that he had studied it thoroughly” (R. Yisrael of Shklov, Pe’at haShulchan, 1836:5).^[24]

The Vilna Gaon’s grandson, R. Yaakov Moshe of Slonim together with his uncle, R. Yehudah Leib, the Gaon’s son, testified: 

“[The Vilna Gaon] explained the constellations…and their paths…three hundred and three new principles never seen before in the land of Judea. He researched and prepared a wondrous chart of fractions” (Biurei Zohar, 1810:Introduction).^[25] 

The depiction of the Vilna Gaon in such an extraordinary way for a Torah scholar is seen by Liebes as part of the messianic scheme. The Vilna Gaon was allowed to look into matters that no one else was allowed to because that is the function of the Messiah. In this sense, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov saw the Vilna Gaon (גר״א) as a stranger (גר) because only he could enter the secular realms and raise the sparks hidden therein (Liebes 2003:38). This way, the new Messiah would sweeten the teachings of the old Messiah:

המשיח החדש ממתק בחקירתו את...תורתו של משיח הראשון...ומסמל שם את הלבוש הנוכרי שלבש שבתי צבי אחרי המרתו

“The new Messiah, through his [secular=non-Jewish] research sweetens…the teachings of the first Messiah…and symbolises [and counters] the non-Jewish garment Shabbatai Tzvi adorned himself with when he apostatised” (Liebes 2003:11).

Raphael Shuchat also notices that R. Chaim of Volozhin – even though he tried to deny his teacher’s involvement in secular wisdom – nevertheless describes “the Gra in almost messianic tones” (Shuchat 2023:13).

However, Liebes suggests that from the perspective of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, the Messiah was not to be the Vilna Gaon, who had already passed away when he wrote this teaching. Instead, the ultimate Messiah was to be R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov himself!^[26]

He believed he was well qualified for this position because he expounded on the mysteries of the esoteric Torah even more than his late teacher. Perhaps he too felt that his teacher may have overstepped the boundaries with his involvement in secular wisdom.

Part 2 to follow next week.

Bibliography

Etkes, I., 2024, The Invention of a Tradition: The Messianic Zionism of the Gaon of Vilna, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Frumkin, A.L., 1928-1930, Toledot Chachmei Yerushalayim [History of the Sages of Jerusalem] (Hebrew), three volumes, Salomon Press, Jerusalem.

Liebes, Y., 2003, ‘Talmidei haGra, Shabtaut vehaNekuda haYehudid [The Students of the Vilna Gaon, Sabbatianism and the Jewish Essence]’ (Hebrew), in Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah, No. 5052, Bar Ilan University Press, 255-290 (1-41).

Liebes, Y., n.d., ‘Tzidkat haTzadik: Yachas haGaon miVilna veChugo kelapei haShabtaut [The Righteousness of the Tzadik: The relationship of the Vilna Gaon and his group towards Sabbatianism]’ (Hebrew), Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1-93.

Menachem Mendel of Shklov, 2001, Kitvei haGramam zal, Jerusalem.

Morgenstern, A., 2006, Hastening Redemption: Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel, translated by Joel A. Linsider, Oxford University Press, New York.

Michal, G., 2022, ‘Jewish messianism culminating in the rise and dissemination of Sabbatianism - an excursion into messianic Kabbalah and its theological enterprises,’ Master’s Thesis, University of Pretoria, Faculty of Theology and Religion.

Shuchat R., 2023, ‘Protecting the Image: Was Rav Hayyim of Volozhin's Portrayal of the Vilna Gaon an Altered Image’, Jewish History. 

Wildmann, Yitzchak Isaac Chaver, 1994, Afikei Yam, Machon Shaarei Ziv, Jerusalem.

---

[1] Translation and square brackets are mine.

[2] The Midnight Tikun or Tikun Chatzot, is a midnight lamentation remembering the destruction of the Temple. Some of these lamentations could now be omitted because the Perushim believed that the redemption had already begun and there was no longer a need to mourn the destruction.

[3] The hymn welcoming in the Sabbath. The omitted verse was ‘Hitnaari,’ calling on Zion to arise from the dust. The verse was omitted because the Perushim believed that the redemption had begun and Zion was no longer in the dust.

[4] The title of the book Kitvei haGramam zal is an acronym for Writings of the Gaon, Rabbi Menachem Mendel, zal (‘zal’ is an abbreviation for ‘zichrono liveracha’ – ‘may his memory be for a blessing.’ In this case, the student is also referred to by the honorific Gaon (Genius), like his teacher, the Vilna Gaon. Gaon was traditionally the title used for the heads of the Talmudic Academies in Babylonia between the sixth and eleventh centuries.

[5] Translation and square brackets are mine. Regarding this citation it must be noted that Aryeh Leib Frumkin recorded this passage by R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov (which originated in the latter’s introduction to his Shaar haTzimtzum) which came to Frumkin in manuscript form and Frumkin published it in his Toledot Chachmei Yerushalayim (Etkes 2024:29).

[6] A reference to Psalms 119:126, often interpreted in rabbinic literature as a call to act boldly in extenuating circumstances and to challenge the norms.

[7] Translation and square brackets are mine.

[8] Again, the same reference to Psalms 119:126 as in previous excerpt.

[9] Translation is mine. I could not locate this quotation in the copy of Menachem Tzion that I consulted. I rely on the reference in Liebes (2004:4, footnote 23).

[10] Liebes (2003:5) does, however, leave open the lesser possibility that the ‘evil ones,’ for whom the secrets now have to be revealed, are the Maskilim (members of the Enlightenment).

[11] This “associative connection” preceded the blatant and overt connection to Christianity under Jacob Frank (Liebes n.d.:19).

[12] See footnote 26.

[13] Translation and square brackets are mine. It is not always easy to decipher exactly which Messiahs are being referred to in these writings, but it certainly seems to fit the general post-Sabbatian style of mystical writings where Shabbatai Tzvi is considered the first, or immediate, Messiah that needs to be ‘fixed’ by the ‘final’ Messiah (Liebes 2003:7).

[14] In this extract מאדי"ם (Maadim?) seems to be related to Edom which often refers to Christianity. This may allude to Jacob Frank who converted to Christianity. The ‘new Messiah’ will ‘fix’ the ‘first Messiahs’ who are a combination of both Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank − Sabbatianism and Frankism (Liebes 2003:11).

[15] R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Kitvei haGramam zal, vol.1, 2001:229.

[16] The notion of a messianic duo is not unusual. See Michal (2022:47).

[17] See Wildmann, Yitzchak Isaac Chaver, Afikei Yam, Machon Shaarei Ziv, Jerusalem, 1994, vol. 1, 37-38.

[18] As mentioned earlier, R. Nachman expounded upon the miniscule difference between Echad (אחד) and Acher (אחר) being the Nekuda or “point of the letter Dalet (ד);” and the importance of turning the “Acher into Echad”. R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, a contemporary of R. Nachman, expands on this idea and Acher and Echad are no longer mere concepts, but become personified as Acher (Elisha ben Avuya) the first Messiah (Shabbatai Tzvi) – who must be redeemed by R. Akiva, the new Messiah. R. Akiva (a historical contemporary of Acher) represents Echad as he died with the word Echad, from the declaration of the Shema Yisrael (Deut. 6:4), on his lips. Thus, the homiletical tensions between Acher and Echad as depicted by R. Nachman, are played out more dramatically by R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, with his latter-day personifications of the Messiahs of Elisha ben Avuya and R. Akiva respectively. R. Akiva was also regarded as the most mystical of the four rabbis who entered the Pardes (b. Chagiga 14b) which may also be an allusion to R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov who was considered even more mystical than the Vilna Gaon (Liebes n.p.:41).

[19] Translation and square brackets are mine.

[20] Translation is mine.

[21] Translation is mine.

[22] Translation and square brackets are mine.

[23] “R. Hayyim consistently omitted all biographical facts relating to the Gaon’s knowledge of secular studies” (Shuchat 2023:5). 

[24] Translation by Shuchat (2023:7).

[25] Translation by Shuchat (2023:9).

[26] Liebes (2003:39), however, still remains open to the possibility that (at least at some stage), R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov may have considered his teacher to have been the Messiah. Liebes suggests that R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov’s activities were most likely intended to be the completion of the messianic activities of his teacher, השלמה לפעילותו המשיחית של רבו.