102) DID ST. PETER COMPOSE THE 'NISHMAT' PRAYER?

INTRODUCTION:

In this article we will look at the fascinating view that it was none other than St. Peter (!) who may have composed the beloved Nishmat kol chai prayer which is recited every Shabbat morning and every Pesach Seder night.

Some may find this an interesting study while others may take umbrage to it. The intention is simply to analyse the body of Torah literature both for and against this seemingly outrageous and incongruent notion.

CONTEXT:

The Nishmat prayer is considered to be one of the most beautiful liturgical compositions of the siddur[1]. [Nishmat and Yistabach are technically one long prayer. On weekdays it is abridged to just Yishtabach for purposes of brevity.][2]

There is much debate as to who wrote this prayer and to when it was written.

Some maintain the Nishmat prayer was instituted during the early Amoraic era (200 – 500 CE) because the earliest reference to it is by R. Yochanan bar Nafcha (180-279) who suggests that it should be recited during the Pesach Seder after Hallel.[3]

Unfortunately this reference does not provide us with a date of its origins nor with an indication as to who its author was.

An early to reference to Nishmat occurring within the Shabbat morning service is in Seder Rav Amram Gaon (810-875).

We do know that by the time of Rav Saadia Gaon (882-942) Nishmat had become a standard component of the liturgy.

Rambam (1135-1204) writes that the Sefardic practice was to include Nishmat in the Shabbat morning service ( - but this was not a unanimous Askenazic practice).

AUTHORSHIP:

Some suggest that a certain (unknown) individual by the name of Yitzchak with a wife named Rivka, authored the prayer as their two names are to be found in a very prominent acrostic within the prayer.

Others suggest the writer was a Shimon (ben Shetach?[4]) whose acrostic also appears within the prayer.[5]

Then there is the view of Rashi’s grandson Rabbenu Tam that the author of Nishmat may have been Shimon Kipah otherwise known as St. Peter!

VIEWS FOR:

ST. PETER’S JEWISH CONNECTION:

Who was this man who became known as St. Peter and what did he have to do with Judaism?

While Paul the Apostle was charged with Christian/Gentile relations, and James with leading the Jewish Christians, Peter (also known as the first Pope) was charged with being the apostle to the Jews.

The new Christians were faced with a theological question: Since Christianity had its roots in Judaism, did the new pagan converts to Christianity have to simultaneously convert to Judaism? And if they had to ‘convert’, how much Judaism did they have to observe?

Some believed they would have to fully convert to Judaism before they could be Christians, while others (like Paul) believed they did not have to be circumcised nor adhere to the dietary laws. Peter, on the other hand believed that certain Torah laws (including some of the Seven Noachide laws) would have to be observed.

THE OLD JEWISH LEGEND ABOUT ST. PETER:

There is a very old Jewish legend that was once very popular and widespread. It speaks about Peter as an observant Jew (hence the reason why even the New Testament records Peter as originally opposing Jesus[6]) who was subversively sent by the rabbis to infiltrate the early church.

It seems as if the rabbis were afraid that early Christianity resembled Judaism too much. This resemblance had the counter effect of making it more appealing for Jews to look towards Christianity as a viable alternative without being labelled as outcasts.

To remedy the situation, the rabbis devised a plan to send Shimon Kipah (Cephas) later to be known as St. Peter, to infiltrate the new movement. The plan was that he rise to an influential position in the church so that he could make some radical changes which would give Christianity an identity of its own, thereby severing many of its earlier similarities with Judaism. 

Shimon was successful in his mission and managed, among other innovations, to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and also instituted different holidays to the original Jewish ones.

Now with a distinctly different identity as a new religion, Jews would no longer regard Christianity as a theological option as it would have lost some of its ‘authenticity’. 

To maintain his secret connection with Judaism, Shimon/Peter composed the Nishmat prayer, the Etan Tehillah prayer we recite on the High Holidays as well as Ahava Rabbah.[7]

PETER’S YARTZEIT:

We know that Peter’s Yartzeit (anniversary of his death) is the 9^th of Tevet.

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch mention this date in their list of fast days but add that no reason is given for this particular fast.[8]

It is only in a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch that it states:

“I found in a manuscript that Shimon HaKalphus (Kipah) who saved Israel from distress at the time of the pritzim (violators of the Torah), died on the ninth of Teves, and the day of his death was established as a fast day in Jerusalem.”[9]

It’s interesting to note that it is only in an obscure reference in a commentary to an unnamed manuscript, that the story which appears to have been hidden away, is finally corroborated.

RABBEINU TAM (1100-1171):

This amazing story (or legend) of St. Peter infiltrating Christianity appears to have been supported by a piece of writing by the Tosafist Rabbeinu Tam[10]:

“(Peter) was a devout and learned Jew who dedicated his life to guiding gentiles along the proper path (by incorporating Noachide Laws into Christianity).”

Rabbeinu Tam similarly concurred that Peter authored the Nishmat prayer and it appears as if this view was widely held by many of the Rishonim.

Supporting this view, there is an overriding universal theme appealing to the oneness of humankind that pervades throughout this prayer. This includes passages that refer to ‘every living being’, ‘spirit of all flesh’, ‘every knee shall bend’ and ‘G-d of all creatures’.[11] 

THE YEMENITE SIDDUR:

There is also an old Yemenite prayer book that similarly purports that St. Peter was the author of the prayer. This source, dated at around the 1500’s, is a handwritten note in Yehiya Bashiri’s Baladi-Rite Siddur.[12]

A NEUTRAL VIEW:

R. YEHUDAH HaCHASID (1150-1217):

R. Yehudah HaChasid wrote in his Sefer Chassidim that:

“Shimon Kipah was a righteous man but the Christians…venerated him as one of their saints and gave him the surname Peter. Even though he was a righteous man, the Jews gave him the nickname ‘Peter’ as in ‘peter chamor’ (firstling donkey).”[13]

In this source, although not entirely complimentary, Peter is nevertheless referred to as a ‘righteous man’.

VIEWS AGAINST:

MACHZOR VITRY:

Not everyone agreed with this positive image of St Peter. Most strenuous among the objectors was R. Simcha of Vitry (d. 1105) a student of Rashi who wrote in his Machzor Vitry:[14]

“There are those who say concerning...Peter...that he established this prayer...along with other prayers...But G-d forbid, no such thing should occur in Israel. And anyone who says this thing, when the Temple is built, he shall bring a sin offering.”

Instead of Peter, the Machzor Vitry suggested that it was (another Shimon) Shimon ben Shetach (120-40 BCE) who compiled the Nishmat prayer. This would have predated the Christian era by a number of years.

SHADAL (1800-1865):

Another objector was R. Shmuel David Luzzatto, who wrote in his Introduction to the Italian-Rite Prayer Book that:

“...the remarks of Rabbeinu Tam are based on a false rumour that spread among the Jews in days of old, in the time of the troubles and devastations, with good intention to strengthen the faith of the masses, for they would hear that the first Apostle wrote the liturgical hymns in praise of the Jewish faith, and that his intention when he founded the new faith was only for the sake of Heaven and for the welfare of the Jews.”

According to Shadal, the story of Peter infiltrating the Church was nonsense and was just part of the imaginative psyche of a persecuted people trying to diminish the historical pain of their Christian tormentors.

ANALYSIS:

Whether factually accurate or not, we have established that there was indeed widespread acceptance of the notion that St. Peter had composed the Nishmat, Etan Tehillah and Ahavah Rabbah prayers. This appears to have been supported by Rabbeinu Tam and other Rishonim.

On the other hand this perception was vehemently challenged by Rashi, his student the Machzor Vitry and others who suggested the prayers may have predated the Common Era.

It is interesting to see that the brunt of the debate is played out between both Rashi’s grandson (Rabbeinu Tam) and his student (R. Simcha of Vitry).

In an attempt at reconciling the variant opinions, some suggest that there may have been two Shimons. One was Shimon ben Yona, the Apostle who was known as St. Peter who was viewed rather negatively by Rashi and the Machzor Vitry. The other was Shimon Kipah who was the righteous man who acted as the agent for the rabbis.

But that is just speculation.

In general the difficulty that confronts us is that;

“Since the names of the first paytanim (composers of liturgical poems) have been lost to memory, it has happened that the liturgical poems have been attributed to people who never thought to write them.”[15]

This means that we may never have any real resolution to our question as to who the mysterious author was who penned these prayers.

---

[1] According to R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi it is replete with very deep mystical references.

[2] See Essays on Pesach and the Haggadah by R. Joseph Dov Soloveitchick.

[3] Pesachim 118a. 

[4] Or Shimom ben Yona, or Shimon Kipah? (See later on in article).

[5] Sochen ad, Mi yidmeh, Ad hena, Veilu pinu, Nishmat (in reverse order).

[6] See Mark 8:31 and Matthew 16:13

[7] See Otzar HaMidrashim, Eisenstein, p. 557 for more details.

[8] Orach Chaim 580 : בו לא כתבו רבותינו על מה הוא

[9] See Baruch Ta’am ibid. R. Baruch Frankel-Teomim (1760-1828) was the father-in-law of the Sanzer Rebbe (The Divrei Chaim) and great grandson of the great kabbalist R. Noson Nota Shapira (The Megaleh Amukot). Many regarded him as a Gadol HaDor of his time.

[10] As quoted in Machzor Vitry.

[11] There is also a reference to; ‘You redeemed us from Egypt’, which may or may not have relevance to this point (as the redemption from Egypt is recognized by Christianity  - and additionally  - many early Christians were Jews). On the other hand, Ahavah Rabah has continuous references to the uniqueness of Israel and appears to be a rallying cry in solidarity with the specific mission on the Jewish nation without any hint of universalism. Could these two prayers represent the alleged two sides of his persona?

[12] See Microfilm # 1219 Ben Tzvi Institute.

[13] A play on Shemot 13:13. See Sefer Chasidim 191.

[14] R. Simcha appears to be stating the view of his teacher Rashi, with whom he concurs.

[15] Shadal, in his Introduction to the Italian Rite Prayer Book (Mavo le’Machzor Bnei Roma)

101) R. PINCHAS OF KORETZ WRITES THAT BRESLOVERS ARE 'NOT JEWISH' - MISPRINT, TAMPERING OR INTENTIONAL?

Midrash Pinchas by R. Pinchas of Koretz

BACKGROUND:

R. PINCHAS OF KORETZ AND HIS PARADIGM SHIFT:

Rabbi Pinchas of Koretz (1728-1790) was a talmid chaver (student and contemporary) of the Baal Shem Tov, and rose to become one of the leading lights of the new Chassidic movement.[1] 

R. Pinchas received a thorough Lithuanian style Torah education and wrote many Talmudic and Halachik novellae while still a young man. He was also interested in the writings of the Rishonim (medieval scholars and philosophers) and additionally mastered secular studies like engineering science and mathematics. This may have been because he was influenced by the Gaon of Vilna who placed great emphasis on secular education for Torah scholars (see here). Apparently a page of Euclides which was translated into Hebrew under the Vilna Gaons’s instruction, made its way to R. Pinchas and he studied it with the same diligence with which he applied to his Talmudic studies.

However, with time he eventually ‘grew tired’ of science and philosophy and was drawn to mysticism particularly the Zohar and became one of its greatest proponents ever (see here).

His father, R Avraham Abba Shapira was a staunch opponent of the Chassidic movement, but after fleeing from his hometown of Shklov he happened to meet the Baal Shem Tov. He changed his views and became a follower. 

His son Pinchas became one of the Baal Shem’s closest friends (although they may only have met on four occasions[2]). There is some debate as to whether R. Pinchas was indeed his best friend or his closest disciple[3]. The Baal Shem entrusted the education of his grandson R. Baruch of Mezhibuzh to R. Pinchas.

R. NACHMAN OF BRESLOV:

R. Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810) arguably created a movement that almost rivalled that of Chassidism’s founder, the Baal Shem Tov himself. This brought him into sharp focus by many of his contemporary rabbinic colleagues and caused him to be constantly surrounded by great controversy[4]. 

This controversy came from both Chassidic and Mitnagdik sources. Some Mitnagdim felt he was even more radical in his teachings than the Baal Shem himself - while some Chassidim saw him as a threat because he didn’t believe in the concept of dynastic rule which was already well entrenched within the general Chassidic movement.

In the early 1800’s R. Nachman moved to Zlatipol, a town in the Ukraine. This move was seen by some as a challenge to the authority of R. Aryeh Leib known as the Shpoler Zaide (1725-1812) who resided in Shpola, a mere two miles away and under whose jurisdiction the town of Zlatipol fell. 

Although the Shpoler Zaide, who was 75 years old at the time, had originally supported R. Nachman he now became one of his fiercest opponents. It seems as if R. Nachman chose the Shpole Zaide as a symbol of the mainstream Chassidic Rebbes he had set out to oppose.[5]

The Shpoler Zaide was a student of R. Pinchas of Koretz, and he now accused R. Nachman of deviating from the path of the Baal Shem Tov!

I would like to propose the following question:

Did the Shpoler Zaide draw from an alleged text (or even just from the tenor) of his teacher R. Pinchas of Koretz, to justify his negative opinion of Breslov?

THE TEXT:

About a century later in the early 1900’s, R. Meir Shapira[6] the head of the Bet Din of Lublin (who also happened to be a direct descendant of R. Pinchas of Koretz) once told about how in his youth he was drawn towards the teachings of R. Nachman. However, he records that his father had expressly forbidden him from reading any of R. Nachman’s books.

His father, on his own admission, based his opposition to R. Nachman upon something he had read in Midrash Pinchas, a work of (his ancestor) R. Pinchas of Koretz (loose translation follows)[7]: 

“(R. Pinchas of Koretz) rebuked his students, after he heard them speaking (positively) about R. Nachman of Breslov, because Breslov was not part of traditional Judaism!”[8]

However, R. Meir paid no heed to his father’s words (nor to the alleged proof text from his own ancestor) and defiantly continued to surreptitiously study R. Nachman’s teachings.

Once, his father caught him secretly studying R. Nachman writings by candlelight in his bedroom, and became very angry. This tension between honoring his father and needing to study R. Nachman, deeply affected the young man and tore at his soul.

Then, one day R. Meir met the illustrious R. Avraham Mordechai of Gur (1866-1948) author of Imrei Emet. R. Meir asked what he thought about the shocking comment against Breslov as recorded in Midrash Pinchas.

The Gerer (Gur) Rebbe responded:

“The words printed there (in Midrash Pinchas) are a huge mistake. For in the original hand written manuscript it reads that R. Pinchas would rebuke his students who (incorrectly) said that Breslov was not part of traditional Judaism!”

[The difference appears to me as to whether the original text said the R. Pinchas would rebuke those he heard speaking MEY- for-  or AL – against-  CHASSIDEI BRESLOV.] 

Thus, according to this reading of the text, R Pinchas was a supporter and not an opponent of the Breslov movement.

Now R. Meir must have felt justified in his secret studying of R. Nachman’s works against the wishes of his father!

He then went back to his father and asked him to check his original handwritten copy of Midrash Pinchas (which he happened to have in his possession probably as a family heirloom) and indeed it was in accordance with the version of Gerrer Rebbe!  (Although the printed and published versions ran with the contversial text.)

ANALYSIS:

Original grave site of R. Pinchas in Shepetovka, Ukraine.

The whole matter of the handwritten manuscript is rather confusing in the first place:

R. Pinchas refers to the term ‘Breslover Chassidim’ in his manuscript. The problem is that R. Pinchas of Koretz passed away when R. Nachman was only 19 years old.  At that stage R. Nachman did not yet have a following and he certainly wasn’t yet living in Breslov (where the followers were only later referred to as Breslover Chassidim).[9]

A probable answer is that the actual words quoted from Midrash Pinchas were not written by R. Pinchas himself but perhaps by his student R. Refael of Bershid who (writing some time later) took the liberty of referring to them as Chassidei Breslov! 

It’s also interesting to note that both the Shpoler Zaide and R. Baruch of Mezhibuzh had issues with R. Nachman, and both were (coincidentally?) taught by R. Pinchas of Koretz!

Either way, it turns out that there is a significant discrepancy between the apparent original handwritten manuscript and the subsequent printed versions.

The difference between the two spells the difference between the Midrash Pinchas -  a work of one of the most respected Chassidic leaders - either endorsing the early Breslov movement, or distancing itself from them in the strongest of terms by going so far as describing Breslovers as no longer being within the pale of Judaism itself!

The question is:

- Was it just a simple printer’s error?

- Or was this indicative of a more sinister agenda?

---

[1] His father was R. Avraham Abba who was a descendent of R. Natan Shapira, author of Megale Amukot.

[2] R. Pinchas is said to have visited the Besht twice and the latter visited him twice as well.

[3] The Baal Shem Tov is said to have had some followers who were more learned than him. Nonetheless he could still teach them more than they could have learned from books.  It appears as if R. Pinchas may have been one of these, hence the appellation talmid chaver.

[4] See introduction to Shivcho Shel Tzadik (second page); “...R. Nachman was birthed in conflict and defined by it”. This was something R. Baruch of Mezhibuzh already made reference to at his nephew’s brit milah. [‘Ki hamachloket hayeta hechrach hametziut’.]

[5] See Tormented Master, by Arthur Green, p. 100

[6] R. Meir Shapira (1887-1933), also known as the Lubliner Rav, is famous for his introduction of the Daf Yomi learning programme and also for his founding of Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin.

[7] As with many Chassidic books, although it is commonly assumed that they were authored by the Rebbes themselves, they were often written by their students instead.

[8] ‘Lo be’eleh chelek Yaakov.’ See Shivcho Shel Tzadik p. 69

[9] See footnote 8. Shivcho Shel Tzadik p. 69

100)THE 'SECRET MANUSCRIPT' FROM R. NACHMAN OF BRESLOV:

INTRODUCTION:

The Breslov Movement was originally very small in terms of numbers and followers. Rabbi Nachman (1772-1810)  never had more than a few hundred followers his lifetime. The movements was persecuted by both Chassidim and Mitnagdim and was at one stage was almost on the verge of ‘extinction’. However, over the past twenty years or so it grown so large and popular with many sub-sects and nuances that it has arguably become unrecognizable.

(I maintain strong personal connections with one of the core teachers of the mainstream Breslov community, but now sadly feel that the movement has been hijacked, distorted and has lost much of its truth and wholesomeness.)

Incidentally, the name Breslov is an adaption of the original name Bratzlav. The Chassidim preferred the name Breslov as it is a play on the Hebrew words Lev Basar (‘heart of flesh’ – as opposed to ‘heart of stone’) which will dominate during the messianic era. R. Nachman only arrived in the town in 1802, eight years before he passed away.[1]

MEGILAT SETARIM:

There is one startling chapter in the Breslov tradition which offers a fascinating narrative about a ‘secret scroll’.

This is the story:

Just over 200 years ago Rabbi Nachman  was riding in a carriage between Ladizin and Breslov with some of his closest disciples including R. Natan and R. Naftali.[2] During this trip, Rabbi Nachman spoke in great detail about his view concerning the advent of the Mashiach (or Messiah).

After the ride, none of those present could remember the details of the talk except for R. Naftali and R. Natan (his closest disciple) who wrote down what he had heard in coded form or ‘hints, acronyms and abbreviations’. This was because Rabbi Nachman told his travelers not to reveal the contents to anyone. Thus the text would be in existence but its content would not be decipherable except to those who knew how to crack the code.

Sometime later, in 1809, Rabbi Nachman repeated his messianic discourse and again it was recorded by R. Natan. The second talk took place in the study hall which was next to Rabbi Nachman’s house and it was so secretive that they waited for the Rav of the city to depart from the building before they began the discussion.

Both these recorded versions were put together in a single coded manuscript which became known as Megilat Setarim (or Secret Scroll).[3]

This scroll became a closely guarded secret and was handed down to only one Breslover follower in each generation.

In what may have been an attempt at distracting anyone from trying to find the secret scroll, an editor of R. Natan’s memoirs added in his own words that “the holy manuscript of Megilat Setarim was stolen or lost and we still do not know where it is.”

That should have put paid to the quest of ever discovering the manuscript. - But it didn’t.

According to a relatively recently published work on the oral traditions of Breslover Chassidut known as Siach Sarfei Kodesh[4], it appears as if the coded scroll was passed on to R. Aaron Lipvetzker[5], who in turn passed it on to R. Avraham Chazan.

Then, in what may or may not have been another attempt to throw people off the scent, the story took another twist:

While R. Chazan lay on his deathbed, the daughter of R. Lipvetzker, Tzirel, accosted and rebuked him (R. Chazan) for not transmitting the code and interpretation of the secret scroll to the next generation. But R. Chazan had already lost his faculty of speech and, while the coded scroll survived, he died taking the secrets of its interpretation to his grave.

Then amazingly, in 1963 the Megilat Setarim surfaced again when it was smuggled out from behind the Iron Curtain by R. Gedaliah Fleer.[6] The scroll was given to him R. Michel Dorfman, a leading Breslover personality living in Moscow at the time (who had spent almost 7 years in Siberia and was only released on Stalin’s death). He was afraid the manuscript would be confiscated by the Russian authorities so he asked R. Fleer to take it to Israel.[7]

Back in Jerusalem R. Fleer showed the manuscript to R. Lippel[8] (a student of R. Avraham Sternhartz[9], another major exponent of Breslov, who had escaped from the Soviet Union in 1940). R. Lippel claimed R. Sternhatz taught him how to break the code of the script while the two of them were still in the Ukraine.

At first R. Lippel refused to divulge the code to R. Fleer but eventually did, on the condition it remain a secret[10]. R. Fleer made copies of the text which he distributed to some members of the Breslover community in Israel but withheld the ‘code’ and interpretation as to its meaning.

Sometime later with the emergence of the popularity of the once tiny and close knit group of Breslovers, word leaked out of the existence of the elusive Megilat Setarim, and the secret was no longer a secret.

Researchers, such as Dr. Zvi Mark[11] from Bar-Ilan University have tied to crack the code and the following picture - which paints a young,  very gentle and universal Messiah - emerges:

The Messiah, according to text, would begin his work already as a young child. He would then marry while in his teens and assume a leadership role. Far from being a vengeful religious leader with a destructive apocalypse he would instead take lead the world without any violence whatsoever.

On the contrary, he would use music and healing of illness through innovative new medicines, to unite all humanity, Jew and non-Jew, in peace and goodwill.

There is also a reference to a ‘general redemption’ as well as a ‘personal redemption’ that will occur in messianic times. The latter is when Mashiach will reveal to every individual their personal spiritual status as well pointing out which spiritual aspects and traits need to be improved upon.

Allegedly, the exact date of the Messiah’s arrival is missing from the current text and it seems that was lost with the passing of R. Chazan.

-----------------------

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Rabbi Nachman had much to say, in his published writings, about the Messiah:

SHLOMO EFRAIM:

Apparently Rabbi Nachman believed the Messiah would come soon after the birth of his son, Shlomo Efraim. Accordingly, his son would play a part in, if not actually be, the Messiah himself. But when his young son passed away  one year and two months later, he said that Mashiach would be delayed by more than a hundred years.

“THERE IS ONE TZADIK”:

Although extremely controversial, subject to much interpretation and admitted censorship, the work describing the life of Rabbi Nachman, Chayey Moharan, contains the following passage:

“He (Rabbi Nachman) presented the teaching at the morning meal...he said there are seventy nations divided between the domains of Esau (Christianity) and Ishmael (Islam). Each of these domains is composed of 35 kingdoms, and they will be conquered in the future by the two messiahs Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David. 

And there is one tzadik in whom these two messiahs are combined.

He said several other things, more than have been printed.

At that point the table broke because so many people were pressing around him.”[12]

The inference being that whenever the expression ‘there is one tzadik’ was used, his disciples knew exactly to whom he was referring – possibly to himself as Mashiach ben Yosef – the precursor to Mashiach ben David.

THE STORY OF THE BREAD:

Not all of Rabbi Nachman’s famous stories have been published. One of them is the ‘Story of the Bread’, which describes among other things how Rabbi Nachman allegedly ‘received the Torah into his own body’. This material has also been recently published by one of the new populist Breslov groups that have emerged who believe that now is the time to ‘reveal all’.

OTHER REFERENCES TO ‘MEGILAT SETARIM’:

I counted 10 references to Megilat Setarim in Siach Sarfei Kodesh. Here are six of them (my loose translation follows):

“R. Natan said; ‘The (apocalyptic) war of Gog and Magog is not mentioned in Megilat Setarim. The implication being that the (battle will instead an ideological one) directed against the spirit of atheism that will be prevalent at that time.’”[13]

“In Megilat Setarim, R. Natan and R. Naftali reveal the order of the arrival of the Redeemer. It is known that our master (Rabbi Nachman) said; ‘In the future nothing will remain of the great Russia except for a small mound and a small tree’. “[14]

“...It is written in Megilat Setarim that during the lead up to the Messianic age there will be (world) leaders and kings who will not want to partake in warfare and will rather desire to dwell in quiet and tranquility...but they will be forced to do battle against their will.”[15]

“R. Lipvetzker once asked R. Naftali; ‘You heard Megilat Setarim from our master (Rabbi Nachman). What is its status now?’ R. Naftali responded firmly; ‘Have you not studied our master’s other books? We have a tradition from him that that when his books are widespread throughout the world then Mashiach will come.’ (R. Naftali was reluctant to reveal any more to his questioner, but) after some time he eventually handed the text (of Megilat Setarim) over to him.”[16]

“R. Hazan said; ‘Beware of the year TRZ”V, which have the same letters as tzarot (travail).’ –This turned out to be the year Nazis rose to power. It was also the year the Communists closed down the shul in Uman. The Chassidim understood that he knew all this from the Megilat Setarim.”[17]

“When the Radziner Rebbe published his book which dealt with the blue (tzitzit) thread, R. Chazan said he had no need for his arguments (in favor of the blue thread) because he had older (and more authoritative) proof, which appears to have come from Megilat Setarim.”[18]

---

[1] After accidentally spilling wine from Kiddush one Shabbat shortly after his arrival in the town, Rabbi Nachman said; ‘Today we have planted Bratzlaver chassidim!’

[2]This event took place on the 5^th of Av 1806.  

[3] This was a combination of Megilat Setarim haRishon and Megilat Setarim haSheni.

[4] This work was first published in the 1980’s. (Incidentally my Breslover teacher did not entirely trust the authenticity of the publication. He mentioned this to me when I was in the process of translating parts of Siach Sarfei Kodesh into English. I subsequently discovered that the compiler issued a prohibition against translating the book into any other language.)

[5] R. Natan did not pass the coded scroll on to anyone because he was outlived by R. Naftali. It was R. Naftali who passed it on to R. Lipvetzker. R. Lipvetzker was a considered a holy man who was apparently born as a result of a blessing his parents received from R Nachman. See Siach Sarfei Kodesh vol. 2, i-258, p. 82.

[6] R. Gedaliah Fleer was originally from Brooklyn, and was the first ‘westerner’ to visit Uman, the burial place of Rabbi Nachman in the Ukraine, after the Second World War. He also was one of the early writers to introduce Breslover teachings to the English speaking world. (I obtained a copy of one of his books about thirty years ago and it left a profound impression upon me at the time.)

[7] According to Arthur Green in his Tormented Master p. 20, note 5. (a book not much admired by those within Breslover circles): “A most important work...Megilat Setarim, which was long thought to have been destroyed, is quoted by N. Z. Koenig, Niweh Zaddikim . pp. 87ff., and apparently still exists.”

According to R. Gedalia Fleer, in his book Against all Odds, the manuscript he personally received from R. Michel Dorfman in Moscow was copied by R. Alter Tepliker directly from the original copy written by R. Natan himself. The actual copy was known as Megillat Setarim Katzar (abbreviated Megilat Setarim). See Against all Odds, p. 216 for a comprehensive reading of more details of the story.

[8] R. Lippel claimed the copy originally belonged to him when he was still living in the Soviet Union. He even said that he had bought it from R. Alter Tepliker’s son for 50 rubles. When he was about to leave the Iron Curtain he gave it to R. Avraham Sternhartz who then gave it to R. Michel Dorfman (who gave to R. Gedalia Fleer who brought it to Israel).

[9] D. 1955

[10] The cracking of the code also took place in the presence of R. Zvi Aryeh Rosenfeld (R. Gegalia Fleers’s teacher).

[11] See The Revealed and Hidden Writings of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, by Zvi Mark.

[12] Apparently an uncensored version of Chayey Moharan is in the possession of some within the Breslov community.

[13] S.S. K. vol 1, TRZ, p. 299

[14] S.S.K. vol. 3, KC, p 49

[15] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-KYG, p. 51 (The last sentence appears to contradict the peaceful tenor of our understanding that Megilat Setarim refers to a non-apocalyptic messianic age.)

[16] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-KPZ, p. 83

[17] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-TKYD, p. 192

[18] S.S.K. vol. 3, 3-TKNT, p. 201