203) AN ANCIENT CHANUKAH MEGILLAH?

Fragment of Scroll of Antiochus with translation by R. Saadia Gaon, as found in the Cairo Geniza.

INTRODUCTION:

While the public reading of the Megillah on Purim is well-known and widespread – there is another Megillah; the Megillah of Chanukah which is hardly known at all and relatively little attention is paid to it.

This scroll – not to be confused with the Book of the Maccabees[1] – is known as Megillat Antiochus[2] or Megillat Chanukah. It is a relatively short scroll consisting of only seventy-four verses.

It tells the story of the victory of the Maccabees or Chashmonaim, over the Seleucid Empire (a Hellenistic state which ruled between 312 BCE to 63 BCE[3]) - which took place during the second century BCE, and resulted in the establishment of a Hasmonean kingdom in Jerusalem.

THE FIGHT OR THE LIGHT:

One of the reasons why not much is known about Megillat Chanukah is that there was a concerted effort on behalf of the Babylonian Talmud to emphasize the miracle of the lights over the miracle of the military victory of the Maccabees. Although the Megillah does end with a very overt reference to the miracle of one day’s supply of oil burning for a full eight days - nevertheless it does speak more openly about the ‘fight’ rather than the ‘light’.

It references Yochanan, the High Priest, making “a sword with a double blade. It was two cubits long and one zeret wide. And he concealed it under his clothing.” And Nikanor, the Commander-in-Chief of King Antiochus, said to Yochanan: “You are one of the rebels who rebelled against the king and doesn’t want peace in the kingdom.” Yochanan then kills Nikanor with his concealed sword and puts up a pillar in Jerusalem which states: “Maccabee Memit Chazakim” or “The Maccabean has killed the powerful.”

According to the story, the Maccabees delayed the destruction of Jerusalem by 200 years.

These are very nuanced references in a greater debate concerning how the Chanukah story was later framed in Talmudic and post Talmudic times: - Was it the ‘fight’ or the ‘light’ that was essentially commemorated? [See here for more on this matter.]

According to R. Binyamin Lau, there was "a conscious attempt to suppress the record altogether. In this context, the claim is made that during the period of the Mishna's compilation, after the Bar Kokhba revolt, there was an attempt to pacify the Roman Empire by rewriting Jewish history. They were effectively saying: 'We are not a rebellious nation. We do not seek political freedom. We despise wars.' 

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi...the redactor of the Mishna, 'concealed' the rebellion in an effort to appease...

And so a new miracle story emerged, one which posed no threat to any empire, and which allowed us to remember and perpetuate the memory of Hanukka without any disturbance." [20]

THE TARNISHED MACCABEAN LEGACY:

Another reason why Megilllat Chanukah may have been neglected was because of the tarnished legacy of the Maccabees.

According to Moshe Gaster (1856-1939)[4]:

“The Makkabean princes, the descendants of Matitya, soon became unlike their great ancestor. They committed first the sin to assume the title of kings, and to sit on the throne which tradition and religious feeling kept for the descendants of David alone. The Hasmonaeans were priests, and had, as such, no right upon the royal position...`

To this the Makkabaeans added another sin, no less heinous in the eyes of the orthodox, strict observers of the law. In the strife of parties which arose soon afterwards, they side with the Sadducaeans, persecuted the Pharisaeans, the orthodox upholders of the law...

Considering that the Pharisaeans represented the popular party, and that the legal prescriptions, liturgical forms and ceremonies are mostly fixed by them, one part of the mystery is cleared up. The staunch upholders of the law would not canonise...or introduce the name and memory of the Makkabaeans, as they called themselves, in the history or in the liturgy of the nation.

That explains also to a certain extent why the allusions to the Makkabaeans are so scarce in the Talmud and Midrash. This literature is that of the Pharisaeans, and the Makkabaeans were their bitterest foes.”[5]

To back this up, the Babylonian Talmud speaks of Yochanan the High Priest who served for eighty years and then became a Sadducee.[6]

According to Alan Segal, the Maccabees were "...a group of 'reformers' within Israelite society. But it is hard to know whether Antiochus and the reform group's interests were 'religious' or merely 'political'. [19]

Megillat Antiochus - the Scroll of Chanukah

TEXTS:

Early texts of Megillat Chanukah still exist and are in both Hebrew and Aramaic, but it appears as if the original text was in Western Middle Aramaic. This suggests it was probably written in Eretz Yisrael as opposed to Babylonia. The style is very similar to that of Targum Onkelos. An original version is found in Baladi Yemenite siddurim dating back to the 1600s.

The first published version of the text was in 1557, in Mantua, Italy. It then appeared in a printed siddur from Salonica in 1568.

In 1868 the Megillat Chanukah was included in the Ashkenazi siddur, Avodat haShem, with the following ironic introduction:

“It should be known that this scroll, the Scroll of Antiochus, was also translated into German and published in Venice in 1548, and reached the hands of Rabbi Behr Frank of Pressburg, who knew nothing of its existence in Hebrew or in Aramaic.   He therefore saw fit to translate the German into the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) and bring it to press in 1806.”[7]

Thus the original Aramaic got translated into Hebrew, which later got translated into German, which again got translated back to Hebrew. It would be interesting to compare both of those Hebrew translations.

DATING OF THE TEXT:

According to some scholars, the original scroll is dated from around 100 to 400 CE. Sefaria suggests 100-700CE.

Either way, it is first mentioned in the 700s by Shimon Kiara[8] who, also known as the Bahag, in his Baal Halachot Gedolot.[9] He claims it was written by the elders of Beit Shammai and Hillel, which would place it around the first century. It is also suggested that this Megillah will only be elevated to its proper status and be read on Chanukah ‘when there is a Cohen with the Urim and Tumim’ (i.e. during the messianic era).

Another view is from Rav Saadia Gaon (882-942) who confirms it was first composed in Aramaic, under the title Ketav Beit Chashmonai. He then translated it into Arabic.

Rav Saadia wrote in his introduction that just as we read Megillat Ester on Purim: “I saw fit to append...the story of what occurred in the time of the Greeks, the Levites [the Hasmoneans were Levites[10]] being charged with rescuing the people from what had befallen them.” [11]

Rav Saadia believed that the original Aramaic scroll was written by the Maccabees themselves, and “that the Hasmonean sons Judah, Simeon, Johanan, Jonathan and Eliezer, sons of Mattathias, wrote a book about what they had experienced”.[12]

R. Yosef Kapach (1917-2000) the great Yemenite scholar, published Megillat Antiochus together with Rav Saadia Gaon’s Arabic translation. He based his publication on old manuscripts which he found in the Bodleian Library in Oxford.

Gaster points out that the Festival’s name, ‘Chanukah’ is not mentioned at all in the scroll “though the feast is known from very ancient times under that name...This ignorance of the official name goes a long way to prove the antiquity of the chronicle.”[13]

'UNHISTORICAL SOURCES':

According to Jewish Encyclopaedia, however, it is based on ‘unhistorical sources’, although it does acknowledge that it is a major source for dating the building of the Second Temple.
"At any rate, it may be asserted that the Megillat Antiochus was written at a time when even the vaguest recollection of the Maccabeans had disappeared."

Similarly, according to R. Benjamin Zvieli: “...there is still great doubt and the Scroll of Antiochus which we have today is still far from being considered an ancient scroll beyond doubt, attesting to the history of those great days.”

CUSTOMS AROUND THE READING OF MEGILLAT CHANUKAH:

Megillat Chanukah was read in Italian synagogues on Chanukah, just as Megillat Ester was read on Purim.

According to the Kaffa rite of Crimean Jews from around the 1700s, Megillat Antiochus was read during Mincha on the Shabbat of Chanukah.

The Baladi Yemenites also have a similar custom of reading the scroll on Chanukah.

Isaiah (Yitzchak?) di Trani also records the custom of reading this Megillah in synagogues on Chanukah.[14]

'THE VICTORY OF THE SPIRIT AND THE MIGHT': 

Even Chayyim Nahman Bialik comments on Megillat Chanukah:  

“...the Bible lacks one precious and most wonderful book. Why was that book condemned to oblivion? The book that tells the history of the greatest victory, the victory of the spirit and the might of the Jewish people – the Book of the Hasmoneans [he was not referring to the Book of Maccabees but to Megillat Chanukah][15].’

Interestingly, Bialik by carefully selecting the words 'spirit' and 'might' - seems to accept the legitimacy of both the 'light' and the 'fight' as equal components which ultimately determine the story of the Jewish people: 

................................................................................ 

APPENDIX:

SUMMARY OF THE TEXT OF MEGILLAT CHANUKAH:

King Antiochus, who has already conquered many countries, decides in the 23rd year of his reign to destroy the Jewish people, because it adheres to another law and other customs and secretly dreams of dominating the world.

He sends to Jerusalem his commander in chief Nicanor, who instigates a massacre there, sets up an idol in the Temple and defiles the entrance hall with pigs' blood.

On the pretext of being willing to submit to Antiochus' commands, *Jonathan [or Yochanan][16], a son of the high priest Mattathias, gains a secret audience with Nicanor, and kills him with a sword concealed under his robe; he then attacks Nicanor's army, which is now without a leader, and only a few of the soldiers succeed in escaping and returning by ship to Antiochus.

In commemoration of the victory, Jonathan has a pillar erected in the town, bearing the inscription "The Maccabean has killed strong men."

Antiochus then sends to Jerusalem a second commander, Bagris[17]; he metes out a terrible revenge upon the town and upon those Jews who have returned to the faith (here the scroll includes the story related in I Macc. 5:37–40 and II Macc. 6:16 of the devout people in the cave who were killed on the Sabbath because they would not fight to defend themselves).

Jonathan and his four brothers defeat Bagris, who escapes and returns to Antiochus. He is equipped with a new army and armored elephants and then makes an attack on Judea.

Judah Maccabee now appears in the story for the first time; and Jonathan, the third son of Mattathias, henceforth remains in the background. At the news of Bagris' approach, Judah proclaims a fast and calls for prayers in Mizpah (cf. I Macc. 3:46ff.); the army then goes into battle and wins several victories, though it pays for them with the death of its leader.

Now old Mattathias himself assumes command of the Jewish soldiers; the enemy is decisively defeated, and Bagris is taken prisoner and burned. When Antiochus is told the news, he boards a ship and tries to find refuge in some coastal town; but wherever he arrives he is greeted with the scornful cry: "See the runaway!" so that finally he becomes desperate and throws himself into the sea.

At this same time, the Jews are reconsecrating their Temple; while searching for pure oil for the lamp, they find a vessel bearing the seal of the high priest and dating back to the time of the prophet Samuel. By a miracle the oil, which is sufficient in quantity for only one day, burns in the lamp for a full eight days; and this is why Ḥanukkah, the festival commemorating the reconsecration of the Temple, is celebrated for eight days.[18]

TRANSLATIONS: 

For a full translation of the entire text see the TORAHLAB and the translation of Megillat Antiochus by R. David Sedley here.       For a version with Hebrew vowels and English translation, see Sefaria here.        

---

[1] The Book of the Maccabees, was part of the Apocrypha literature which was not formally accepted into the Biblical canon. It was originally written in Hebrew but only survived in Greek translation. It discusses the history of the Maccabees (175BCE to 134BCE).

[2] Also known as Megillat Antiochus, Megillat Yavanit, Megillat Chashmonaim, Megillat Chanukah, Megillat Matityahu, Ketav Benei Chashmonai, Sefer Beit Chashmonai.

[3] The Seleucid Empire became a major centre of  Hellenistic culture – it maintained the pre-eminence of  Greek customs where a Greek political elite dominated, mostly in the urban areas. See here with reference to cosmopolitan Machoza (Baghdad) and more rural Pumpedita (Fallujah).

[4] Moshe Gaster was a Romanian-born scholar who became the Chacham (Rabbi) of the Spanish community of London. He was a collector of, and an expert in, manuscripts, particularly Megillat Chanukah.

[5] Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists 1893, Moshe Gaster.

[6] Berachot 29a.

[7] See The Scroll of Antiochus, by Rabbi Benjamin Zvieli. (Bar Ilan University)

[8] Although he lived during the Gaonic Period, was never appointed as a Gaon, hence the title Gaon is absent from his name.

[9]According to R. Moshe miKotzi, a thirteenth-century French Tosafist, who wrote the Semag (SeferMitzvot Gadol), it was Yehudai Gaon who authored Halachot Gedolot, a key source for the Semag. If indeed it was Yehudai Gaon who wrote Halachot Gedolot, then it may be possible to infer that Megillat Chanukah was targeted as a Palestinian/Maccabean work which did not serve the Babylonian political agenda of Yehudai Gaon, the aggressive marketer of the Bavli (see link for more details). That may be why it relegates the scroll to only be read when there is a "Cohen and Urim and Tumim".

[10] I do not know why Rav Saadia refers to the Maccabees as Levites when they appear to have been Cohanim – including the Cohen Gadol.

[11] Ibid. The Scroll of Antiochus.

[12] Ibid. The Scroll of Antiochus.

[13] Ibid. Moshe Gaster.

[14] See his additions to Sukkot 44b.

[15] Parenthesis mine. See Zvieli who comes to this conclusion.

[16] Parenthesis mine.

[17] Bagris only appears in the scroll of Antiochus and not in any other literature on this subject. (Sedley).

[18] Jewish Virtual Library.
[19]Rebbecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World, by Alan F. Segal, p.30.
[20] The Sages - Character, Context and Creativity, Volume 1, Maggid Books 2007, p. 166.

498) Did the Babylonian Talmud create the authoritative rabbi and the passive Jew?

 

Coins from the Bar Kochba era

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach[1] − explores the emergence of the rabbinic class after the failed Jewish revolts against the Romans during the first two centuries CE. Up to that point, the rabbis did not feature in leadership positions. On assuming power immediately after the failed military campaigns and revolts, the rabbis (and the Babylonian rabbis particularly) began to intensely promote passivity as the hallmark of the Torah Jew. Too many Jews had been killed during the wars and the rabbis saw passivity as the only way forward for Jewish survival into the future. 

309) WERE JEWS EVER MISSIONARIES?

 

 

1887 Schechter edition of Avot deRabi Natan.

INTRODUCTION:

It is a well-known fact that Jews do not proselytise or actively try to convert non-Jews to Judaism. It is also well-known how difficult the process of conversion to Judaism is. But was this always the case?

In this article, we shall explore historical examples of apparent active and even forceful conversions to Judaism, and also look at the possibility of there being some textual precedent for such a phenomenon.

 

PART 1.

THE JEWS OF ARABIA:

In a previous article, we looked at the fascinating story of the Jews of Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia). A brief overview follows:

Jews had lived in Arabia since biblical times and this was no small community. According to Hagai Mazuz:

260) THE CHIEF RABBI OF MORAVIA RECEIVES A LETTER FROM G-D:

Moses Mendelssohn's controversial Biur received the approbation of R. Mordechai Benet, the Chief Rabbi of Moravia.

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Mordechai Benet or Marcus Benedict (1753-1829) was the chief of rabbi Moravia, the historical region[1] in the east of the Czech Republic. This would have been one of the most prestigious rabbinic appointments of that time.

R. Benet was a child prodigy and at his barmitzvah his teacher showed the guests commentaries he had already written on the Torah and Talmud.

He was an interesting man because although respected by rabbis from across the spectrum – for example, the second Rebbe of Chabad, as well as his friend the Chatam Sofer spoke highly of him - he is described as being a fiercely independent thinker as well. 

Paradoxically, he allowed space for writings and ideas from the Enlightenment Movement (Haskalah), while at the same time staunchly upholding the traditional Halachic and rabbinic system.

In this article, which is based extensively on the research of Professor Tamás Visi[2], we will explore some of the thinking of R. Mordechai Benet.

Visi describes R. Benet as being:

“...remarkably flexible concerning those innovations [of the Enlightenment] that did not threaten the prestige of rabbinic literature. However, he was a rigid opponent of any changes that could have restructured the inner hierarchy of the [rabbinic][3] literary system.”

A COMPLEX MAN:

People were not sure how to read R. Benet.

On the one hand, he had adopted a strict anti-Enlightenment and anti-Reform stance, such as his ruling against the Hamburg Temple, forbidding the use of organs in a synagogue on Shabbat.[4]

This was in keeping with the traditional position of the Chatam Sofer, one of the ideologues of the emerging ultra-Orthodox movement who famously claimed that anything new was forbidden by the Torah.[5]

[See A Short History of Haredim.]

On the other hand, R. Benet gave his endorsement to a school book complied by Herz Homberg. Homberg started out as a tutor to Moses Mendelssohn’sson and ended up becoming his follower.

(Moses Mendelssohn is regarded as the father of the Enlightenment Movement.)

R. Benet also endorsed an edition of the Pentateuch which had Mendelssohn’s German translation of the Torah as well as his commentary on it known as the Biur.

There is evidence that Mendelssohn’s commentary was studied in Moravian yeshivot during the 1820s.[6]

R. Benet had a secretary, Avraham Trebitch who recorded the history of the time and he included a eulogy for Mendelssohn just as he did for other orthodox rabbis, and R. Benet gave his approbation for this work.

This should not come as too much of a surprise as there were quite a number of rabbis who were part of an ‘orthodox Haskalah.’  

[See Talmudic Commentators who Embraced the Enlightenment.]

TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENLIGHTENMENT:

It is possible to understand R. Benet’s ‘warm’ feelings towards the Enlightenment because of his being domiciled in Moravia. It was the Berlin Enlightenment particularly, which was the considered most threatening to traditional Judaism.

RABBINIC AUTHORITY AND PRESTIGE IN MORAVIA:

The reason why the Enlightenment was not such a threat in places like Moravia may have been because of the generally unattested authority and prestige of the rabbis which was prevalent there more than in Berlin.

Visi writes:

“Maskilic [Enlightenment][7] texts could have reached Moravia at the turn of the nineteenth century. They may have been read by some Moravian Jews...

Nonetheless, they could not compete with the heavy voice of Tradition in terms of prestige...”

And Visi continues to explain why a degree of Enlightenment literature may have been permitted in Moravia under R. Benet:

“However, it could be consumed only as peripheral or low prestige literature as long as the traditional literary system functioned.”

A HIERARCHY OF PRESTIGE:

Amongst the rabbinate itself, there was even a hierarchy of prestige. There were rabbis and then there were specialist rabbis or ‘geonim.’ While this is typical of the rabbinate in all communities, it appears that this was particularly so Moravia. Thus, even within the orthodox rabbinic world:

“Any innovation not coming from the ‘geonim’ was immediately perceived as amateurish and suspicious.”

The Enlightenment could not successfully compete with this hierarchy of prestige.

Rabbinic prestige was obviously a major issue and one could say it was a positive factor as it kept the important tradition alive.

Visi describes this matter of prestige in rather strong terms regarding a question put to R. Benet about the permissibility of praying in a language other than Hebrew:

“...Benet argues, once Hebrew is replaced by German as the language of worship Jews may forget Hebrew altogether. This situation would cause the complete disappearance of rabbinic culture (as well as rabbinic authority) since rabbinic literature is consumable only in Hebrew. Its prestige among Jews stands or falls with the prestige of Hebrew.”

In other words, it was felt that prayer must remain in Hebrew not just because it is prescribed by Halacha (although there are exceptions), but also because it was a means of maintaining rabbinic culture, prestige and authority.

Incidentally; besides prayer - unlike the Chatam Sofer whose followers believed it was a religious duty to speak Yiddish and not German - R. Benet had no problems with Jews using German as a spoken language.

THE AVERAGE MASSES:

In R. Benet’s response to the Hamburg Temple issue, he wrote in Hebrew: 

“It is well known and generally recognized by everybody that all the community of Israel are all sacred and the One God is among them. And one Torah is for all of them. And all the people stand all the time on [the belief that] Moses is true and his Torah is true. And this is the Torah that he gave us. They are the two tablets of the covenant, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.”

The same eloquent passage was translated into the Yiddish vernacular in a curt and more authoritative style which simply laid down the law for the populace:

“It is generally known that all the community of Israel is based on an unconditional belief in the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.”

In light of this unconditional belief, there was nothing more to discuss.

The unassailable authority of the rabbis was most likely also contributed to by the general disinterest by the masses in intellectual endeavours both in technical religious, as well as in secular affairs.

As Visi puts it, the average Jews of Moravia had no real appetite for intellectual matters, and they:

“...actually lacked the educational background necessary to do philosophy in an enlightened maskilic style.”

‘BESAMIM ROSH’ - A DIRECT ATTACK ON RABBINIC AUTHORITY:

It is apparent that R. Benet developed an interesting way of coping with the threat of the Enlightenment: 

As long as the authentic rabbinic theme was allowed to maintain its basic dominance, he felt no need to attack the Haskalic influences. He was prepared to allow them some space as long as they remained on the periphery. 

However, as soon as he perceived a direct threat to rabbinic tradition, he was steadfast in his condemnation of it no matter the source.

An example of this was R. Benet’s outright denunciation of the well-known Halachic work, Besamim Rosh, which originated from Berlin. R. Benet believed this work to be forgery.

As the title suggests, it purports to be the 14^th-century work of Rabbeinu Asher, known also as the Rosh. The book, regarded as a ‘Trojan horse in the camp of Halacha,’ is thought to have been forged by R. Saul Berlin, whose father, R. Hirsch Tzvi Levin was the rabbi of Berlin.

Interspersed amongst the various writings in Besamin Rosh are ideas such as that Rambam did not base his Thirteen Principles on Torah or Talmud but from non-Jewish sources as well as on his own perceptions, and that faith is a matter of individual conviction. The Rosh (b. 1250), allegedly, would have known this having lived soon after Rambam passed away in 1204.

Besamin Rosh also speaks of a time when certain laws of the Torah will be abolished for the ‘well being’ of the people. There are also references to shaving one’s beard, drinking non-Jewish wine, and most controversially to a case of riding a horse on Shabbat. –These and other such statements are regarded as subversive and deliberately planted in the guise of a Halachic work, to spread Enlightenment propaganda.

[For more details, see The ‘Forged Book’ Which Became the Bastion of Halacha.]

In a letter by R. Benet to R. Levin of Berlin, he disputes the attribution of Besamim Rosh to the Rosh. He compared sections of authentic Responsa (Teshuvot, or written answers to Halachic questions) of the Rosh to the writings in Besamim Rosh and exposed various inconsistencies.

Visi explains:

“However, the main point of criticism was not the authenticity of the work but the blatant heresy propagated in some of the pseudoepigraphical [falsely attributed][8] responsa.

... the Besamim Rosh was a dangerous attack on traditional rabbinic Judaism in Mordecai Benet’s opinion. It demanded a response as opposed to other pieces of maskilic or reformer literature, which Benet preferred to ignore.

It could create a new publicity and prestige for maskilic ideas that they did not enjoy before. By attacking it Benet obviously wanted to prevent the spread and the recognition of the book: the possibility that Moravian yeshiva-students take the Besamim Rosh as an authentic piece of rabbinic literature must have been a nightmare for him.”

A TIGHTROPE:

What emerges is a very interesting dynamic displayed by R. Mordechai Benet. He seems to have been neither a proponent nor opponent to the Enlightenment Movement. This was unusual in an age which had clearly defined boundaries in this area.

However, the open-minded, independent and tolerant R. Benet - who normally turned a blind eye to, and in some cases even endorsed Enlightenment literature - was transformed into a warrior when he felt that rabbinic literature itself was under threat.

This theological tightrope on which R. Benet walked as well as his commensurate delicate ideological balance seems to have been quite considered, intentional, strategic and in his mind, appropriate.

-But this unusual balance between staunch defender of faith and open tolerance of Enlightenment views, was too much for some. The following tactic was adopted by an anonymous Kabbalist, perhaps representing a larger interest group:

THE ‘LETTER FROM G-D’:

In 1820, a letter - ‘from G-d’ - was found in the East-Moravian town of Lipnik addressed to the chief rabbi, or landesrabbiner of Moravia. The anonymous author claims he attended a sitting of the Heavenly Yeshiva and he was commissioned to bring a message to the rabbi.[9]

The letter praises the erudition of R. Benet and informs him that his teachings are studied in the Heavenly Yeshiva. The Rif (Alfasi, 1013-1103), Rabbeinu Asher (1250-1328) and Rambam (1135-1204) send their regards.

This praise notwithstanding, R. Benet is reproached for not noticing and not objecting to a new evil which was spreading everywhere. The letter, referring to the proliferation of what it calls heretical views from the Enlightenment, states:

 “Don’t you know, have you not heard how the schism arose in Israel and faith perished and heresy is growing stronger and stronger day by day! No settlement remains unpolluted from people belonging to their sect, some of them [professing their heresy] openly and many more secretly.”

The letter goes on to make use of Kabbalistic terminology describing how G-d’s Presence, or Shechina is being harmed by such Enlightenment activity and R. Benet is reminded about how others in the past - especially Mordechai the Jew[10] - had being willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent the suffering of the Shechina and to stop these satanic influences.

Then the letter becomes more personal and threatening:

“And you, my son, my beloved one, behold I have appointed you as the leader [nagid] of my people and all the great ones of the generation obey your words and all the chiefs and leaders of the people respect you. You have the power to do as you wish.

Despite all these you sit in silence as if you were deaf and unable to give instructions to fight the wars of the Lord and to punish these wicked ones, who destroy the world, with strong hand.

And it is you whom the other sages of the generation imitate when they sit and keep silence. 

Meanwhile the faith and religion of Israel is being demolished because of you.

And for this reason many accusers arose against you, some of them from the right side and some of them from the left side,[11] and required a punishment for you in the presence of God, and your punishment was almost decreed had not the members of the heavenly yeshiva, especially Jacob… and Joseph… spoken for your benefit and apologized on your behalf, saying, if you knew the intensity of the Shekhina’s suffering in the exile, so to say [kivyakhol], and the demolition of the upper worlds you would certainly be ready to sacrifice your life just as the saints of old days did.”

R. Benet is then told that he is a reincarnation, or gilgul, of Mordechai who did not fear any man, and he is called upon to convene a great gathering of rabbis in order to condemn the new heresy from the Enlightenment.

ANALYSIS:

I am not aware of R. Benet’s reaction to this letter just nine years before his passing, but it shows how far some people were prepared to go to draw him deep into the fight against the Enlightenment.

By the same token, some members of the Enlightenment also went out of their way to produce forged and subversive works in the guise of technical rabbinic literature in order to further their agenda.

The problem, of course, was that huge numbers of innocent and unsuspecting people caught up in the middle would be swayed by charismatic leaders on both sides, to believe that either G-d was writing letters, or that the 13^th-century Rosh had 19^th-century Enlightenment leanings.

---

[1] Historic regions are geographic areas which at some point in the past had an ethnic or political basis regardless of present-day borders.

[2] Tamás Visi, A Moravian Defence of Orthodoxy: Mordecai Benet and the Rabbinic Literary System.

[3] Parentheses mine.

[4] See Elle Divrei haBrit.

[5] A play on the words ‘chadash asur min haTorah’ (referring originally to the eating of ‘new grain’ before the Omer offering is given). However, according to the findings of Meir Hildesheimer, it is no longer certain that the Chatam Sofer even banned the study of Mendelssohn’s writings. (Hildesheimer, “The Attitude of the Hatam Sofer…” (see note 10), pp. 149-154 and p. 177).

[6] Hildesheimer, “Moses Mendelssohn…” (see note 10), pp. 95-96.

[7] Parenthesis mine.

[8] Parenthesis mine. (Also spelt: pseudepigraphical.)

[9] The letter is printed in Maasiyot m-tsadiqei yesodei olam (Podgorze, 1903), 6a-7b.

[10] From the Book of Ester.

[11] These would refer to what the anonymous writer believes to be spiritual entities. Those from the ‘left’ are evil, while those from the ‘right’ are good.