All is in the Hands of Heaven: The Teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica (Revised edition) 9781463210670

Citation preview

JUDAISM IN CONTEXT Volume 3

Series Editors Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Lieve M. Teugels and Rivka Ulmer

All Is in the Hands of Heaven The Teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner

All Is in the Hands of Heaven The Teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner

MORRIS M. FAIERSTEIN

Preface by Moshe Idel

GORGIAS PRESS 2005

Yeshiva University Press/Ktav Edition, 1989 First Gorgias Press Edition, 2005 Copyright © 2005 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey.

ISBN 1-59333-337-4

GORGIAS PRESS

46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

Printed in the United States of America

‫לז"נ אבי מורי‬ ‫ר' יעקב קאפל ז"ל‬ ‫ב"ר‬ ‫מנחם מענדל ורבקה פיירשטיין הי"ד‬ ‫יליד טשעסטאכאוו‬ ‫משארית הפלטה של יהודי פולין‬

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface.......................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments—First Edition......................................................xiii Acknowledgments—Revised Edition .................................................xv 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................1 1. The Polish School ............................................................................1 2. Primary Sources ................................................................................9 3. Secondary Sources..........................................................................12 4. Methodology ...................................................................................12 2. Biography ............................................................................................15 1. Mordecai Joseph’s Life until the Break.......................................16 2. After the Break ...............................................................................24 3. Theology ..............................................................................................27 1. Torah and the Will of God ...........................................................28 2. The Miz9vot........................................................................................36 3. Sin .....................................................................................................41 4. Antinomianism ...............................................................................47 4. Man and Avodah..................................................................................53 1. Ḥisaron ..............................................................................................56 2. Berur ..................................................................................................58 3. Asceticism........................................................................................63 4. People on Different Levels...........................................................64 5. Doubt and Certainty ......................................................................66 6. Biblical Archetypes.........................................................................68 7. Avodah: Worship and Service of God .........................................71 8. Conclusion.......................................................................................74 5. The Z9addiq ...........................................................................................77 1. Mordecai Joseph’s Relationship with Menaḥem Mendel.........77 2. Reflections on the Z9addiq ..............................................................81 6. Anger....................................................................................................85 1. The Place of Anger ........................................................................86 2. Anger and the Z9addiq .....................................................................89 7. Messianism ..........................................................................................95 1. Messianism in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ ................................................96 2. Messianism in Gershom Henoch’s Writings .............................98

vii

viii

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

8. Conclusions...................................................................................... 107 Appendix The Friday Night Incident in Kotsk: History of a Legend ....... 111 Glossary ................................................................................................ 125 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 129 Indexes Names................................................................................................ 139 Subjects.............................................................................................. 141 Scriptural and Rabbinic References .............................................. 142

PREFACE Hasidism is the first, and until now the only, mystical movement to have attracted considerable portions of the Jewish populace. Unlike Sabbateanism, whose basic message for the larger audience was Messianism, Hasidism successfully attempted to infuse devotional and sometimes ecstatic concepts and approaches, opening a new page in the history of Jewish mysticism. As a basic assumption the founding masters of this movement held that the classical forms of Jewish mysticism, as embodied in the book of the Zohar and in the Lurianic Kabbalah, were to be exposed to larger audiences. The founders of Hasidism, starting in the middle of the eighteenth century, explicated a type of mysticism which is more devotional, ecstatic, and direct than most of the earlier forms of Jewish mysticism. The reconstruction of the direct relationship between God and man, which had become too complex in the other forms of Jewish mysticism, was the major goal of the early Hasidic masters. However, the need to address a growing public necessitated a change in the patterns of Hasidic spirituality. Whereas the earlier expressions of Hasidic thought were more mystical, in the later generations the function of the mystic as mediator came to the fore. Following certain kabbalistic theories on the status of the z9addiq, the righteous human, as the channel for the transmission of the divine overflow into the world, the figure of the mystic as intermediary became more and more prominent. The new emphasis on the function of the z9addiq was apparently connected also to the expansion of the movement beyond the borders within which Hasidism had flourished in the incipient stages of the movement. The radiation of its teachings was connected to the missions of the mystics beyond the limited Polish region of Podolia. The establishment of new Hasidic centers in Lithuania, the Ukraine, Hungary, Rumania, and, especially, central Poland was the achievement of two or three generations; by the beginning of the nineteenth century, Hasidism was already active in dozens of important Jewish centers in Eastern Europe and was reshaping the religious life of tens of thousands of Jews. However,

ix

x

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

expansion meant at the same time diversification and eventually even stronger tensions between masters, who became now the exponents and tradents of the different teachings. As we know, the transmission of Hasidic mysticism was founded on direct teaching by the z9addiq either to the inner circle of his disciples or to the community of his adherents. Though at the beginning of the nineteenth century there were already some important writings by the earlier masters, none of them became a classic to the extent that it could serve as a canonical book for the movement. In the absence of classical works that could direct the evolution of the movement, the personalities of the various masters became much more influential on the character of the Hasidic teachings they expounded. This ramification of the original Hasidism is already obvious at the beginning of the nineteenth century. In addition to the continuation of the more mystical understanding of the essence of Hasidism, as in Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Ephraim of Sudlykov’s Degel Machne Ephraim, we can discern the existentialistparadoxical teachings of R. Nahman of Bratzlav, the reKabbalization of Hasidism in the writings of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, and a more magical orientation in the writings of R. Yaakov Isaac ha-Levi Horowitz, the Seer of Lublin. Modern study of Hasidism as a mystical phenomenon was oriented in two directions: that established by Martin Buber, interested more in the legendary literature of the movement, and that opened by Gershom Scholem, which is concerned more with the mystical facets of Hasidism and its description as part of the larger phenomenon of Jewish mysticism. Buber was much more comprehensive in his approach to the extant material; though minimizing the importance of a large body of more speculative Hasidic texts, he included in his collections of legends and in his surveys of Hasidism the most important stages of Hasidic literature in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The scope of Scholem’s research was limited to the first three generations of Hasidic masters. As it happens, the major part of the Hasidic literature written since the 1830s was well represented in Buber’s legendary collection but absent in the analysis of the mystical aspects of Hasidism. The absent parts include the largest Hasidic movements of the nineteenth century and some of the more idiosyncratic manifestations of Hasidism. Central Polish Hasidism, which emerged due to the activity of R. Yaakov Isaac ha-Levi, the Seer of Lublin, was the segment of

PREFACE

xi

Hasidism that suffered more than any other from this lack of scholarly attention. As a disciple of R. Dov Baer of Mezherich— the Great Maggid—the Seer of Lublin opened the way for the penetration of Hasidism in Central Poland, where his own disciples were able to establish the movement as a major presence during the next two generations. We may distinguish two main lines of development of Hasidism after its instauration in central Poland, both of them stemming from the school of the Seer of Lublin: (a) the Hasidism of Zhidachov, which also continued as a major phenomenon in the Komarno dynasty; (b) the Przysucha line, which generated the Kotsk, Izbica, Gur, and Alexander types of Hasidism. These two developments are the central phenomena in mid- and latenineteenth century Hasidism in Poland; however, though stemming from the same Hasidic court, they evolved in different directions. The Zhidachov-Komarno line represents a major turning in which the Hasidism taught by the Great Maggid took up the kabbalistic tradition of R. Isaac Luria. The Beshtian perspective was combined with the classical Lurianic tradition without, however, attenuating the Hasidic elements; in certain cases, we may even find some deepening of the significance of key concepts of the Besht. Basic for this school is the return to the interpretation of the Zoharic corpus: for at least three generations, the different parts of the Zohar were interpreted in extensive commentaries. This constant reference to the Zohar and the Lurianic Kabbalah constituted a stabilizing factor in the development of the Komarno school, which school developed as a dynasty, related to the Seer of Lublin through the teachings of R. Zevi Hirsch of Zhidachov, a major disciple of the Seer and the uncle and master of R. Yizhak Isaac Yehiel Safrin of Komarno, the founder of the dynasty. However, in addition to the connection with the Seer, the consistency of the approach to the classical kabbalistic texts was also a formative factor in this family. Exactly at the same time, another line developed, which started in a deep disagreement with the Seer. The Holy Jew, R. Yaakov Isaac of Przysucha, and his followers represent idiosyncratic approaches to Hasidism that focused on personal perfection at the expense of the mystical message. No canonical mystical texts played a central role for the Hasidic masters who followed the path of the Holy Jew; his disciples began, time and again, to rethink the

xii

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Hasidic path, as the views of R. Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk and R. Mordecai Joseph of Izbica demonstrate. Just as the Holy Jew took issue with the Seer, so also R. Mordecai Joseph of Izbica began his career by a rupture with his master. The individualistic and perfectionist trend of this type of Polish Hasidism, which only rarely resorted to mystical prooftexts for its teachings and was reticent about magical and theurgical images of the z9addiq, is reminiscent of a similar development in the Lithuanian Musar movement. The latter commenced with two accomplished Kabbalists, the Gaon of Vilna and R. Hayyim of Volozhin, but immediately afterward renounced Kabbalah as a central axis in its spiritual universe. A certain retreat from mysticism was shared by these two major phenomena in Eastern Europe, a trait consonant with an evident reticence about Kabbalah on the European Jewish scene in general. One of the major figures in this distancing from the kabbalistic axis in Hasidism in favor of a more individualistic approach was R. Mordecai Joseph, the founder of the Izbica dynasty. Unlike some of the other disciples of the Holy Jew, but similar to his friends R. Isaac Meir of Ger and R. Ḥanokh Henokh of Alexander, he was able to establish a dynasty of his own. These three disciples of R. Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk built up the most important lines of Polish Hasidism. The present study by Morris M. Faierstein is the first academic and extensive treatment of a major student of R. Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk: the controversial R. Mordecai Joseph. An outstanding thinker, unique in the whole history of Hasidism, he opened a new spiritual avenue based on concepts unusual in Hasidism, such as determinism, which provoked antagonism among his contemporaries. Faierstein provides here a perceptive analysis of the life and thought of this master, using not only the whole extant corpus of this z9addiq, but also the pertinent material in the writings of the descendants of R. Mordecai Joseph. Moshe Idel Hebrew University

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS—FIRST EDITION This study is a revised version of a dissertation submitted to the Department of Religion in Temple University. My advisor, Prof. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, brought the teachings of R. Mordecai Joseph of Izbica to my attention and suggested that I pursue this topic for my dissertation. He read my work carefully and offered many helpful suggestions. The other members of my committee, Prof. Gerard Sloyan and Prof. Franklin Littell, also offered support and guidance for this work. Janice E. Lowe, the Graduate secretary, was ever helpful in dealing with administrative matters. Her help was especially invaluable in the years that I was away from Philadelphia. Prof. Alan L. Berger read the entire work and offered many valuable suggestions. Prof. Louis Jacobs and Prof. Moshe Idel also read this study and made suggestions that significantly improved it. I am grateful to them for their time and consideration. I am also grateful to Prof. Idel for contributing a preface to this work. Grateful acknowledgement is extended to the Michael Scharf Trust of Yeshiva University Press for help in making publication of this book possible. There are also many friends in Philadelphia and New York whose companionship and encouragement have sustained me through the long years of graduate school. My sister, Rivkah, accepted my many years of study with grace and good humor. Aḥaron, Aḥaron, Ḥaviv, my wife Ruth, has shared this labor with me for the past five years. Her editorial skills have added immeasurably to the quality of this work. She has also typed and retyped this study through its many drafts. Her patience and love have made the completion of this work possible. My interest in and love for East European Jewish culture and civilization was inculcated in me by my parents, who were among the remnant of Polish Jewry that survived the Holocaust. This work is dedicated to the memory of my father, of blessed memory, who first showed me the beauties of my heritage. Rosh Ḥodesh Ellul 5748

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS—REVISED EDITION I am grateful to the Gorgias Press and its staff for the opportunity to publish this revised and updated edition of my book on the teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica. In this edition, I have tried to incorporate the relevant scholarship that has appeared since the first edition was published. I have also made some stylistic improvements and expanded several discussions where new information has come to my attention. 10 Adar II 5765

xv

1. INTRODUCTION 1. THE POLISH SCHOOL Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica was one of the most original thinkers in the history of Hasidism. His theology, based on the concept of determinism, is both unique and controversial. The Przysucha-Kotsk Hasidic school, founded by the Yehudi of Przysucha, was Mordecai Joseph’s spiritual home. Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha and Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk both served as mentors to Mordecai Joseph. Though he was one of Menaḥem Mendel’s closest friends and disciples, Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk in 1839 to found a Hasidic school and develop his own ideas. Mordecai Joseph’s teachings are an original contribution to both Hasidism and Jewish thought. Hasidism became a mass movement in Poland under the leadership of R. Jacob Isaac Horowitz,1 known as the Seer of Lublin.2 A disciple of R. Elimelech of Lyzhansk (1717–1786) and R. Samuel Shmelke Horowitz (1726–1778), who had introduced Hasidism to Poland in the early 1770s,3 the Seer began to act as a z9addiq during There are two uncritical biographies of the Seer based on Hasidic sources: A. Bromberg, Ha Ḥoze mi-Lublin, and Y. Alfasi, Ha-Ḥoze miLublin. More recent scholarly studies of his teachings include Rachel Elior, “Between Yesh and Ayin: The Doctrine of the Zaddik in the Works of Jacob Isaac, the Seer of Lublin” (a revised Hebrew version of this essay is available); Bracha Sack, “Iyyun be-Torato shel ha-Ḥoze mi-Lublin”; Mendel Piekarsz, Bein Ideologia le-Mez9iut, 130–42. 2 The title “Seer” was attached to him after his lifetime. For the various explanations of this name see, David Assaf, “Ve-ha-Mitnagedim Hitlozezu she-Nishtaker ve-Nafal: Nefilato shel ha-Ḥoze mi-Lublin Beraei ha-Zikaron ha-Ḥasidi ve-ha-Satira ha-Maskilit,” 161 n. 1. He is referred to by this title in this study as this is how he has become known in Hasidic and scholarly literature. 3 Though R. Elimelech and R. Samuel Shmelke introduced Hasidism to Poland, it was the activities of the Seer that firmly established it there, and virtually all subsequent Hasidic dynasties in Poland and Galicia were founded by disciples of the Seer. See Hayyim Liberman, “Legende un 1

1

2

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

the later years of his teacher, R. Elimelech of Lyzhansk. R. Elimelech felt unable to meet both the needs of his community and his own personal spiritual needs in his later years and transferred some of his responsibilities to his disciple.4 R. Jacob Isaac eventually exceeded the mandate given to him by his mentor, which led to a certain amount of tension between the master and his disciple.5 The Seer remained the dominant Hasidic leader in Poland for thirty years, from 1785, when he began his leadership as a z9addiq, until his death on the Ninth of Ab (Tisha B’Ab), 1815.6 The early doctrine of the z9addiq, particularly in the teachings of the Maggid of Mezhirech, emphasized his role as a guide and mentor for a small circle of spiritual adepts. The Maggid and his school concentrated on the spiritual aspects of existence and rejected the physical and material aspects of life.7 The Seer understood the role of the z9addiq differently and highlighted the z9addiq’s role in providing for the material well-being of his followers. R. Elior has summarized the Seer’s perspective on the role of the z9addiq. The dialectical change brought about by the doctrine of the Z9addik may be characterized as follows: it was the departure from the view of devekut and unification with the divine ayin as ends in themselves—the direct outcome of self-abnegation and indifference towards material existence, towards a devekut which has the aim of drawing down material plenty and providing leadership for the world. This shift of mystical endeavor from the metaphysical to the earthly sphere is also a shift of emphasis from the single purpose of fusion with God (trans-

Emes bei di Ḥasidishe Drukereien,” 2:52–53 (Hebrew version ibid., 3:58). For the subsequent history of Hasidism in Poland see A. Z. Aescoli, HaḤasidut be-Polin. 4 Elior, “Between Yesh and Ayin,” 396–97. 5 This is a pattern which repeats itself in the history of Hasidism in Poland, as we shall see below. 6 The events leading to the Seer’s death are the subject of many Hasidic legends. David Assaf has studied this event in “Ve-ha-Mitnagedim Hitlozezu she-Nishtaker ve-Nafal” (an English version of this article is available.) 7 Elior, “Between Yesh and Ayin”, 432–33.

INTRODUCTION

3

formation of ani into a[y]in) to the complexity of simultaneous identification with the ayin and the yesh.8

The Seer’s concept of “material z9addiqism”9 was based on the reciprocal relationship of the z9addiq and his followers (ḥasidim). The z9addiq was responsible for insuring the material and physical wellbeing of his followers, particularly in the areas of “life, children and sustenance.”10 The z9addiq does this by being the channel which brings down the divine flow (shefa) that makes the existence of the world possible. In return the ḥasid’s responsibilities to the z9addiq include submitting to the authority of the z9addiq in all areas of life and supporting the z9addiq financially. The ḥasid would not undertake any significant activity, such as marrying off his children or entering into business ventures, without the blessing of the z9addiq, which would ensure the success of the undertaking. The ḥasid would also turn to the z9addiq in times of distress, whether health issues, financial failures, or family problems. In all cases, a donation (pidyon) would accompany the consultation with the z9addiq. Concerns about spiritual growth and practice receded into the background. The majority of the Seer’s disciples who established Hasidic courts after his death followed the Seer’s doctrine of material z9addiqism. Not all of the Seer’s disciples were happy with his emphasis on the material concerns of his followers. A number of his more spiritually and intellectually oriented followers coalesced around Jacob Isaac of Przysucha, who became known as the “Yehudi.”11 The Yehudi and the minority of the Seer’s disciples who followed him created what was seen by many as a spiritual revolution in Hasidism.12 His focus shifted from comforting the masses to nurturing an elite seeking spiritual direction. The Yehudi’s teachings Ibid., 418. Ayin (nothing) refers to the divine source of all being. Yesh (being) refers to the material world. 9 I take the term “material z9addiqism” from R. Elior. See her discussion of this concept in “Between Yesh and Ayin”, 425–55. See also Bracha Sack, “Iyyun be-Torato,” 219–20. 10 B. Mo’ed Qaṭan, 28a. 11 There are several theories about this name. The most common one is that he was given this name to distinguish him from the Seer, who had the same first name. The basic study of the Yehudi remains Zvi Meir Rabinowicz, Rabbi Ya’akov Yizḥak Mi-Przysucha. 12 Aescoli, Ha-Ḥasidut be-Polin, 62ff. 8

4

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

focused on four key points: a stress on Talmud study and the role of the scholar; opposition to the emphasis on miracle working; allowing for delay of the time of prayer—insisting that spiritual readiness is more important than the rules concerning the time of prayer; and the importance of individualism—each person finding his own path in the service of God.13 The Yehudi’s elitist program aroused much opposition from both his teacher, the Seer, and many of his fellow disciples in Lublin. Uri of Strelisk, one of the Seer’s disciples, verbalized the deeper dispute. He said: The Holy Yehudi wants to follow a new path in Hasidism, from top to bottom, to inflame the children of Israel that they should serve God with Torah and prayer together, and such a path has never been followed before.14

The breach between the Yehudi and his teacher also carried over to their respective disciples and supporters. It was a dispute between two very different perspectives on Hasidism that continued for many years. For example, each group had different views concerning the place of miracles and their relation to the role of the z9addiq. The Seer and his followers felt that the performance of miracles was one of the central validations of the z9addiq and one of his primary functions. The Yehudi, on the other hand, scoffed at miracles. He is reported to have said: “It is no trick to be a miracle worker. Any Jew who has attained a level of spirituality can overturn heaven and earth. But to be a Jew [a Yid] is difficult.”15 After Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812, which many saw as the biblically prophesied war of Gog and Magog, the Seer and many of his disciples attempted to bring the Messiah by theurgic means.16 The Yehudi was among those who opposed this attempt, 13 This is the “conventional” view of the Przysucha school. M. Piekarsz has questioned this perspective and argued that the zaddiq plays the same central role that he does in the other contemporaneous schools of Hasidism. See Mendel Piekarsz, Ha-Hanhagah ha-Ḥasidit, 283–92. 14 I. Alfasi, Ha-Ḥoze Mi-Lublin, 91. 15 Z. M. Rabinowicz, Rabbi Yaakov Yizḥak M-Przysucha, 82. 16 This episode is described in Martin Buber’s novel For the Sake of Heaven. On the literary and historical aspects of this work see Shmuel Werses, “Ha-Ḥasidut be-Aspeklaria Belletristit”; Abraham Shapira, “Shtei Darkei Geulah be-Ḥasidut be-Aspeklaria shel Martin Buber.”

INTRODUCTION

5

and his stand on this issue precipitated the final break between him and the Seer of Lublin. The Yehudi died several months after his departure from Lublin and was succeeded by his son Yeraḥmiel.17 The majority of his followers, however, invested leadership of the group in his outstanding disciple, Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha.18 Simḥah Bunem had an unusual background for a Hasidic rebbe. His father, a wandering preacher, had originally come from Germany and spoke German. Simḥah Bunem used his knowledge of German to advantage and spent a number of years working as a lumber merchant, traveling to Danzig and other large cities. When he decided to settle down, he qualified as a pharmacist and earned his living in this way for many years until he succeeded the Yehudi as the leader of the Przysucha school. His enemies argued that the secular world had tainted him, and they questioned his ability to be a Hasidic rebbe. Simḥah Bunem’s disciples rejected these accusations completely. They countered that although Simḥah Bunem had been in the secular world, he had not been contaminated by it. For example, Simḥah Bunem had attended the theater and played cards. His disciples argued that he had done these things with his body but his mind had been on higher things.19 Simḥah Bunem led the Przysucha school for thirteen years, from 1814 until his death in 1827. He implemented and developed the Yehudi’s ideas, teaching an internalized intellectual form of spirituality that downplayed the external forms of Hasidism. The fundamental principle of one’s spiritual development was the uprooting of arrogance and of the desire for honor. 20 Public displays of piety and punctilious observance of the commandments were See David Assaf, “Ha-Ḥasidut Be-Hitpatḥuta.” In the first two generations of Hasidism, succession was from master to disciple. Gradually, this changed and succession became dynastic, from father to son. By the early part of the nineteenth century, the dynastic style of succession was becoming the dominant mode. The issue of succession in Hasidism needs more study. The dispute between Dov Baer of Lubavitch and Aaron of Starosselje is one of the earliest examples of this controversy. See the analysis by R. Elior, “Ha-Maḥloqet al Moreshet Ḥabad” 19 The stories concerning this period of Simḥah Bunem’s life are collected in Yehuda Menaḥem Boim, Rabbi Bunem Mi-Przysucha, 1:23–82. 20 Alan Brill, “Grandeur and Humility in the Writings of R. Simḥah Bunim of Przysucha.” 17 18

6

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

the epitomes of arrogance and the desire for honor. The Przysucha emphasis on inwardness often manifested itself in rude, disrespectful behavior and the nonobservance of social amenities. Przysucha ḥasidim mocked and derided those who in their eyes sought “honors.”21 The desire to be free of arrogance sometimes led to the appearance of laxity in religious observance. This attitude is summarized in the following saying. What is the difference between the ḥasidim of Kotsk and other ḥasidim? The latter perform the commandments openly but commit transgressions in secret, while the ḥasidim of Kotsk commit transgressions openly and perform the commandments secretly.22

The “transgressions” that the Przysucha and Kotsk ḥasidim were accused of committing were in the realm of perceived laxity in not strictly adhering to the norms of religious observance of the other Hasidic groups. Two popular examples were their not strictly adhering to the time of prayer and their speaking disrespectfully of other z9addiqim. The Przysucha school’s theology was as radical to its opponents as its social deviations. Kabbalistic tradition played a less significant role in the Przysucha curriculum. Its place was taken by the study of Talmud and the classics of medieval Jewish philosophy. Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, the Kuzari, and the writings of Rabbi Judah Loewe (Maharal) of Prague were favorites. The writings of the last had the greatest influence.23 The ultimate goal of the Przysucha school was to mold an individual who would seek to know himself without illusions and find his own unique path to God. Simḥah Bunem felt that “each Jew who sets out to worship God should dig a well in his own essence by means of which he will be able to cleave to his creator.”24

Rabinowicz, Rabbi Simḥah Bunem, 25–26. Raphael Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 292. 23 Rabinowicz, Rabbi Simhah Bunem, 47. For Judah Loewe’s influence on the Przysucha-Kotsk school, see Byron L. Sherwin, Mystical Theology and Social Dissent, 51–55. On Maimonides’ influence, see Jacob Dienstag, “HaMore Nevuḥim ve Sefer ha-Mada be-Sifrut ha-Ḥasidut,” 323. 24 Aaron Walden, Kol Simḥah, Toldot, p. 14a. 21 22

INTRODUCTION

7

Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk summed up Simḥah Bunem’s style of leadership by observing that he spiritually raised all who came to seek refuge in his shadow, but at the same time desired that each person raise himself up by himself.25 The Przysucha school’s emphasis on the ḥasid’s raising himself spiritually stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing Hasidic attitude that the z9addiq was the intermediary through whom the ḥasid could attain a higher spiritual level.26 In this respect, the Przysucha position was innovative in the history of Hasidism. The seemingly uncivil behavior of the Przysucha ḥasidim and their study of “dangerous” literature inflamed the indignation and fears of the other z9addiqim. The opponents of the Przysucha path, notably the z9addiqim who followed the path of popular z9addiqism, wanted to excommunicate the Przysucha group from the main body of Hasidism. These opponents seized their opportunity at the wedding of the grandson of Abraham Joshua Heschel of Opatow, the senior z9addiq of the day, in Ustilag.27 Most of the z9addiqim and Hasidic notables were in attendance at the wedding. Simḥah Bunem was invited to defend his teachings and the practices of his followers. Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk’s forceful arguments dissuaded Simḥah Bunem from attending. In his place, a delegation of five disciples, each distinguished in a different way, was sent: Isaac Meir of Gur, a talmudic scholar; Feivel of Gritse, a scholar of Hasidism; Zusya of Schedlice, a wise man; Issachar Horowitz, who was wealthy; and Eleazar Baer of Grabowice, an eloquent speaker. The main argument of Simḥah Bunem’s opponents was that the commandments of the Torah and the traditions of Hasidism were being denigrated in Przysucha. Isaac Meir and the other disciples argued eloquently that the Przysucha school was not guilty of the things they had been accused of by their opponents. Abraham Joshua Heschel, though swayed by their arguments, was not entirely convinced. He turned to Yeraḥmiel of Przysucha, the Yehudi’s son, who had lost out to Simḥah Bunem as successor to his Y. Y. Artan, Emet ve-Emunah, par. 21. For an analysis of this concept, see Ada Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship.” 27 Abraham Joshua Heschel of Opatov (d. 1825) was one of the senior figures in Hasidism during the first two decades of the nineteenth century. His namesake A. J. Heschel of New York (1907–1972) was a direct descendant. 25 26

8

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

father. He asked his opinion of Simḥah Bunem and the charges against him. Yeraḥmiel spoke highly of Simḥah Bunem, saying that he was filled with the spirit of the Torah and his actions were entirely for the sake of heaven. This testimony convinced Abraham Joshua Heschel, and he ruled in favor of Przysucha. This victory did not silence the criticism of the Przysucha school, but it did end attempts to question its fundamental legitimacy in the mainstream of Hasidism.28 After Simḥah Bunem’s death in 1827, the mantle of leadership fell to Menaḥem Mendel of Tomaszow, who shortly thereafter moved to the town of Kotsk. Menaḥem Mendel continued the main themes that had been established by Simḥah Bunem, though with a very different style. He had a fiery personality that instilled awe and even fear in his followers. Where Simḥah Bunem was kindly and witty and led his his flock with good humor and love, Menaḥem Mendel was angry and gruff and led with fear. Yet there was a feeling of tremendous spiritual energy in Kotsk that attracted many followers. As a contemporary saying had it, “In Kotsk there burns a fire; a new light is being established there.”29 One word was emblazoned on Menaḥem Mendel’s banner—“Truth.” He demanded that each person be true to God and to himself. His sharp personality attracted people rather than repelled them. A disciple once explained Menaḥem Mendel’s power in the following way: “Truth is like a nail, and the heart like an iron wall. In order to put the nail into the wall, one needs a very strong hammer. Our rebbe can drive a little truth in with the hammer.”30 Menaḥem Mendel’s greatness was even recognized by the mitnaggedim, the opponents of Hasidism. When some Lithuanian scholars asked Rabbi Hayyim Reigarden of Plonsk about his visit to Kotsk, he replied: “Isaac of Worka is a scholar, Isaac Meir of Gur is a genius, and Mendel of Kotsk is on a level that the mind cannot fully comprehend.”31 Among Menaḥem Mendel’s closest disciples was Mordecai Joseph of Izbica, the subject of this study.

28 Rabinowicz, Rabbi Simḥah Bunem, 29–31. See also Hayyim Yehuda Berl, R. Abraham Joshua Heschel: Ha-Rav mi-Apta, 46–50. 29 A. J. Heschel, Kotsk, 2:450. 30 Ibid., 2:520. 31 Ibid., 2:523.

INTRODUCTION

9

2. PRIMARY SOURCES The primary source for Mordecai Joseph’s teachings is the Mei HaShiloaḥ, edited and published in 1860 by his grandson, Gershom Henoch of Radzyn.32 Another volume of teachings with the same title was published in Lublin in 1922.33 The second volume includes material collected after the publication of the first. In size, the second is significantly smaller. The first volume of the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ was printed in Vienna at the press of Anton della Torre, a non-Jew. J. G. Weiss conjectures that it was published by a non-Jew in the city because no Jewish printer would dare publish such a radical book.34 S. Z. Shragai, a present-day follower of the Izbica-Radzyn school, however, claims that the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ was not published in Vienna but in Josefow, Poland. The place of publication was altered, in his view, in order to deceive the Russian censors.35 This attempt to explain away an embarrassing fact is unconvincing. Hasidic books were regularly printed in Poland in the 1860s without significant problems. There is no reason to believe that the content of the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ would have aroused the ire of Russian censors, whose primary concern was with political sedition. The authenticity of the original place of publication is further supported in a contemporary reference by M. Steinschneider, the great Jewish bibliographer.36 Another unusual feature of the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ is the complete absence of haskamot (approbations). The practice of having haskamot was almost universal for religious books.37 The haskamot were in 32 The title Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ is taken from a remark ascribed to Simḥah Bunem that Mordecai Joseph was like the pool of Siloam (Shiloaḥ), whose waters run still and deep. Cf. Bet Yaakov, introduction, p. 9a. 33 A new edition, which contains both volumes and adds source annotations, parallels to other Izbica-Radzyn writings, and indexes, was published in Bnai Brak in 1995. Betsalel Philip Edwards, Living Waters, is an English translation of selected passages. 34 Joseph G. Weiss, “A Late Jewish Utopia of Religious Freedom,” 245 n. 5. 35 Shneur Zalman Shragai, “Ḥasidut ha-Baal Shem Tov be-Tefisat Izbica-Radzyn,” 167. 36 Hebraische Bibliographie 6 (1863): 59, no. 170. 37 Other Hasidic books published without haskamot include the first edition of the Toldot Yaaqov Yosef (Koretz, 1780) and the first two books by R. Aaron of Starosselje, Shaarei Ha-Yihud Ve-Ha-Emunah (Shklov, 1820)

10

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

the form of letters from well-known rabbis and scholars attesting to the unobjectionable content and positive virtues of the book and its author. The haskamah was also a form of copyright, warning against reprinting the book without the author’s permission. The absence of any haskamot is further testimony to the controversial nature of this book. Gershon Henoch of Radzyn, who edited and published the first volume of the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, acknowledged the controversial nature of some of its teachings. He writes in his introduction: Indeed, because I knew that that in a number of places, the words will be difficult for those who have not heard them and who are not used to such teachings, I have only collected them for members of our group who recognize their great value. Therefore, may God help me to attain their essence and to understand the profundity of his holy teachings and may they be established in my heart and the hearts of our colleagues.38

S. Z. Shragai reports that the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ’s publication aroused opposition from a number of sectors, and there were those who burned the book.39 Not since the Toldot Yaakov Yosef, the first Hasidic book, was burned by the opponents of Hasidism in 1781 is there a record of a Hasidic text being consigned to the flames.40 The excessive manner in which the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ was treated may be explained only partially by its stylistic deviations. In his teachings, Mordecai Joseph does not follow accepted Hasidic literary conventions.41 He does not cloud his more radical ideas in the kabbalistic symbolic language favored by earlier Hasidic masters,42 nor

and Shaarei Ha-Avodah (Shklov, 1821). On R. Aaron’s books, see Louis Jacobs, Seeker of Unity, 17; Rachel Elior, Torat ha-Elohut be-Dor ha-Sheini shel Ḥasidut Ḥabad, 18–21. Both Jacobs and Elior cite the controversial nature of R. Aaron’s works as a possible reason for the lack of haskamot. 38 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, vol. 1, editor’s introduction. 39 Shragai, “Ḥasidut ha-Baal Shem Tov,” 166. 40 Jerome Mintz and Dan Ben Amos, trans., In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov, 260; S. M. Dubnow, Toldot Ha-Hasidut, 165. 41 Rivkah Schatz, “Autonomia shel ha-Ruaḥ ve-Torat Moshe,” 555. 42 In abandoning kabbalistic language, Mordecai Joseph is following the precedent of the Przysucha-Kotsk school, which de-emphasized the study of Kabbalah (Joseph G. Weiss, “Torat ha-Determinism ha-Dati LeR. Yosef Mordecai Lerner Mi-Izbica,” 447–48).

INTRODUCTION

11

does he cite texts or earlier authorities in support of his teachings. The primary reason remains the radical nature of his teachings. The writings of Mordecai Joseph’s son Jacob Leiner of IzbicaRadzyn, which elaborate some of the less controversial strains in Mordecai Joseph’s thought, offer little that illumines Mordecai Joseph’s more radical ideas.43 The retreat from Mordecai Joseph’s radicalism becomes apparent when one compares parallel passages in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ and Bet Yaakov. The respective treatments of Adam’s sin and the Zimri episode are excellent illustrations. Mordecai Joseph’s most important disciples were Leibele Eiger of Lublin and Zadok Ha-Cohen of Lublin. Both were significant thinkers in their own right, but the influence of Mordecai Joseph on their thought remains to be elucidated.44 Gershon Henoch of Radzyn, Mordecai Joseph’s grandson and editor of his writings, is also a significant thinker. However, like the others, he is an original thinker who pursued his own spiritual path.45 As a result, the two volumes of the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ remain the primary sources for Mordecai Joseph’s teachings. The most important source for biographical data on Mordecai Joseph is Dor Yesharim, a chronicle of the Leiner dynasty written by H. S. Leiner.46 The section on Mordecai Joseph is relatively brief, only thirty-three pages. 43 This is also noted by Weiss, “Late Jewish Utopia,” 245 n. 2. Jacob Leiner’s teachings were collected in the Bet Yaakov, vol. 1, Genesis; vol. 2, Exodus; vol. 3, Leviticus. A condensed version on the whole Torah was published in Lublin in 1906. 44 Two collections of quotations from Mordecai Joseph in the writings of his disciples have been compiled. Shneur Zalman Shragai and A. Bik, Be-Heikhal Izbica-Lublin, collect from the writings of Leibele Eiger and Zadok Ha-Cohen. A. J. H. Frankel, Mei Z9edeq, collects only from the writings of Zadok Ha-Cohen. Unfortunately, the citations are very fragmentary and are of no scholarly value. There are no scholarly studies of the writings of Leibele Eiger. The teachings of Zadok Ha-Cohen are the subject of two articles by Yaakov Elman, “R. Zadok haKohen on the History of Halakha” and “Reb Zadok haKohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process,” and a book by Alan Brill, Thinking God: The Mysticism of Zadok of Lublin. 45 His teachings are the subject of a recent study by Shaul Magid, Hasidism on the Margin. I have some reservations about Magid’s study, which I have mentioned in my review of his book in Shofar 23, no. 4. 46 Lublin, 1925. There is also an earlier 1909 edition which I was not able to examine.

12

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

3. SECONDARY SOURCES The secondary literature on Mordecai Joseph and his teachings is relatively small. The first scholarly articles on Mordecai Joseph are two by Joseph G. Weiss and one by Rivkah Schatz.47 These articles concentrate on specific aspects of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings. More recent studies on aspects of his teachings include articles by R. Elior48 and D. Seeman.49 J. L. Levin’s brief monograph on the Izbica dynasty is primarily a historical work based on the uncritical use of traditional sources.50 Historical data are mingled with legendary motifs. Levin’s work is of use but must be approached critically. Another genre of secondary literature is the pseudoscholarly literature written from an apologetic perspective. The writings of S. Z. Shragai fall into this category.51 In the introduction to his major work on Mordecai Joseph, Shragai states that his writings are a response to the misinterpretations by “scholars” of Mordecai Joseph’s writings.52 He further adds that certain segments of the Hasidic community have found a heretical antinomian strain in these writings. His intentions were to show that both types of “critic” were wrong and to demonstrate the piety and sanctity of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings.53 The result is a body of writings that rarely rises above polemics, of little value to the critical reader.

4. METHODOLOGY The Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ follows the traditional literary norms of Hasidic literature. It is arranged as sermons on the weekly Torah readings, with a supplementary section of comments on selected verses from the Prophets, the Writings, and a number of talmudic passages. Weiss, “Late Jewish Utopia” and “Torat ha-Determinism”; Schatz, “Autonomia.” 48 “Temurot be-Maḥshavah ha-Datit be-Ḥasidut Polin.” 49 “Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual in R. Mordecai Joseph Leiner’s Mei ha-Shiloaḥ.” 50 Judah Leib Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica. 51 Shragai’s major work on Mordecai Joseph is Be-Netivei Ḥasidut IzbicaRadzyn. His second book, Be-Ma’ayanei Ḥasidut Izbica-Radzyn, concentrates on the later members of the dynasty. 52 Shragai does not explicitly state whom he is criticizing. However, there is no doubt that he means Weiss and Schatz. 53 Shragai, Be-Netivei, 9–12. 47

INTRODUCTION

13

Like other Hasidic texts it is written in a distinctive Hebrew style that is a translation of the Yiddish language in which the teachings were first orally delivered. The text is an edited version of notes written from memory by disciples. The organizing principle is the order of the Torah verses that are the points of departure for the teachings, rather than chronology or subject matter. Mordecai Joseph’s teachings were delivered as homilies on different occasions, over many years, and do not always form a coherent whole that can be examined with philosophical rigor. That this is a problem emerges in the context of the debate between J. G. Weiss and R. Schatz. Weiss argues that Mordecai Joseph does not distinguish between man’s acts and thoughts in his application of determinism.54 Schatz, on the other hand, argues that man has autonomy in his thoughts and that only his actions are determined.55 One can find support for both positions in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ. In one place Mordecai Joseph states, “Deeds are in the hands of heaven, and thoughts are in the hands of man.”56 However, in another place he says, “All is in the hands of heaven, even the prayers of man. He cannot pray unless it be the will of God.”57 In summary, the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ is a body of teachings in which themes are discussed with differing degrees of depth and clarity. Mordecai Joseph neither reveals the sources of his ideas nor does he indicate influences. He cites the classics of Jewish literature, Bible, Talmud, Midrash, and Zohar, as proof-texts. The following conventions of style have been adopted. The new JPS translation has been used for biblical passages. Rabbinic texts follow the standard English translations (e.g., the Soncino translations for Talmud and Midrash Rabbah). All other translations are my own. Transliterations from Hebrew and spellings of names, places, and literary works follow the usage of the Encyclopedia Judaica.

Weiss, “Torat ha-Determinism,” 449. Schatz, “Autonomia,” 554–61. 56 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 14a. 57 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Beshalaḥ, 23b. 54 55

2. BIOGRAPHY Biography was not a significant concern for either the Hasidic master or his disciples.1 Tales of the Hasidic masters were told and collected for their didactic value or for the glorification of the tale’s hero. For the tellers and compilers, the biographical data which can be gleaned from these tales were of secondary importance. The Polish school of Hasidism downplayed the centrality of the z9addiq’s preternatural abilities. The primary purpose of the collections emanating from the Polish school was to serve as a moral goad for the reader/listener. These collections consisted primarily of short sayings and teachings rather than stories which provide details about the lives of the masters.2 Biographical data derived from these sources are scarce and at best fragmentary, making the writing of conventional biography very difficult. This is also true of the subject of this study, Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica. Ambivalence regarding Mordecai Joseph’s relationship to Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk caused much of interest to remain unstated.3 The brief biographical sketch which follows is culled from a variety of sources. In most cases there is no external corroboration of the facts.

The exception to this rule is R. Nahman of Bratzlav. Cf. the biography of R. Nahman by Arthur Green, Tormented Master. 2 The three basic collections containing the sayings and aphorisms of Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk are typical. They are Y. K. K. Rakatz, Siaḥ Sarfei Kodesh; Y. Y. Artan, Emet ve-Emunah; and R. Samuel of Shinove, Ramatai’im Z9ofim. 3 The primary source for biographical data about R. Mordecai Joseph is Dor Yesharim, a hagiographical account of the Leiner dynasty by H. S. Leiner, one of Mordecai Joseph’s descendants. Some additional data can be found in R. Gershom Henoch’s introduction’s to the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ and Bet Ya’akov. 1

15

16

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

1. MORDECAI JOSEPH’S LIFE UNTIL THE BREAK Mordecai Joseph was born in the town of Tomaszow, Lublin Province, in 1800. His father, Jacob, who died when Mordecai Joseph was a child, was a descendant of many important scholars and, according to Leiner family tradition, traced his ancestry to Rabbi Meir of Padua (1482–1565).4 Rabbi Meir, the common ancestor of many of the leading figures in East European Jewish history, was also acknowledged to be a descendant of King David, the founder of the Messianic line. Mordecai Joseph’s family on his mother’s side was also distinguished and wealthy. His father’s death in Mordecai Joseph’s youth did not affect the family’s financial security, which meant that Mordecai Joseph was able to continue his studies. He soon acquired a reputation as a prodigy though he was physically weak and sickly, a condition which persisted throughout his life. In Tomaszow, an older friend, Menaḥem Mendel (later known as Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk), introduced Mordecai Joseph to Hasidism, taking him to meet Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha in 1819.5 Mordecai Joseph was attracted to Simḥah Bunem, selling his house and worldly possessions to be near his new teacher. Simḥah Bunem liked him and once teased him, saying, “At present, I am taller than you, but you are still young and will still grow.”6 Mordecai Joseph spent the next nine years, until Simḥah Bunem’s death, in Przysucha, returning home to Tomaszow for only a few weeks a year, usually for Passover. After Simḥah Bunem’s death, leadership of the Polish school passed to Menaḥem Mendel of Tomaszow (as he was then known), who subsequently established his court in Kotsk. In Kotsk, Mordecai Joseph was counted among the senior disciples, perhaps even the foremost among them. He was treated with great respect by all. Another intimate disciple, Isaac Meir of Gur, asked Mordecai Joseph to serve as a go-between in a delicate situation. Isaac Meir wanted to suggest his wife’s sister as a bride Dor Yesharim, 13. According to N. Rosenstein, The Unbroken Chain, 341, Mordecai Joseph’s son R. Ya’akov Leiner married into the Katzenelenbogen family, the descendants of R. Meir of Padua. However, Mordecai Joseph himself was not a descendant of R. Meir and therefore not a descendant of the Davidic line. 5 Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 16. 6 Dor Yesharim, 23. 4

BIOGRAPHY

17

for the recently widowed Menaḥem Mendel.7 When the group of disciples in Kotsk grew too large, Menaḥem Mendel sent the younger ones to Mordecai Joseph for spiritual direction. He also taught a daily class in Talmud.8 Menaḥem Mendel was uncomfortable with many of the public duties of a rebbe and gradually spent more and more time secluded in his room. When Menaḥem Mendel was in seclusion, ḥasidim often turned to Mordecai Joseph for advice and help. According to a Leiner family tradition, Mordecai Joseph was offered the position of rebbe, but he rejected the honor saying, “The time has not yet come for me to be a rebbe, and I will be with you in one group until the year 5600 [1840].” When the ḥasidim heard this, they chose Menaḥem Mendel, and Mordecai Joseph joined the group in Kotsk.9

This anecdote, not corroborated by any other source, has the ring of a justification post factum for Mordecai Joseph's subsequent break with Kotsk. Menaḥem Mendel had originally intended to have a small group of elite disciples. His desire was to lead fifty or a hundred fifty disciples who would stand on the rooftops and attain the (spiritual) level of the prophets.10 On another occasion he said, “I thought I would have a minyan of Jews who would go with me into the forest. Instead, I am surrounded by jackasses.”11 However, his fame had spread, and he began to attract all manner of disciples in great numbers. The demands of leading such a large group sapped him spiritually. Menaḥem Mendel described his spiritual state through the following parable. There was once a Jew who had a snuffbox made of goat horn. He lost the snuffbox and went around bemoaning his loss. “Woe is me. Not only do we live in the darkness of exile, but such a fate had to befall me, to lose my wonderful snuffbox.” The holy goat came to him. This wanders the earth and has A. Y. B. Alter, Meir Eynei Ha-Golah, 1:225. Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 18. This is how many of the people who left with Mordecai Joseph when he split with Menaḥem Mendel first became attached to him. 9 Dor Yesharim, 32. 10 Rakatz, Siaḥ Sarfei Kodesh, 1:27. 11 Heschel, Kotsk, 2:536. 7 8

18

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN horns which reach the heavens and kiss the stars. The goat, seeing the Jew crying, bent down and said to him, “Cut off a piece of my horn and make yourself a new snuffbox.” The Jew cut off a piece of horn, made a new box, and put his snuff into it. Consoled, he went to the bet midrash and offered the worshippers some snuff. Jews took some snuff and were full of awe. Such snuff! A taste of paradise! Such a thing has never existed! And the box is beautiful. Where did you get the snuffbox? The Jew told the story of the snuffbox and the holy goat. The whole crowd dashed out of the bet midrash in search of the holy goat. The goat, as was its custom, wandered around the world with its long horns touching the skies and kissing the sun, the moon, and the stars. The crowd caught it and bound it with ropes. The holy goat was good-natured and let everyone take a piece of horn. Everyone took a piece and made a snuffbox. Among the Jews there was joy and gladness. But the holy goat wanders the world without horns.12

Menaḥem Mendel saw himself as the goat of the parable. His followers may have gained something positive from their journey to Kotsk, but the psychic cost was too great for him. His response to this spiritual draining was to seclude himself periodically until he finally did so almost permanently in the wake of the dispute with Mordecai Joseph. Even during the last twenty years of his life following the incident with Mordecai Joseph, Menaḥem Mendel’s seclusion was not total. He still performed many of his functions as a rebbe, though in a much diminished and erratic manner. Ḥasidim would still be greeted but might have to wait weeks before Menaḥem Mendel appeared in public, and then only briefly. Occasionally, he would storm into the bet midrash and scream at the ḥasidim who happened to be there, demanding to know why they were there and what they wanted of him.13 Menaḥem Mendel’s relationship to his family and close disciples was more normal, even during the long periods of seclusion. He celebrated the Passover seder with his family, and on the Sabbath he would examine his grandchildren on their studies of the previous week. His senior disciples were able to enter his room and often consulted him on a variety of matters. He corresponded with 12 13

Ibid., 2:535; J. Fox, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Mi-Kotsk, 43f. Heschel describes Kotsk during this period. Cf. Kotsk, 2:547–51.

BIOGRAPHY

19

a number of people and kept himself informed on developments in the wider world.14 At a Friday night gathering in the fall of 1838, Menaḥem Mendel collapsed. He spent the next nine months in bed.15 During Menaḥem Mendel’s illness, Mordecai Joseph began to accept petitions (kvitlech) and donations (pidyonot) from ḥasidim, who were now coming to him in greater numbers for advice and help.16 Mordecai Joseph’s actions created ambivalence in the other senior disciples, which subsequently turned to open anger and opposition. They believed that Mordecai Joseph was preparing to rebel against Menaḥem Mendel and become a rebbe in his own right.17 Yet the other disciples did not publicly censure Mordecai Joseph. Many years later, Samuel of Sochaczew (1855–1926) asked his father, Abraham of Sochaczew (1839–1910), Menaḥem Mendel’s son-in-law and one of the senior disciples in Kotsk, why the other disciples had not rebuked Mordecai Joseph. Abraham answered that the disciples had remained silent because they feared that their motives might not be totally pure (“for the sake of heaven”) but might be influenced by jealousy or personal hostility.18 About the same time, Mordecai Joseph began to express doubts openly about Menaḥem Mendel’s theological direction.19 Mordecai Joseph later said that he had been a disciple of Menaḥem Mendel’s for seven years,20 implying that the last six years he spent in Kotsk he no longer considered himself Menaḥem Mendel’s disciple. Gershon Henoch of Radzyn (1839–1891), Mordecai Joseph’s grandson, writes as follows about the period in Kotsk in his sketch of Mordecai Joseph’s life: After the death of Simḥah Bunem, may he be remembered for eternal life, Mordecai Joseph suffered thirteen years of tribulation, hiding in the cave of Adullam, for the time had not come for him to teach Torah publicly. His soul found companions, 14 P. Z. Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 63–67, provides examples and documentation. 15 It occurred on the Friday night of parshat Toldot. 16 Accepting petitions and donations is to declare that one considers oneself to be a rebbe. 17 Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 53; Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 32. 18 Samuel of Sochaczew, Shem Mi-Shmuel, Mezora, 5:196. 19 Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 28. 20 Rakatz, Siaḥ Sarfei Kodesh, 3:15.

20

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN and he taught Torah secretly to the discreet and wise until the time that the word of God had spoken of.21 The time came when the spirit of God began to move him [Judges 13:25], in the year 5600.22

In this passage Gershom Henoch compares Mordecai Joseph to two important biblical figures and one rabbinic sage. The cave of Adullam is an allusion to David’s hiding from Saul (1 Samuel 22:1). The period of thirteen years, which coincides with the period from Simḥah Bunem’s death until Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk, is also the period that Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his son hid in a cave because of persecution by the Romans.23 The authorship of the Zohar was traditionally attributed to Rabbi Simeon, who was supposed to have formulated its basic ideas during this period of hiding in the cave.24 In his quotation from Judges 13:25, Gershom Henoch is alluding to God’s call to Samson to begin his divinely ordained mission.25 These allusions and parallels reflect Gershom Henoch’s view of the centrality and cosmic significance of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings. However, if we strip away the mythic and heroic aspects of these references, there remains the historical kernel of the tension between Mordecai Joseph and Menaḥem Mendel. The conflict seems to have been a question of both differing personality traits and the radicalism of Mordecai Joseph’s ideas. If Menaḥem Mendel was aware of Mordecai Joseph’s dissatisfaction, he said nothing in public. Others, however, began to see the impending rift. Ḥanokh Henokh of Aleksandrow (1798–1870) later reported that he once met Mordecai Joseph coming out of Menaḥem Mendel’s study as he was on his way in. Ḥanokh Henokh asked Mordecai Joseph if there was anything new. He continues: “When he answered me that there was nothing new, I knew

21 A reference to Zohar 1:116b–17a and 119a. For a discussion of the significance of these texts, see below, chap. 7 sec. 2. 22 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, introduction, 3a. 23 B. Shabbat 33b. 24 Gershom Henoch accepted the traditional ascription of the Zohar’s authorship. For the most recent discussion of the authorship of the Zohar see Yehuda Liebes, “How the Zohar was Written.” 25 My thanks to Prof. Arthur Green for calling my attention to this parallel.

BIOGRAPHY

21

at that moment that he was no longer a disciple of Kotsk.”26 For a disciple to visit his master and leave without learning anything was a sure sign that the disciple was not “listening” to his master. In the fall of 1839 (5600), Mordecai Joseph came to spend the High Holy Days in Kotsk as he had done in previous years. Exactly what happened during this holiday season is a subject of controversy. All the sources are in agreement that after Simḥat Torah Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk, having irreparably broken with Menaḥem Mendel, founding his own dynasty in the aftermath. Two very different and contradictory accounts of this crucial period exist. The first version is the Leiner family tradition found in Dor Yesharim. According to this account: When the time came for his greatness to be revealed, in the year 5600 of the creation, to which the Zohar had alluded [that the gates of wisdom will then be opened],27 he traveled to Kotsk. It was his custom to be in Kotsk from Rosh Hashanah until the end of Succoth. This last time, many ḥasidim immediately began to address him with the title rebbe and to give him petitions with donations. When he accepted the petitions, a great tumult and much disputation broke out among the ḥasidim, for jealousy resides even in the heavens. God-fearing and wise ḥasidim followed him and cleaved to him. He behaved in this manner [as a rebbe] in Kotsk until Shemini Azeret, and the rebbe [Menaḥem Mendel] said nothing. On the eve of Simḥat Torah, Mordecai Joseph told his followers to bring Torah scrolls to his inn, where they would pray and conduct the haqafot, instead of joining the others in the rebbe’s bet midrash. They did not understand the reason for this at the time, but carried out his wishes immediately. After the prayers in the rebbe’s bet midrash the haqafot began. Mordecai Joseph usually led the haqafah of Joseph the z9addiq.28 When the time came for this haqafah, the rebbe ran from his room into the bet midrash and grabbed the Torah scroll from the person who was holding it. When he saw who was holding it, he immediLevin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 30. Zohar, 1:119a. For a more extensive discussion, see below, chap. 6. 28 In the Hasidic and kabbalistic tradition, the seven haqafot (circuits with the Torah scroll) were dedicated to the seven “shepherds” (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, and David). The sixth haqafah, dedicated to Joseph, also symbolized the z9addiq (the sefirah of Yesod). Cf. Abraham Yaari, Toldot Ḥag Simḥat Torah, 290, 317f. 26 27

22

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN ately returned it, saying that he thought it was Mordecai Joseph. The ḥasidim saw this and understood that Mordecai Joseph had foreseen this with divine inspiration and therefore had made his own minyan in his inn, in order to avoid a dispute. Mordecai Joseph said that had he been holding the Torah scroll, there is no way it could have been taken from him. Later, he told his ḥasidim that he had received a sign from heaven that he should not go to the haqafot in the rebbe’s bet midrash. When he was preparing to go to the haqafot in the bet midrash he put on his left shoe first, before his right shoe.29 From this he understood that he should not go, but should celebrate the haqafot in his own house.30

J. L. Levin concurs with the general tenor of this account but has a different version of the dramatic confrontation between Mordecai Joseph and Menaḥem Mendel. Levin asserts that he is reporting an eyewitness account but does not cite his source. According to Levin’s version, Mordecai Joseph did participate in the haqafot in Menaḥem Mendel’s bet midrash and was prepared to lead the sixth haqafah, that of Joseph the z9addiq. He had just put on his talit when Menaḥem Mendel came over and pulled the talit off his shoulders.31 Mordecai Joseph took the talit back, put it on, and left for his inn, where he and his followers completed the haqafot.32 Another version of the events leading to Mordecai Joseph’s departure is related to the “Friday night incident” and its aftermath. According to this version, on a Friday night in the fall of 1839, Menaḥem Mendel either desecrated the Sabbath by extinguishing the candles or made a statement denying God, and Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk in reaction to this incident. The history and plausibility of this story are are discussed below in the Appendix. The evidence indicates that the story has no factual support and must be considered a fabrication. On the other hand, there is no reason 29 The Shulḥan Arukh (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 2:4) prescribes how one should dress. The right shoe is always put on before the left. Mordecai Joseph was normally punctilious in following these rules. 30 Dor Yesharim, 33f. 31 During the haqafot, only the person leading the haqafah wears a talit. Menaḥem Mendel pulled the talit off Mordecai Joseph to indicate that he did not want Mordecai Joseph to have the honor of leading the haqafah. Menaḥem Mendel’s action was a public humiliation and repudiation of Mordecai Joseph. 32 Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 31.

BIOGRAPHY

23

to doubt the basic facts presented by Leiner and Levin, once the hagiographic elements are removed. Immediately after Simḥat Torah, Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk, never to return. There are two accounts of Mordecai Joseph’s departure. According to H. S. Leiner, Mordecai Joseph’s departure was amicable. David, Menaḥem Mendel’s son, accompanied Mordecai Joseph to his carriage and asked him for a memento. Mordecai Joseph gave David the petitions (kvitlech) and donations (pidyonot) he had collected during his stay in Kotsk, saying, “I leave you income for your children and grandchildren.”33 The money was given to Menaḥem Mendel’s wife. Leiner also reports that David is supposed to have said years later that this incident gave him the authority to be a rebbe.34 A very different departure scene is reported by P. Z. Gliksman.35 According to this version, Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk at the head of a large crowd of ḥasidim calling out as he departed, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me” (Exodus 32:26). This verse is Moses’ call to those who still followed the Lord after he saw the Israelites worshipping the golden calf. Hasidic masters do not quote biblical verses loosely. What Mordecai Joseph meant to imply is an important question. Unfortunately, it cannot be answered with certainty. Considering the subsequent relations between Menaḥem Mendel and Mordecai Joseph and their respective followers, the second version of Mordecai Joseph’s departure is the more plausible. In addition, the apologetic tone of Leiner’s account of the confrontations between Mordecai Joseph and Menaḥem Mendel is readily apparent. In summary, Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk after a personal confrontation with Menaḥem Mendel on Simḥat Torah in the fall of 1839. This confrontation severed the last links between Menaḥem Mendel and Mordecai Joseph, which had been weakening over a long period. The causes of this rupture were, as we shall see, philosophical and went beyond a clash of personalities.

Dor Yesharim, 34. Ibid. 35 Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 53. 33 34

24

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

2. AFTER THE BREAK From Kotsk, Mordecai Joseph first returned to his home in Tomaszow, but the opposition of the local Kotsker ḥasidim was so great that he was forced to seek a new home. Several towns in the area invited Mordecai Joseph to settle there. He chose the small town of Izbica, not far from Kotsk.36 Mordecai Joseph’s rebellion called forth much bitterness and hostility from Menaḥem Mendel and his followers. Families were divided and friendships were broken between those who remained in Kotsk and those who followed Mordecai Joseph, and a veritable civil war ensued. Menaḥem Mendel remained implacably hostile to Mordecai Joseph and anyone who had anything to do with him. Rabbi Hillel of Baranow, an important disciple in Kotsk, left with Mordecai Joseph. When he returned to Kotsk, Menaḥem Mendel asked who he was, as if he did not know him. Then he turned to the assembled group of ḥasidim and said, “Reverence for your teacher is like reverence for heaven.37 Are there two heavens?”38 Many years after the split, Hirsch of Tomaszow, Menaḥem Mendel’s personal assistant (shammash), accidentally met Mordecai Joseph on the street in Warsaw and had a brief conversation with him. When Menaḥem Mendel heard about this brief encounter, he was furious with Hirsch for having anything to do with Mordecai Joseph.39 Mordecai Joseph was not as hostile to Menaḥem Mendel. Several years after the split, Menaḥem Mendel temporarily came out of seclusion. Mordecai Joseph wanted to visit Kotsk and sent a representative to ask the advice of Hirsch of Tomaszow and David, Menaḥem Mendel’s son. They both dissuaded him from coming because of the dispute. They could not accept responsibility for what would happen if he came.40 Isaac of Worka, the only one of Menaḥem Mendel’s disciples who tried to maintain friendly relations with Mordecai Joseph after 36 The choice of Izbica is explained by Leiner as the fulfillment of a prophecy by the Seer of Lublin, who once passed through the town and said that a great scholar would settle there and spread Torah (Dor Yesharim, 34). A simpler explanation for the choice of Izbica is its proximity to Kotsk. 37 Avot 4:12. 38 Rakatz, Siaḥ Sarfei Kodesh, 4:68–69; Artan, Emet ve-Emunah, para. 119. 39 Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 53 n. 3. 40 Alter, Meir Eynei ha-Golah, 1:101.

BIOGRAPHY

25

the break, once passed through Izbica. In the course of conversation he asked Mordecai Joseph why he had left Kotsk. Mordecai Joseph replied that he had been commanded by heaven to lead a community of ḥasidim. To this Isaac responded that when Samuel heard a heavenly voice he went to Eli, the high priest, to ask about it.41 From this we learn, Isaac concluded, that one should ask his teacher even about a heavenly voice.42 Isaac’s criticism is clear. Mordecai Joseph should have tried to resolve his differences with Menaḥem Mendel rather than leave, even if he had good reasons for his actions. Whatever the historical accuracy of this story, it indicates that there was a desire among some of Menaḥem Mendel’s senior disciples for dialogue with Mordecai Joseph, even if they thought his departure unjustifiable. The dispute was also carried on by the followers of Mordecai Joseph and Menaḥem Mendel. The lengths to which the disputants would go to embarrass and harass the other side is illustrated by several incidents which Kotsker ḥasidim perpetrated in Izbica. One winter day, finding the bet midrash empty, they quickly filled it with snow. On another occasion the doors of the bet midrash were stolen.43 Even Mordecai Joseph himself was not immune from harassment. One Sabbath someone put earth and sand in his cholent while it was in the town baker’s oven. The story tells that Mordecai Joseph ate it anyway, to show he would let nothing disturb his Sabbath, and cursed the man who did the deed.44 Kotsker ḥasidim were also persecuted by Ibitzer ḥasidim. According to one account, the persecuted ḥasidim brought a list of their persecutors to Menaḥem Mendel, who threw the list into a fire. Jehiel Meir of Gostynin, who was standing nearby, plucked the list from the flames, but a large part of the list was already burned. Those whose names were on the burned part of the list were burned in their houses.45 The disputes between the followers of Mordecai Joseph and his successors and the followers of Menaḥem Mendel and his successors continued up to the twentieth century. The two groups were finally reconciled when Mordecai Joseph’s great-grandson, Mordecai Joseph

A reference to 1 Samuel 3:3–8. Rakatz, Siaḥ Sarfei Kodesh, 1:63, 4:84. 43 Levin, Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica, 38. 44 Dor Yesharim, 36. 45 Alter, Meir Eynei ha-Golah, 1: 97; Artan, Emet ve-Emunah, para. 744. 41 42

26

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Eleazar (1877–1929), befriended Israel of Pilov, Menaḥem Mendel’s grandson, in 1899 at the resort of Marienbad.46 Mordecai Joseph led his disciples in Izbica for thirteen years after his departure from Kotsk. He had been sickly all his life and after a long illness died in Izbica on the seventh of Teveth, 5614 (1854).

46

Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 57.

3. THEOLOGY Mordecai Joseph’s theology is based on the principle of divine providence. By that is meant the idea that man’s moral and spiritual life is not the result of his own choices but the unfolding of God’s plan for each individual. This concept is the leitmotif which permeates Mordecai Joseph’s teachings and shapes his understanding of Judaism. His understanding of this concept and its implications for his theology will be developed in this chapter and the next. In the rabbinic tradition, the responses to the problem of divine providence and human free will were manifold. It is possible to find rabbis who adopted positions ranging from near determinism to almost complete free will.1 The results of attempting to find a “rabbinic position” on this issue are aptly summarized by E. E. Urbach, who writes, “We must state that we have found a multifaceted struggle extending over generations of sages which cannot be summarized in a dictum formulated by one or other scholar.”2 Within the rabbinic spectrum, the closest one can come to a deterministic position is the famous maxim by R. Hanina, “All is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven.”3 A completely deterministic position cannot be found in rabbinic literature. In medieval Jewish philosophy, “the problem of determinism was primarily discussed in the context of the classic dilemma between divine foreknowledge and human freedom.”4 The difficulty of reconciling man’s freedom with God’s omniscience had already 1 For the rabbinic discussion on determinism, see A. J. Heschel, Torah Min Ha-Shamayim be-Aspeklariah shel ha-Dorot, 1:177–79; George Foote Moore, Judaism, 1:455–57; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages, 255–85. 2 Ibid., 284. 3 B. Berakhot, 33b; b. Megilla, 25a; b. Niddah, 61b. 4 S. Feldman, “A Debate Concerning Determinism in Late Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” 15. See also L. Jacobs, “Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will.”

27

28

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

been recognized in the rabbinic period.5 The majority of medieval Jewish philosophers adopted a position which favored human freedom, despite the problem of God’s omniscience.6 The exception was Hasdai Crescas, whose teachings come closest to a deterministic position. The extent of Crescas’s determinism remains a subject debated by scholars of medieval Jewish philosophy.7 Determinism does not appear to be an issue addressed by the thinkers of the kabbalistic and Hasidic traditions. Mordecai Joseph seems to be unique in the Hasidic tradition in postulating a theology based on determinism. There is no reason to believe that he was influenced by Crescas and his teachings.8 For Mordecai Joseph, “All is in the hands of Heaven including the fear of heaven,”9 a paraphrase of R. Hanina’s maxim. This chapter will consider the impact of his theology on the central concepts of Torah, the commandments, and sin.

1. TORAH AND THE WILL OF GOD The central document of Jewish faith and tradition is the Torah, and the giving of the Torah on Sinai the central event. It is appropriate, then, to begin our analysis of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings with this central document and event. For Mordecai Joseph, the Exodus from Egypt and the events leading to Sinai are an unfolding process of man’s becoming aware that his apparent freedom is an illusion. It is the deepening realization that all is in the hands of Heaven and man ultimately has no independence. According to Mordecai Joseph, the Jews in Egypt called to God to express their dependence on Him and His will. The miracles of the Exodus serve a similar purpose. The demonstration of God’s absolute mastery of the world reached its apogee when Israel stood before Sinai J. Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism, 38. A. Altmann, “The Religion of the Thinkers.” 7 A classic study is J. Guttmann, “Ba’ayat ha-Beḥirah ha-Ḥofshit beMishnatam shel Ḥasdai Crescas ve-ha-Aristotalim ha-Muslamim.” More recent studies include S. Feldman, “Crescas’ Theological Determinism”; C. Touati, “La Providence Divine chez Hasday Crescas”; E. Schweid, HaPhilosophia ha-Datit shel R. Ḥasdai Crescas, chap. 12. See also n. 4 above. 8 Crescas’s major work, Or Adonai, was first printed in Ferrara in 1556. It was not reprinted again until 1860, six years after Mordecai Joseph’s death. Cf. C. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, 1:48. 9 E.g. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Noaḥ, 5a; Vayera, 8a; Liqutei Shas, 1:14a–b. 5 6

THEOLOGY

29

to receive the Torah. Mordecai Joseph quotes the Midrash, which states: When God gave the Torah no bird twittered, no fowl flew, no ox lowed, none of the ophanim stirred a wing, the seraphim did not say holy, holy, the sea did not roar, the creatures spoke not, the whole world was hushed into breathless silence and the voice went forth: I am the Lord your God [Exodus 20:2].10

He explains the Midrash: That is, the Blessed One silenced all the powers, showing them clearly and explicitly that they have no power. Even the beginning of the outcry which [the Israelites] cried out in Egypt was not from them. Rather, God sent them the stimulus to pray and to call out to Him. This is why the Blessed One began with the statement, “I am the Lord your God who took you out of [the land of Egypt]” [Exodus 20:2]. Just as they recognized that in receiving the Torah the stimulus did not come from them, similarly the Exodus from Egypt was not the result of their arousal in prayer. Rather, I am the Lord your God who took you out of Egypt and sent you the ability to pray and stirred you to pray.11

This interpretation of the Exodus, the events leading to Sinai, and the giving of the Torah negates the concept of z9orekh gavoha (divine need),12 a central motif in the kabbalistic and Hasidic traditions. This concept teaches that man is an active partner in the divine process that sustains the world. Through prayer and performance of the commandments, man awakens and gives strength to the divine (sefirotic) world, which in turn activates the divine flow (shefa) that sustains the lower world and makes its existence possible. In Mordecai Joseph’s teachings, man is no longer an active partner in this cosmic drama. Even the stimulus to pray comes from above. Instead of the bipolar focus of the medieval kabbalists, Mordecai Joseph has only one focus, God. Mordecai Joseph’s interpretation illustrates the extreme theocentricity of his thought. The only reality which is of any conseExodus Rabbah 29:9. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Yitro, 16a–b. 12 For an analysis of this concept see M. Faierstein, “God’s Need for the Commandments in Medieval Kabbalah”; D. Matt, “The Mystic and the Mitzwot.” 10 11

30

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

quence is the will of God, and man’s task is to discern what God’s specific will is at any given moment in history. All traditions about the eternal stability of the essence of God’s will disappear in Mordecai Joseph’s writings. The divine will is neither eternal nor outside of time.13 The message of the prophets, for example, is not eternal, since their prophecies are dependent on specific circumstances and on their understanding.14 The Torah, which is the direct word of God, cannot be so easily relegated to a secondary position vis-à-vis the will of God. Yet Mordecai Joseph does not accept as true that the specific will of God is always found in the Torah. He writes: The plea of the Josephite tribe is just [Numbers 36:5]. The reason why this section [the daughters of Zelophehad incident], which deals with a very specific and unique occurrence needed only for that hour, comes at the end of the Torah,15 is in order to teach Israel that man does not live by bread alone but by the word of God [Deuteronomy 8:3]. Bread refers to the general rules of the Torah needed at all times by all persons not admitting change or substitution. They are the 613 commandments. But the root of it all is to understand through the words of Torah at each time what the specific will of God is for that time and for that season. From [interacting with] the words of the Torah there issues a light into the hearts of Israel that they can understand the deep will of God according to the moment. For this reason, this portion was written at the end of the Torah to indicate to Israel that from the whole Torah there issue details for each time and season.16

For Mordecai Joseph, the Torah contains general principles and instructions applicable to most situations. However, the will of God is not always necessarily identical with the Torah and with the rabbinic tradition that flows from it. Observing all the commandments of the Torah and the rabbinic injunctions does not always ensure that one has acted in accordance with the specific will of God. He writes: Weiss, “A Late Jewish Utopia”, 214f. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Matot, 54b. 15 When Mordecai Joseph calls the end of Numbers the end of the Torah, he means it in the sense that Deuteronomy is called mishne Torah, the recapitulation of the Torah. 16 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Masei, 56a. 13 14

THEOLOGY

31

Even if a person has been careful to observe the entire Shulḥan Arukh, he is still in doubt whether he has plumbed the depths of God’s will, for the specific will of the Blessed One is very deep. … The Holy One, as it were, prays; Oh, were it that [the children of Israel] would follow His laws and understand the depths of His will.17

By breaking the absolute connection between the Torah and the will of God, Mordecai Joseph weakens a cornerstone of rabbinic Judaism. The Torah is no longer the indispensable, specific, and unchanging guide to the divine will. Instead, it contains only general principles which apply in most, but not all, cases. In each specific instance one must look to God to discern the divine will specific to that particular moment. One cannot rely solely on the rules and prescriptions of the Torah. The stories in the Torah illustrate this principle, and the biblical heroes are exemplars of this theory. They are archetypes of the human failures which have not yet been perfected and serve as benchmarks for the proper and improper working out of these imperfections.18 Mordecai Joseph shifts the focus of the theological concern from one of adhering closely to the rules of the Torah to one of discerning the specific will of God in every action and at every moment. This concept is coupled with the idea of absolute providence, which leads to the paradoxical notion that while it is man’s ultimate responsibility to do the will of God, it is not within the willed choice and sole power of man to do so. Man can do the will of God only with the help of God.19 The working out and explanation of this central paradox is at the heart of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings. It is the base on which he builds his edifice. Thus, while the twin ideas of the will of God coupled with absolute providence are the leitmotifs which illumine much of his thought, they are not the only keys which explain everything. Two axioms are important corollaries to Mordecai Joseph’s understanding of the will of God. The first axiom is the important principle that the specific will of God is not unchanging. What was God’s will at one time may not be so a second time, even under similar circumstances. God is constantly guiding man, and he must Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Beḥuqotai, 27a–b. Schatz, “Autonomia,” 556. 19 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Qedoshim, 38b. 17 18

32

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

seek the specific will of God each time afresh.20 An important precedent and possible source for this concept is the following teaching attributed to Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. About that time Judah left his brothers and camped near a certain Adullamite [Genesis 38:1]. Midrash Rabbah [Genesis Rabbah 85:1] comments, “Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman began, For I know the thoughts [Jeremiah 29:11]—the tribes were occupied with the sale of Joseph. Joseph was occupied with sackcloth and fasting. Jacob was occupied with sackcloth and fasting. Judah was occupied with finding a wife, and God was occupied with creating the light of the Messiah.” The midrash astonishes all who see it. Our master, Rabbi Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha, may he be remembered for eternal life, said that this midrash teaches us a splendid thing. The tribes and Jacob were occupied with fasting and crying to God. The tribes and Joseph on account of Joseph’s sale, and Jacob in mourning for his son. They were praying to God with all their heart and soul. Judah was occupied with finding a wife. It appears to human eyes that their [Jacob and the tribes] preoccupation was holier, since [Judah] was [only] preoccupied with finding a wife. Nonetheless, the midrash says that no person knows the thoughts that dwell in one’s heart, and God saw more in Judah’s deed and created the light of the Messiah from it. Up to this point are given [R. Simḥah Bunem’s] very cryptic words—he does not explain what Judah’s intention was in finding a wife. The explanation would seem to be—when Judah saw what had happened as a result of his advice, his heart melted and with great and bitter remorse until his existence became meaningless. He concluded that everything he had learned in his life was lost, so that his soul almost left him. Finally, he decided to begin fulfilling [the commandments of] the Torah anew and prepared to serve the Lord, his God, from then on like a newborn child. He began his service [of God] afresh from the first commandment in the Torah.21 This thought was so precious to Him who knows [man’s] thoughts and examines hearts that from [Judah’s new beginning] the light of the Messiah was created.22

In this teaching, Menaḥem Mendel has Judah going back to first principles, to the first commandment of the Torah. He feels that Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeḥi, 17b. God’s blessing to be fruitful and multiply [Genesis 1:28] is counted as the first of the 613 commandments. 22 Ohel Torah (Lublin, 1909), Vayeshev, para. 35. 20 21

THEOLOGY

33

his understanding of God’s will is insufficient, so he begins anew the study and observance of the Torah as mediated through the halacha. Simḥah Bunem and Menaḥem Mendel still operate in a halachocentric environment. Mordecai Joseph’s innovation is to transcend the halacha and look directly to God, without the mediation of the Torah. Another, and much earlier, possible precedent for Mordecai Joseph’s concept of the centrality of the will of God can be found in the teachings of the medieval ḥasidei Ashkenaz. H. Soloveitchik has argued that “underlying much of Sefer Ḥasidim is the idea that the will of God, the rezon ha-bore has not been cabined or confined within the overt dictates of the Torah written or oral.”23 Mordecai Joseph shares with the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz the concept that the will of God is to be sought outside the confines of the written Torah. However, he parts company with them in his development of the implications of this concept and its consequences. For the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz this idea led to the expansion of the realm of halacha and had no antinomian implications.24 Mordecai Joseph, on the other hand, does not shrink from exploring those aspects of the concept that lead to possible antinomianism.25 Though Mordecai Joseph does not explicitly cite the Sefer Ḥasidim as a source in his writings, it is reasonable to assume that as a well-educated Jew he was familiar with it. The extent to which the ideas of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz influenced him remains speculative. His second axiom is that God’s will is always benevolent toward man, and following the will of God will always lead to the ultimate good.26 He is aware of the problem of theodicy and its dangers. This can be a particular problem for the servant of God, the z9addiq, who has a clearer perception of God’s will. He writes: Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin [Leviticus 21:1]. The priest is called a servant of God; he sees that everything which happens in the world is not accidental, but overseen by God. He also knows that it is the will of God only to benefit man. Such a person is liable to have complaints [against God] when 23 “Three Themes in Sefer Hasidim,” 313. My thanks to Prof. Moshe Idel for bringing this source to my attention. 24 Ibid., 350; Ivan G. Marcus, Piety and Society, 25f. 25 See below, this chapter, sec. 4. 26 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Qedoshim, 38b–39a.

34

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN he encounters something [like death] which derives from the divine attribute of judgment. A person who has decided that the world is accident cannot reach this level of complaint, because if something negative happens, he will say it is an accident. However, the person who knows that all that happens is in the hands of Heaven can have complaints. Therefore, God warned the priests, i.e., the servants of God, they shall not defile themselves to the dead, that they should not complain about God’s attribute of judgment. Having complaints against God is defiling oneself. The primary source of complaints in the world is against the attribute of justice, on account of the loss and pain which is found in the world, as is explained in the Holy Zohar. Therefore, God commanded, speak unto the priests, and speaking [amirah] is in a whisper. That is, to whisper to the servants of God not to have complaints about the attribute of justice, for God’s intent [in our experienced difficulty] is to benefit [us]. Even when He acts with the attribute of justice, His deepest intent is to benefit.27

This motif of optimism carries through to other areas of Mordecai Joseph’s thought and is particularly evident in his understanding of sin, especially the historic sins mentioned in the Bible. In Mordecai Joseph’s reinterpretation of the Torah, the biblical heroes become archetypes of the two approaches, looking to God and looking to the halacha. Two examples serve to illustrate. In kabbalistic symbolism, Isaac is the archetype for Gevurah, stern judgment. Mordecai Joseph expands this traditional symbolism and makes Isaac the strict adherent of the Torah and its rules. According to the rules, the blessing of the firstborn belonged to Esau, even though he did not deserve it. Isaac [wanting to follow the Torah] was prepared to give Esau the blessing. However, God caused Isaac to bless Jacob, because, although against the general rules of the Torah, in this particular case it was the will of God. Later, we find Jacob, as Israel, the archetype of the integrated person who looks to the will of God, consciously giving the blessing of the firstborn to the younger grandson. When Joseph tries to correct his father, Jacob exclaims, “I know, my son, I know” [Genesis 48:19]. Jacob always looked to God and consequently knew the divine will in this instance.28 Joseph, as we shall see later, is archetypal for those who look to the Torah rather than to God. 27 28

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Emor, 39b. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeḥi, 17b.

THEOLOGY

35

The second illustration is based on Numbers 12, which relates the episode of Aaron and Miriam speaking against Moses’ wife. According to Mordecai Joseph, they consented to the inclusion of this incident in the Torah, even though it appears to indicate that they had sinned, in order to fulfill the will of God.29 As we shall see later, the question of sin in the Torah is problematic for Mordecai Joseph, and there is no doubt that he viewed their action not as a sin, but rather as an act in concert with the deepest will of God. Mordecai Joseph asserts that the eschaton will come when “the Torah will be forgotten in Israel.”30 He explains by writing that “when the berur is complete,31 Israel will be attuned to the will of God solely out of the depths of their hearts.”32 The Torah and the 613 commandments derived from it will lose their raison d’être and disappear. They will become vestigial to the direct relationship between God and Israel. Mordecai Joseph’s understanding of the Torah and the eschaton draws on earlier rabbinic and kabbalistic sources. He cites the rabbinic statement about the Torah being forgotten, as well as similar expressions, such as “the miz9vot will be abrogated in the future.”33 Kabbalistic literature advocates the concept that our understanding of the Torah will be qualitatively changed in the messianic age.34 This idea first occurs in the Ra’aya Mehemna section of the Zohar, which talks of two Torahs: the Torah of the tree of life and the Torah of the tree of knowledge. In the preeschatological era we live under the Torah of the tree of knowledge, which contains the concepts of good and evil, the commandments and prohibitions. The eschaton, however, will be governed by the Torah of the tree of life, in which all of these distinctions disappear.35 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behalotekha, 48a. B. Shabbat 138b and parallels. In the Talmud this statement refers to the potential loss of oral traditions in the wake of the destruction of the Temple. For a survey of rabbinic views on the Torah in the Messianic age, see W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come. 31 I.e., the messianic age. 32 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Liqutei Shas, 13b. 33 B. Niddah, 61b. 34 For the role of Torah in Jewish mysticism, see G. Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism.” 35 On the role of the Torah in the Ra’aya Mehemna, I. Tishby, The Wis29 30

36

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN In the messianic age with the tiqqun accomplished and the effects of sin undone, all things will be restored to their pristine spirituality and the traditional type of “material” practice and observance of the commandments will automatically pass away.36

This concept was later adopted in the sixteenth century by R. Moses Cordovero and his school. A century later, it was also advocated by the Sabbatian movement, which tried to implement this concept.37 The radicalism of the Sabbatians was in their timing. They believed that the time had come for the spiritual Torah to take effect. For previous thinkers, what changed was the human perception and the understanding of the unchanging essence of the Torah. In the pre-messianic age we see the Torah though a cloudy glass which will become clear in the eschaton. Mordecai Joseph wishes to abolish the entire category of the general principles of the Torah in the messianic age. What had been the Archimedean point for previous generations lost its status in his thought. He believes that the divine will, in particular situations, is not necessarily stated in the Torah, but must be sought directly in the divine–human encounter. He qualifies his position by indicating that the divine will can be found without the mediation or guidance of the Torah in specific circumstances only, and then only by people who have completed the process of clarification (berur). Only those select individuals may even consider bypassing the general principles of the Torah. In this way he avoids the pitfalls of the Sabbatian type of heresy.

2. THE MIZ9VOT The role of the miz9vot presents significant difficulties for Mordecai Joseph’s theology. As we have seen, he argues that the Torah, which contains the commandments, does not necessarily embody the unchanging will of God. On occasion, one must look to the will of God not mediated by the Torah as the ultimate arbiter. One logical conclusion to be drawn from these premises is that the observance of the commandments may be superfluous. At the same dom of the Zohar, 3:1103–8; Y. Baer, “Ha-Reqa ha-Histori shel ha-Ra’aya Mehemna.” 36 G. Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, 319–20. 37 Ibid., 319–24.

THEOLOGY

37

time, Mordecai Joseph does not wish to transgress the bounds of rabbinic Judaism, which places greater emphasis on orthopraxy than on orthodoxy. Therefore, he must find a way of integrating the miz9vot into his system. He is also careful to counsel those individuals who have completed the berur to continue observing the commandments, even though they are no longer necessary for them personally. He is concerned that their behavior not mislead others who have not attained this level. This is particularly true in the case of the z9addiq who has completed the berur but must be a role model for his disciples. The performance of the miz9vot is, like everything else, in the hands of heaven. According to Mordecai Joseph, man’s ability to fulfill the miz9vot is a direct result of the divine imperative rather than human initiative. He finds evidence for this idea in the Israelite’s punctilious observance of the Sabbath in the desert. Mordecai Joseph argues: It is impossible for the human mind to comprehend how all the Israelites observed the first Sabbath with all its rules the first time, without any habituation. Scripture testifies that they did not transgress the slightest rule. This is evidence that God will attune and complete all our deeds for good. Therefore it says After you hear [Deuteronomy 7:12], for in the end it will be shown that all of Israel follows His holy will.38

Despite the fact that all is in the hands of Heaven, man does not recognize this, nor has he reached the spiritual level which will allow him to comprehend directly the true will of God in every situation. In addition, God has hidden His ways from man because He desires man’s worship (avodah). God created the world, Mordecai Joseph posits, so that man would recognize His presence, but if it were readily apparent, man would be left without a purpose. Therefore God hid Himself, making it appear that the world exists independently. The performance of the miz9vot is the means by which man can participate in the gradual revelation of God’s light in the world, since the commandments point to the divine.39 Man cannot reach a true understanding of the divine purely through intellectual contemplation. He needs acts to aid his understanding. Were it possible to attain true understanding purely intellectually, then acts 38 39

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ekev, 58b. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Ketubot, 63a.

38

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

become vestigial and unnecessary.40 Acts, then, are a necessary but not sufficient component of understanding the divine. Both acts and intellectual contemplation are necessary for attaining clarification. Categories of good and evil with their attendant good and evil inclinations (yez9arim) are realities in the pre-eschatological period, before the berur is complete. These categories are the “garments” in which God has clothed Himself in the world. It is only through the performance of miz9vot and good deeds that man can “clarify his heart” and reach the ultimate depths of understanding. Only in the future, when the berur has been completed, will the miz9vot become superfluous.41 In this respect, Mordecai Joseph’s perspective is similar to the above-cited kabbalists who followed the Lurianic paraphrase of Zechariah 14:9. In the world to come, when the berur has been completed, then God and His name will be one. All will be in the hands of Heaven, and [God’s name} will be read YHYH instead of YHVH.42

The miz9vot are a necessary stage in man’s spiritual evolution. Man is not yet able to merge his own will completely with the divine will. He can only apprehend the divine will momentarily, and then he loses his grip. Mordecai Joseph compares this to the development that the Israelites underwent in the time between their exodus from Egypt and their subsequent acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. At the Exodus the Israelites had intellectual knowledge of God’s will but did not yet have the inner, intuitive understanding of the divine will. The intuitive understanding, which is deeper than intellectual knowledge, came only at Sinai. He writes: They must be meticulous [in observing] the will of God and should not deviate from it, even by a hair’s breadth. Through this, they will attain permanent understanding and divine illuMei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Mishpaṭim, 17b. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ḥuqat, 51b–52a; Ekev, 58b; Liqutei Shas, 14a–b; Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Pesaḥim, 58b; Megillah, 61b. 42 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Liqutei Shas, 14a–b. The concept that the Tetragrammaton will be transformed in the messianic age from YHVH to YHYH is found in Hayyim Vital’s Liqutei Torah, Zechariah 14:9, p. 328. It is also found in Sabbatian literature in Nathan of Gaza’s letter to Raphael Joseph (I. Tishby, ed., Z9izat Novel Z9vi, 8). 40 41

THEOLOGY

39

mination. At [the first] Passover, [the Israelites] were illumined only temporarily. It was immediately hidden [from them] that they had seen God’s graciousness and goodness. They were not able to continue [following] His will. Therefore, it says, “A maidservant at the Reed Sea [saw more than Ezekiel],”43 because all of Israel were like a maidservant under the divine yoke. They were not able to [unite] their will completely with the divine will. At Shavuot, i.e., at the giving of the Torah, God introduced understanding into the heart of every person so that they should understand the divine will in their souls. This understanding [binah] is called moon [yare’aḥ]. Moon indicates understanding in the heart, and sun indicates wisdom in the eyes of man.44 These are the 613 commandments whereby the person knows, according to the general principles of the commandments, how to behave in each instance, whether it is forbidden or permitted. The moon indicates understanding in the heart of the person [enabling him] to sanctify himself. Even in those things permitted him, he should have limits in his deeds to distinguish what up to this point is the will of God and beyond [this point] is not. A person needs this understanding in all his actions.45

Before one reaches the intuitive level, the miz9vot play an important guiding role, making it possible to distinguish between what is permitted and what is forbidden. When the intuitive level of understanding is attained, then external guides—that is, the miz9vot—are no longer needed. For the individual, Mordecai Joseph allows for the operation of the intuitive level in the pre-eschatological era only in those areas not covered by the 613 commandments. In a situation where the commandments are not applicable, a person can rely on “the desire of his heart” if he does so thoughtfully and with due consideration. A person can rely on his intuition because he is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose every desire was for the sake of Heaven. Mordecai Joseph implies that the intuitive capabilities of the ancestors are transmitted to all of their descendants, giv-

Mekhilta, Beshallaḥ 2. In kabbalistic symbolism, the sun represents the sefirah of tiferet and the moon, malkhut. 45 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Emor, 40b. 43 44

40

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

ing them the ability to make intuitive judgments in certain permitted situations.46 Mordecai Joseph is also concerned with how the commandments are observed. He is strongly opposed to the mechanical performance of miz9vot by rote.47 His interpretation of the Cain and Abel story is illustrative. He writes: The first sin in the world grew out of jealousy. In truth, according to all appearance, Cain had a justified complaint. He was the first to awaken his spirit and bring a sacrifice. Abel, his brother, brought a sacrifice after him, and it appeared to Cain like a miz9vah done by rote. Therefore, Cain had a strong complaint against God. In truth, Abel did not bring the sacrifice [immediately, but waited] until after he had come to understand the reason and mystery of the sacrifice. Therefore, it was not considered a miz9vah done by rote. That is why God revealed himself to Cain and said to him, Why are you distressed and why is your face fallen? [Genesis 4:6]. For if Cain did not have a [just] argument, God would not have revealed Himself to him.48

The rote performance of miz9vot is likened by Mordecai Joseph to idolatry. Even mimicking one’s father or teacher is wrong. Each person must find his own path to God and his own mode of worship.49 One who has found his path must still be careful not to fall into habitual behavior. Though he does the same thing each day, yet each time he should do it as something new, with energy and happiness. A miz9vah done by rote is a lifeless thing, devoid of meaning.50 In his strictures against rote observance of commandments, Mordecai Joseph stands squarely in the tradition of the Polish school. One of the important things that set the Yehudi of Przysucha, the founder of the school, apart from his colleagues was his insistence on praying only when he had attained the proper level of kavvanah, even though he violated the rules concerning the time of prayer.51 Mordecai Joseph’s teacher, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk, Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Liqutei Shas, 14b. Miz9vot anashim melumada (Isaiah 29:13). 48 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bereshit, 4b. 49 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Yitro, 16b–17a. 50 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behalotekha, 48a. 51 Cf. Rabinowicz, Yaakov Yizḥak Mi-Przysucha, 95–96. 46 47

THEOLOGY

41

also spoke strongly against the rote observance of commandments, making this an important principle of his teachings.52

3. SIN Mordecai Joseph also approaches the problem of sin in an original manner. In light of his doctrine of determinism, the question of sin becomes problematic. If all is in the hands of Heaven, how is it possible for man to sin? He draws a distinction between the historic sins recorded in the Torah and sin in relation to the contemporary individual. The problem of sin and the contemporary individual is related to the themes of ḥisaron and berur, which will be considered in the next chapter. Here we will deal only with the historic sins discussed in the Torah. Mordecai Joseph proposes, as a general principle, that all of the sins of the Israelites in the desert were the will of God and not a matter of free choice.53 The reason that the sins of Israel are named for the places rather than the time [they occurred] is that persons should not think that their sins were the result of their own free will or that they had the choice to separate themselves from the sin. That is why the place is mentioned: [to show] that [there] they did not have the possibility of protecting themselves from their sins and moving to another place.54

Choosing a number of the more prominent biblical sins, Mordecai Joseph analyzes them in greater detail. He deals first with Adam’s sin in eating of the tree of knowledge. Although Adam believed that he had violated God’s command by eating the fruit of the tree, in the future it will be shown that Adam did not really sin. Mordecai Joseph writes: In the future, when the sin of Adam will be repaired [metuqan], the permutation of the verses will read, From every fruit of the tree shall you eat, and from the tree of knowledge, the good, and then, the evil you shall not eat [Genesis 2:16-7]. That is, the good of the tree you shall eat. Only the bad you shall not eat. God will make it

On Menachem Mendel’s attitude, see Heschel, Kotsk, 1:82–88. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayera, 8b. 54 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Devarim, 56a. 52 53

42

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN clear that he ate only the good and the sin was only in his mind, [as insignificant as] a garlic husk and no more.55

Mordecai Joseph’s reinterpretation of Adam’s sin strikes at the central axiom of Lurianic Kabbalah and, by implication, the theological basis of Hasidism, which is derived from kabbalistic theology. In Lurianic Kabbalah, Adam’s sin is identified with the cosmic cataclysm known as the breaking of the vessels [shevirat ha-kelim]. The religious task of man after this cataclysm is to find and elevate the sparks of holiness which fell into the abyss as a result of this catastrophe. The whole theological edifice of Lurianic Kabbalah is built on the reality of this event.56 If it did not really happen, then exile is illusory, and the task of raising the sparks which leads to redemption is meaningless. The implications of this argument and Mordecai Joseph’s attempt to deal with it will be discussed in the analysis of the concept of berur, in the next chapter. For Mordecai Joseph, Adam’s “sin” lay in his misunderstanding of the specific will of God at that time. Similarly, Cain’s anger against his brother Abel was justified according to his perception. His error was in not looking to God for an explanation of what seemed to him unjustifiable, before taking the law into his own hands. We find the same pattern repeated in the story of the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32–36). The man’s intention was for the sake of Heaven, according to some rabbinic interpretations of the story.57 He was willing to sacrifice his life in order to teach the Israelites the seriousness of desecrating the Sabbath. Here, too, a substitution of human for divine will occurred, for the man neglected to ask whether it was the divine will that the Sabbath laws be violated at that time and place. His sin was not in violating the rules of the Torah but in acting contrary to the divine will, which is dependent on the specific circumstances.58 In all of these instances, the prohibitions of the Torah (general principles) are not a significant element in Mordecai Joseph’s discussion. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bereshit, 4a. For an overview of the basic tenets of Lurianic Kabbalah, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, chap. 7. For a more detailed discussion of the significance of Adam’s sin, see Isaiah Tishby, Torat ha-Ra ve-ha-Qelipah be-Kabbalat ha-Ari, 91–105. 57 Cf. Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 6:84 n. 452, for the sources. 58 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shelaḥ, 49b. 55 56

THEOLOGY

43

The cause for punishment was not transgression of the Torah’s commandments but failure to properly seek God’s specific will in the matter. Perhaps the most controversial sin which Mordecai Joseph discusses is that of Zimri, head of the tribe of Simeon, who had sexual relations with a Midianite woman, Cosbi, the daughter of Zur [Numbers 25:6–15]. Mordecai Joseph’s treatment of the problem deserves full citation, both as an example of his method and for the information it gives us about his understanding of the mechanism of sin in great people. He writes: It should not enter your mind to think that Zimri was an adulterer, heaven forbid. The Holy One does not make a section of the Torah to honor an adulterer. Instead, there is a secret in this matter. There are ten levels in harlotry. The first [lowest] level is the one who adorns himself and deliberately sets out to sin. That is, the person draws the evil inclination to himself. After this there are still nine levels. On every higher level, the person’s freedom is lessened and it becomes [harder] for the person to flee from the sin, up to the tenth level. This is one who has distanced himself from the evil inclination and guards himself from sin with all his strength, until it is impossible to do so any more. If his inclination overpowers him and he does something [sinful], then it is certainly the will of the Holy One, as in the matter of Judah and Tamar. She was indeed his heaven-intended mate [bat zugo].59 This concept is also applicable here. Zimri truly protected himself from all evil desires. He thought that [Cosbi] was his intended mate when he realized that it was not in his power to extricate himself from this [situation]. Phinehas argued, on the contrary, that it was still within his power to extricate himself from this deed. … It is written, The name of the Israelite man who was killed [Numbers 25:14]. This means that the Holy One showed Phinehas, after he had done his deed, with whom he was at war. He should not think that [Zimri] was totally an adulterer, heaven forbid. Phinehas was of the seed of Joseph, who had clarified this matter [sexuality] though asceticism and tempta-

59 Mordecai Joseph is alluding to the kabbalistic concept that some people are predestined to be mates. In Lurianic Kabbalah this concept is discussed in Hayyim Vital, Sha’ar ha-Gilgulim, haqdamah 20, pp. 53–55.

44

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN tions. Therefore, the deed of Zimri was very evil in his eyes.60 Concerning this it says, Israel was a youth and I loved him (Hosea 11:1).61 This was literally the matter of Phinehas, who judged Zimri to be an ordinary adulterer and therefore he judged him [legally, in his view] and zealously attacked him. The deep mystery hidden [in his irresistible attraction to Cosbi], that she was Zimri’s intended mate from the six days of creation, was unclear to [Phinehas], as is explained in the writings of the Ari [Isaac Luria], of blessed memory.62 Moses our teacher, peace unto him, did not enter into this [controversy] to judge [Zimri worthy of] death. We find that Phinehas was like an immature youth [na’ar] in this incident, that is, he did not know the depth of the matter, but [understood it on the level of] outward appearance and human understanding and no more.63 Nonetheless, the Blessed One loved him and agreed with him, because according to his understanding he had done a great thing with his zealousness and sacrificed himself.64

Mordecai Joseph’s discussion of Zimri is the single most controversial passage in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ. He has completely reversed the traditional understanding of this incident. He has taken Zimri (who is considered one of the most despicable characters in the Torah) and turned him into a virtual saint. Zimri believed that he was following the will of God in having sexual relations with the woman who was his intended mate from the beginning of creation. At the same time, Phinehas is traditionally considered to be the hero of the story.65 His reward was an everlasting priesthood, In kabbalistic symbolism, Joseph is the guardian of sexual purity (cf. Zohar 1:184a, 251a). In Mordecai Joseph’s teachings, Joseph is the archetype for the strict legalistic approach that looks to the Law rather than to God for guidance. The role of Joseph in Mordecai Joseph’s teachings is discussed below. 61 The term for “youth” is na’ar, which in Yiddish can mean fool. The possibility must be considered that Mordecai Joseph had this double entendre in mind. 62 I have not been able to find the source of this statement. Y. Leiner, in the marginal notes to the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, cites A. Azulai, Ḥesed LeAbraham, Ma’ayan 5, Nehar 25, p. 37a–b, as the source. Zimri is mentioned there, but in a different context. 63 This negative assessment of Phinehas is repeated in Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Matot, 55a. 64 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Phinehas, 54a. 65 The traditional attitude toward this incident is pithily summarized in 60

THEOLOGY

45

which has been interpreted to mean that he is none other than Elijah.66 Mordecai Joseph makes him into an impetuous youth at best and a fool at worst. Mordecai Joseph considers Phinehas to be of the seed of Joseph,67 that is, one who looks only to the Law and does not truly understand the will of God. Zimri, on the other hand, follows the will of God even though it happens that he is violating the teachings of the Torah. Mordecai Joseph opens his discussion of Zimri with an illuminating preamble about sin in general. He observes that there are ten levels of sin. The lowest is the person who deliberately sets out to sin and does not care about the rules set forth in the Torah. The implication that must be drawn is that, on the level of the ordinary person, there is a measure of human freedom, and the determinism is not as absolute as one might expect. It would be helpful at this point to analyze one more biblical story, the sin of worshipping the golden calf. Mordecai Joseph asserts that this incident occurred because the Israelites wanted God to show them the divine order for the world; how He planned to guide each generation. With this insight, they would not have to pray for divine guidance every day but would have advance knowledge of what God expected of them and could always follow God’s will with certainty. However, this was not God’s intent, since the open revelation of the divine will without the mediation of prayer and service (avodah) is only to occur in the messianic age. Thus, their “sin” was a premature desire for a spiritual state of being not yet attainable by the world.68 This theme of premature messianic anticipation also underlies the other sins discussed. It can be argued that Zimri’s behavior was appropriate from the divine perspective, and that in the messianic age this perspective will be visible to all, not just a select few who have attained the requisite spiritual level. This is the view Mordecai Joseph follows in his summary of Israel’s sins. He writes: the rabbinic aphorism, “He does the deed of Zimri and expects the reward of Phinehas” (y. Sanhedrin 6:3). 66 For the source of this identification, see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 6:316 n. 3. 67 According to Lurianic Kabbalah, Phinehas was a transmigration (gilgul) of Joseph. Cf. Vital, Sha’ar ha-Gilgulim, haqdamah, 32; Menaḥem Azariah Fano, Sefer Gilgulei Neshamot, para. 153. 68 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ki Tisa, 30a–b.

46

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN This sin of Israel was that they perceived the divine light which was to be [revealed] in the future. As we find in the Talmud, “In the future the miz9vot will be voided.”69 In the future, avodah will not be necessary. In truth, all the sins of Israel will be like those who eat unripe fruit, who want to receive the light before the appropriate time.70

Mordecai Joseph also presents the more radical, and in his system more consistent, view that all of Israel’s sins were the result of divine providence.71 However, this will not be shown until the future messianic era, when God’s light will be fully revealed.72 This apparent paradox becomes clear when one looks at the present from the proper perspective. From the human side these “sins” resulted from premature messianic expectation. They were, however, part of the divine plan, which will be fully understood only in the messianic era. From that perspective even these sins will no longer be seen as “sins.” Mordecai Joseph recognizes the difficulty in understanding this apparent paradox. He writes: “All the sins of Israel were under the care of the Blessed one, for through this His great name will be magnified and sanctified. Understand, for this is very, very profound.”73 In Mordecai Joseph’s writings, “profound” can usually be understood as a synonym for “controversial,” and this case is no exception. Mordecai Joseph’s positive valuation of these apparently negative biblical figures is not entirely original. Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk and other members of the Polish school saw a positive side to many of the same figures. Menaḥem Mendel argued that Korah was an important person and the spies were not liars. While he does not go so far as Mordecai Joseph to argue that there was no real sin, he does believe that the sins were more subtle and profound than is apparent in the text.74 In this respect it can be argued that Mordecai Joseph is only taking to an extreme a position which has precedent in the Polish school from which he emerged.

B. Niddah, 61b. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Bereshit, 5a. 71 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayera, 8b. 72 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ḥuqat, 51a–b; Ekev, 58b. 73 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayera, 8b. 74 Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 293–96. Mahler also cites other examples. 69 70

THEOLOGY

47

4. ANTINOMIANISM There is an inherent danger in Mordecai Joseph’s teaching that the purpose of the miz9vot is to bring man to an awareness that all is in the hands of God. For example, is the person who has already attained this level of understanding still required to fulfill the obligations imposed by the commandments? Mordecai Joseph deals with this question in his discussion of Korah’s rebellion against Moses. According to the Midrash, Korah challenged Moses’ authority by asking him a question about the z9iz9it (fringes). Mordecai Joseph keeps the general theme but gives his own variant of this discussion.75 He writes: The tekhelet teaches us about fear [of God].76 Korah argued that the fear of God is obvious to him and he understands that all is in the hands of heaven, even the fear of heaven. If so, how is it possible that a person do anything contrary to the will of God? Since both will and deed come from God, how can he do anything that is not the will of God? Therefore, [Korah] argued that he was not obligated [in the commandment ] of z9iz9it, since z9iz9it refer to fear of God.77

Mordecai Joseph concludes that Korah was correct on one level but neglected to consider that God wishes to hide his ways in the world, thereby giving man the illusion of freedom. Without this illusion, man would not worship God; but God desires man’s worship. Therefore, while Korah is technically right in his argument, he is wrong in his understanding of God’s will in this particular circumstance. Why this should be so is a question that Mordecai Joseph does not treat. One must, however, remember the tremendous tension inherent in Mordecai Joseph’s teachings. Korah’s position is a logical conclusion arising from Mordecai Joseph’s doctrine of absolute providence. At the same time, Mordecai Joseph remains a traditional Jew whose daily life is governed by the 75 In Midrash Tanḥuma, Koraḥ 2, Korah asks Moses if a garment made entirely of tekhelet requires the tekhelet thread in the z9iz9it. His argument was: If one thread of tekhelet is sufficient to fulfill the commandment, then a whole garment of this material surely does not need the extra thread. 76 Tekhelet is the blue thread wound together with the z9iz9it on the corner of the garment. Cf. Numbers 15:37–41. The association of tekhelet with fear of God is found in the Zohar, 2:152b; 3:135a, 257a; and others. 77 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Koraḥ, 50b.

48

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

performance of the commandments. For him to act on the antinomian conclusions of his theology would take him beyond the bounds of Judaism. Yet Mordecai Joseph does allow himself, in other places, to draw the logical conclusion of his teachings. The logical progression of Mordecai Joseph’s theology could lead to antinomian disregard of the Torah and its commandments. If all is in the hands of Heaven, then it should be impossible to do anything that is against the will of God. Mordecai Joseph acknowledges that this is true from the divine perspective. However, it is not true from the human perspective, which is bounded by the limits of its understanding. The divine perspective is not permanently beyond man’s grasp. Rather, it is the apex of a long process of spiritual perfection. When a person has reached the summit, his understanding is one with the divine. Only then is it appropriate to speak of all being in the hands of Heaven. Someone who has attained spiritual perfection is no longer bound by the commandments because he will only act in a manner consistent with the divine will.78 Noah is an example of a person who has attained perfection and acts in a manner contrary to the expected norms. Mordecai Joseph writes: As soon as he left the ark, he was perfected. He then did the opposite of those things [he had been told], as it is written, he drank, got drunk, and became angry at Ham [Genesis 9:21–25]. Yet he did not act against his principles. When a person is perfected, it is permitted to remove [the yoke of the commandments], because then all is the will of God.79

Paradoxically, the path to spiritual perfection comes through observance of the Torah and its commandments, which are incumbent on all who have not yet attained perfection. Mordecai Joseph is very careful to couple the importance of observing the Torah and the commandments with the antinomianism of spiritual perfection. In discussions of this subject, he advises strict observance of Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Noah, 5b; Mikez, 16b; Beḥuqotai, 44a; Re’eh, 60a; Ruth, 1a; Liqutei Mi-Ketubim, 7b; Liqutei Shas, 10a. 79 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Noah 5b. This is another example of Mordecai Joseph’s reinterpretation of biblical stories. Noah’s actions were viewed negatively in traditional rabbinic literature. For a survey of rabbinic attitudes toward Noah’s intoxication, see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:167– 70; 5:191, 290. 78

THEOLOGY

49

the commandments, bordering on asceticism, at the beginning of the spiritual quest.80 However, he warns against extravagant piety, since it might prove to be a distraction from the primary goal, which is the true understanding of God’s will.81 Mordecai Joseph is also careful to warn against the temptation to “hallow the profane,”82 to do something outside the accepted limits because one believes that this is the will of God.83 A related concern is the danger of giving oneself too much credit and mistakenly believing that one has reached the level of spiritual perfection that permits transgressions of the commandments.84 Mordecai Joseph is quite conservative about the transgression of the commandments even for the small minority who have attained the requisite level of spiritual perfection. Normally, they too should restrict their behavior, for the sake of their fellow Jews who have not reached the same level, lest they inadvertently lead others astray.85 There are, however, times when the will of God clearly demands the transgression of the Torah. Mordecai Joseph finds scriptural support for this position in Psalm 119:126, “It is time for the Lord to work; they have made void Thy Torah.” The Talmud cites this verse as justification for violating the commandments, in specific instances, to ensure the survival of the Torah.86 The classic example is the case of Elijah, who transgressed the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside the Temple in Jerusalem, in his confrontation with the priests of Baal.87 Mordecai Joseph’s conservatism becomes even clearer when we examine his understanding of Psalm 119:126, the biblical verse

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Bereshit, 5a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Niz9avim, 64b. Mordecai Joseph’s warning against pietistic excess is in sharp contrast to its glorification by his teacher, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. 82 “To hallow the profane” is the key concept in Martin Buber’s interpretation of Hasidism. See Maurice Friedman, Martin Buber, 135–44. 83 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behalotekha, 28b; Taiz9ai, 62b. 84 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Tezave, 29a; Qedoshim, 39a; Shelaḥ, 49b–50a. 85 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Mishpaṭim, 27a. 86 B. Berakhot, 54a, 63a. 87 1 Kings 18:19–40. According to rabbinic tradition, it was forbidden to erect an altar and offer sacrifices outside of Jerusalem after the dedication of the Temple by Solomon. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 6:319 n. 13. 80 81

50

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

most often associated with antinomianism. Alluding to an important talmudic discussion of this verse,88 Mordecai Joseph says: With regard to certain things in the Holy Torah, when it is clear to a person that now is the time for the Lord to work, as Elijah did on Mount Carmel, then it is necessary to overturn the general principles of the Holy Torah and act only in accord with the understanding [binah] that God infuses to man. Rabbi Nathan says that when the understanding is not present, the person is required to conduct himself in accord with the manifested general rules of the Torah without transgressing the bounds of the halacha. Rabbi Nathan further says, when a person’s heart strives after the will of God and he removes from himself all personal attachments,89 God summons him to do an act which seems to him to transgress the principles of the Torah, heaven forbid. It is concerning this case that Rabbi Nathan said that a person whose heart strives after the Lord and has removed from himself all personal gain can be certain that it will not be counted as a sin, heaven forbid. He can be certain that it was a time for the Lord to work.90

Mordecai Joseph does not see this verse as a license for general antinomianism. It is rather a justification for instances where the specific will of God is clear to a person who has reached the requisite level of spiritual perfection.91 He also argues that it is not really contrary to the principles of the Torah, but is like piquah nefesh (the saving of life).92 Just as this concept sanctions the transgression of the Torah in certain cases, so Psalm 119:126 is justification within the Torah of those antinomian acts which may be done for the sake of preserving the Torah.93 Unlike piquaḥ nefesh, the decision concerning when it is appropriate to invoke this concept is not in the hands of man but is a divine prerogative. Even when a person does an antinomian act for the sake of Heaven, as in the case of the Sabbath wood-gatherer, this verse is not justification. On the other B. Berakhot, 54a. I.e., all personal interests and desires. 90 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ḥuqat, 52a. 91 The process by which one reaches this spiritual perfection is related to the concept of berur (clarification), which is discussed in the next chapter. 92 Based on Leviticus 18:5. This concept teaches that the saving of life takes precedence over the prohibitions of the Torah. 93 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Yitro, 25a–b. 88 89

THEOLOGY

51

hand, when the will of God is clear, then It is time for the Lord to work takes precedence over all else, and it is permitted to violate any of the commandments, regardless of appearance or the possibility that others may misunderstand one’s motives.94 Mordecai Joseph best summarizes his position on antinomianism in the following passage. He says: And they shall make for themselves z9iz9it [Numbers 15:38]. z9iz9it are also called gedilim (tassels) [Deuteronomy 22:12]. Z9iz9it teach about fear [of the Lord], that a person should not be wise in his own eyes to transgress the teachings of the Torah even by a hair’s breadth. Fear, also, in that he should be pure in the eyes of people. Gedil teaches us about strength. A person should not weaken in the face of those who accuse him [of wrongdoing] with hatred, but should be strong in his own mind against them.95

Mordecai Joseph’s attitude toward antinomianism must be seen in the context of the tension between the present demands of the preeschatological Torah and the expectations of the messianic age in which the true meaning of the Torah will be revealed. At that time, all will be guided by the openly manifested will of God. In conclusion, we have seen that Mordecai Joseph’s teachings on Torah, the commandments, and sin are shaped by his acceptance of absolute providence. When viewed through this prism, these central concepts acquire new meanings which will be publicly manifested in the eschaton. The pre-eschatological period is one of creative tension between the conventionally understood demands of Judaism and the underlying truths embodied in his teachings. Mordecai Joseph believes so strongly in the truth of his teachings that he is willing to expose himself to the theological risks inherent in his enterprise.

94 95

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behalotekha, 28b. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shelaḥ, 49b–50a.

4. MAN AND AVODAH Mordecai Joseph’s teachings comprise a complete theological system. In this chapter we focus on their implications for man and man’s service of God. We consider how Mordecai Joseph applies his theological concepts to the religious life of the individual. The role of asceticism and the place of biblical heroes as archetypes in Mordecai Joseph’s thought are also considered. Mordecai Joseph rejects some fundamental theological concepts underlying the kabbalistic and Hasidic traditions. In the medieval kabbalistic tradition, the world was sustained by the divine flow of energy (shefa), which originates in the cosmic realm (sefirot) and flows down to the human world. Man is an active partner in this process. He awakens the sefirot and gives them the impetus to direct the flow (shefa) downward, through his prayers and the performance of the commandments.1 According to Mordecai Joseph’s theology, man is a passive participant rather than an active initiator in the working out of the divine plan. Everything is in the hands of heaven, and human actions have no impact on the workings of the divine. He also negates the cosmic myth central to the Lurianic and Hasidic traditions. In these traditions, the central theological event of creation was the breaking of the cosmic vessels (shevirat ha-kelim), which caused the 288 sparks of holiness (niz9oz9ot) to fall into the abyss. Man’s task is to raise these sparks back to their original source (tiqqun). This is accomplished through the performance of the commandments with the proper intent (kavvanah). Adam’s sin in the garden of Eden is the human personification of the cosmic cataclysm in the Lurianic tradition.2 Hasidism followed the Lurianic 1

On the development of this concept, see Morris Faierstein, “God’s Need for the Commandments”; Daniel Matt, “The Mystic and the Mitzwot.” 2 Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 266–68; Sabbatai

53

54

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

tradition in its cosmology and anthropology. An important Hasidic innovation was the belief that the sparks could be raised more effectively through joy and participation in the world than through the asceticism and withdrawal that characterized much of the Lurianic school.3 Mordecai Joseph, however, argues that Adam’s sin was illusory. Adam thought that he had sinned, but in fact he had not. Adam’s proper role will be seen when the true understanding of the Torah is revealed in the eschaton.4 This assertion has profound implications. In the Lurianic context it means that the vessels were never broken, the sparks never fell, and there is no need for the tiqqun, which is the raison d’être of Jewish religious practice for Lurianic Kabbalah. The same reservations are true for the medieval kabbalistic tradition, which precedes it, and for the Hasidic tradition, which is based on Lurianic concepts. This presents Mordecai Joseph with a serious ontological problem. Since he wishes to remain within the bounds of Judaism and the Hasidic tradition, he must find substitutes for these key kabbalistic concepts which gave systematic and mystical meaning to the whole edifice of rabbinic Judaism. The breaking of the vessels explained the existence of imperfection in a world created by a perfect God. The lifting of the sparks gave humanity and its deeds a cosmic purpose. In the Hasidic tradition, the emphasis shifted from the cosmos to the individual. The process of tiqqun and lifting up the sparks was personalized and “psychologized” through the reinterpretation of the concept of devekut.5 Very early in the history of Hasidism, questions arose about devekut and tiqqun. Was the state of devekut open to everyone, or was it only attainable by the z9addiq?6 Gradually, devekut came to be the exclusive prerogative of the z9addiq. One of his central tasks was to help his followers lift up the sparks, which they could not elevate without his mediation.7 Sevi, 33–42; Lawrence Fine, Physician of the Souls, chaps. 6–7. 3 Azriel Schohat, “Al ha-Simḥah be-Ḥasidut”; Louis Jacobs, “The Uplifting of Sparks in Later Jewish Mysticism.” 4 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bereshit, 4a–b. 5 Gershom Scholem, “Devekut, or Communion with God.” 6 Gershom Scholem, “The Neutralization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism,” 191–92. 7 Samuel Dresner, The Zaddiq, 148–221.

MAN AND AVODAH

55

Mordecai Joseph, following the traditions of the PrzysuchaKotsk school, de-emphasizes the central role of the z9addiq in the process and brings it back to the spiritual life of the individual. A probable basis for this concept is the kabbalistic idea that each person has a unique understanding of the Torah. This is expressed in the Lurianic literature in the following way. Consequently, there are 600,000 aspects and meanings in the Torah. According to each one of these ways of explaining the Torah, the root of a soul has been fashioned in Israel. In the messianic age, every single man in Israel will read the Torah in accordance with the meaning peculiar to his root. And thus 8 also is the Torah understood in Paradise.

Mordecai Joseph’s innovation is that he is not prepared to wait for the eschaton to discover this unique interpretation. He feels it is the will of God that some people seek and find their unique root in the present pre-eschatological period. The redirection of emphasis from the cosmos to the individual was an important part of the new direction taken by the Przysucha-Kotsk school in its break 9 with the prevailing attitudes of “mainstream” Hasidism. The emphasis on the centrality of the individual is key to understanding the primary concepts of Mordecai Joseph’s anthropology. The categories of ḥisaron (defect, deficiency), berur (clarification, completion), and miz9vah pratit (the idea that each person has one specific commandment that he/she must fulfill at all costs) can best be understood in the context of the extreme individualization of avodah (worship and service of God in its broadest sense) found in Mordecai Joseph’s teachings.

8

Quoted in Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah,” 65. This issue was implicit in the break between the Yehudi of Przysucha and his teacher, the Seer of Lublin. The break, which led to the creation of the Polish school, resulted from their dispute over the attempt to bring the Messiah in 1814. The Yehudi, with his more individualistic emphasis, opposed the use of theurgic means to hasten the advent of the Messiah. On the dispute between the Seer of Lublin and the Yehudi of Przysucha, see Y. Alfasi, Ha-Ḥoze Mi-Lublin, 97–104; Zvi Meir Rabinowicz, Rabbi Yaakov Yizḥak Mi-Przysucha, 116–21. The incident has been fictionalized by Martin Buber in For the Sake of Heaven. 9

56

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

1. ḤISARON Mordecai Joseph substitutes the concepts of defect (ḥisaron) and clarification (berur) for the Lurianic ones of breaking of the vessels (shevirat ha-kelim) and tiqqun (repair). He teaches that each individual 10 acquires his defect at birth. Every person, beginning with Adam, has been born with a specific defect. The process of redemption for each person lies in recognizing and appropriately rectifying that defect. Adam’s defect, for example, was related to God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Adam was aware of his defect. It was only the taunting of the serpent that caused him to eat the forbidden fruit. The serpent was punished because of the embar11 rassment it caused Adam by pointing out his defect. In this way, Mordecai Joseph explains the serpent’s role and subsequent punishment in the biblical story. He also makes an important psychological point, namely, that it is often easier to recognize another’s defect than one’s own. Furthermore, he says, there is no point in embarrassing or taunting someone who has a blind spot about his defect by calling attention to it, for one cannot attain awareness of one’s defect without God’s help. We only become aware of our defect, and recognize that it is the source of all our deficiencies, when God is ready to show it to us. But at the same time that God gives us this awareness, he also gives us the ability to pray and plead to Him for 12 help in repairing the defect. God reveals the defect to us indirectly. He clothes it in an outer garment that tends to distract us from attaining inner discernment. The outer appearance is the opposite of the inner reality. Mordecai Joseph’s reinterpretation of the symbolism of the archetype of the patriarch Isaac provides an example. In kabbalistic imagery, Isaac is traditionally associated with the attribute of stern 13 judgment. Nonetheless, Mordecai Joseph sees Isaac as the source of all future redemption, in the eschaton. For him, the image of Isaac as stern judgment is only the outer garment that covers the opposite and inner reality. In the same way, it is from the human 10

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bereshit, 4a–b; Vayez9e, 12b; Korah, 51a–b; Vayelekh, 64b–65a. 11 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bereshit, 4a–b. 12 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shavuot, 12a. 13 E.g., Zohar, 1:96a, 137b; 2:236a.

MAN AND AVODAH

57

perspective that God desires man’s service (avodah). This is only the outer garment which hides behind the true reality that “all is in the hands of heaven.” Paradoxically, worship and service of God is the path which enables man to penetrate beneath the outer illusion and attain the true understanding of the total pervasiveness of the di14 vine will. To have a “defect” is a universal predicament, but each of us has his own particular defect. Knowing about or understanding another’s defect will not help us deal with our own. Once someone has recognized his own defect, he must concentrate on those aspects of the Torah which deal with it until he has resolved the is15 sues involved. The good that is inherent in the person will not come to the fore until he has properly dealt with his defect, and 16 will be efficacious only when he has clarified it. Awareness of one’s defect leads to the fear of God (yirat ha17 shem), which takes two forms, fear of YHVH and fear of Elohim. Fear of Elohim denotes the mode of avodah adopted in the process of resolving one’s defect. During this period, one must restrict himself and be punctilious in observing the commandments. Someone who has satisfactorily repaired his defect is theoretically no longer bound by the restrictions of the commandments. He now serves God from fear of YHVH. However, since people are not equal, many of his fellows may not yet have resolved their defects. Therefore, he must continue to observe the commandments as an act of compassion and behavioral solidarity with them. He should not separate himself from the community by an outward lack of observance, even though the commandments are no longer related to his now corrected defect and thus no longer (technically) 18 incumbent on him or really efficacious.

14

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Isaiah, 45a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ha’azinu, 65b. 16 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayez9e, 12b; Yitro, 26a. 17 In kabbalistic symbolism, YHVH denotes the aspect of divinity derived from the side of ḥesed (mercy), while Elohim denotes the aspect of divinity derived from the side of din (stern judgment). 18 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayera, 9a; Mishpaṭim, 23a, 27a. 15

58

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

2. BERUR Just as we all have our own particular defect (ḥisaron), so too, each 19 of us has a unique path to the clarification (berur) of the defect. This path leads through one of the 613 commandments. It is through the performance of this one commandment that personal redemption is attained. The particular commandment that is appropriate for a specific person need not be one of the central commandments or one of the more difficult ones to perform. It can be any of the 613 commandments of the Torah. When a person has determined which commandment is at the root of his soul, he must fulfill the precepts of that commandment even to the point of sacrificing his life for it. Mordecai Joseph is careful to demand this total devotion only in cases where it is certain that the particular commandment is at the root of one’s soul. In all other cases, he accepts the standard theological position that requires martyrdom rather than transgression only in the case of the com20 mandments against idolatry, murder and illicit sexual relations. Mordecai Joseph cites two biblical examples of this principle, Mordecai and Daniel. Mordecai, in the book of Esther, refused to bow down to Haman, thereby endangering his life (Esther 3:2–5). Similarly, Daniel disobeyed the dictum of Darius and continued to pray (Daniel 6:5–18). In neither case was the commandment in question one of the three for which one is required to suffer martyrdom. These commandments were, however, at the root of the souls of Mordecai and Daniel. Therefore the two could not transgress them under any circumstances. Mordecai Joseph provides guidelines for determining which of the commandments is one’s particular miz9vah. He suggests: O Lord, You have taught me from my youth and until now I proclaim Your wondrous deeds. Even in old age, O Lord, do not forsake me (Psalm 71:17–18). A person needs to examine and understand [himself] from his youth, before his inclinations forcefully overwhelm him. He needs to understand to which pleasures he 19

The term berur is found in Lurianic Kabbalah, where it has a variety of connotations. For the references to berur and its uses in the Lurianic corpus, see Elijah Slotki, Yad Eliyahu, 83–85. 20 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ve-Ethanan, 57b–58a; Ki-Teizei, 62a. The locus classicus in the Talmud concerning martyrdom is b. Sanhedrin, 74a. See also Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Yesodei Ha-Torah 5:3.

MAN AND AVODAH

59

is strongly attracted and which are far from his heart. From this [knowledge] he will have the insight [to know] what God has prepared for him, to test him so that he can clarify for himself (yebarer) what he has to overcome and [which commandment] to observe. For God has apportioned to each person a unique [commandment] with which to clarify himself. The person must achieve certainty with regard to the [commandment] relevant to him. He can contemplate this primarily in his youth, for when his inclinations overpower him, many things will be indicated, and he will not understand which is central to him. Lord, you have taught me from my youth. That is, a person can contemplate and attain this [understanding] 21 from his youth. Even in old age, O Lord, do not forsake me.

Though the task of finding the particular miz9vah through which the state of berur can be achieved is an active one, the process of clarification is essentially passive. Man’s task is to make himself a suitable vehicle for the reception of knowledge of God’s will. He is not an active partner with God in this process, a view which is in opposition to traditional kabbalistic and Hasidic thought. Mordecai Joseph’s explanation of the Shema, the central statement of Jewish belief, summarizes his approach to the process of berur. He writes: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, etc. (Deuteronomy 6:4). And you shall love the Lord your God, etc. (Deuteronomy 6:5). When you shall come, etc. (Deuteronomy 6:10). This sequence of five verses [adumbrates] the five [steps] that a person should follow in the process of berur. Hear, O Israel, that is, the person should see that everything is from the hand of God and He is one. And you shall love, that is, the person should be able to leave the pleasures of this world because of [his] love of God. When you shall come, that is, service [of God]. The person must serve the Lord with his whole soul, as it is written, You shall serve me (Deuteronomy 6:13). Even if a person should have everything good, as it is written, houses full of good things (Deuteronomy 6:11), he should not forget to serve God. You shall not try the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:16); thus, after the person has clarified himself with these three clarifications, when the Holy One gives him goods in abundance, he should not be fearful or in 22 doubt that this is not for his benefit.

21 22

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Liqutim Mi-Ketubim, 4a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ve-Etḥanan, 57b.

60

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

In this passage, Mordecai Joseph has touched on some of the central components of the process of clarification. The first aspect is the recognition and acceptance of God’s total providence: that all is in the hands of heaven. The second aspect is separating oneself from the desires of the world. For Mordecai Joseph, the negation of worldly desires is the basic prerequisite for the ability to discern the divine will. Desires and needs of the physical world are veils which mask the true will of God. Attachment to the slightest need or desire will prevent the lifting of the veil which obscures the di23 vine light. Through the process of separation from earthly desires, the person makes room in his heart and consciousness for the 24 reception of the divine will. Both the physical and spiritual aspects of the person are involved. They are inseparable. Mordecai Joseph uses the analogy of the eyes and the soul as an illustration. The soul sees by means of the eyes and decides what is good on the basis of the data it receives. If the eyes have the slightest desire for the delights of the world, they are no longer auxiliaries of the soul but are independent entities. The result is that the soul is no longer able to distinguish the good from the bad, and the person loses sight of the true will 25 of God. In a rare departure from the purely theoretical discussions he usually favors, Mordecai Joseph describes a method for attaining the state of clarification (berur). He writes: And Israel said, “It is enough, my son Joseph is still alive; I will go and see him before,” etc. (Genesis 45:28). We find [the following comment] in the Talmud: “R. Levi b. Hama says in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: A man should always incite the good impulse to fight against the evil impulse. For it is written, 26 Tremble and sin not (Psalm 4:5). If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him study Torah. For it is written, Commune with your heart. If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him recite the Shema. For it is written, Upon your bed. If he subdues

23

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Qedoshim, 38a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayiqra, 32b. 25 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Tez9ave, 29b. 26 The other quotations in this passage are also from this verse. 24

MAN AND AVODAH

61

it, well and good. If not, let him remind himself of the day of 27 death. For it is written, And be still, Selah.

Mordecai Joseph comments: R. Levi b. Hama uses the term “Always incite” because “always” contains all things that happen to a person. One must always discern and clarify whether something comes from God. Even matters of great significance can, heaven forbid, contain a blemish or residue from another source. When a joyful matter comes to a person, even more clarification is necessary. Therefore, four levels of advice are offered to help the person to arrive at the depths of truth and come to a decision. Afterward, when he has clarified with certainty that it is from God, he can allow himself to be expansive28 and know that it is a miz9vah or the joy of a miz9vah. These four clarifications spoken of in the Talmud refer to a situation where some matter of this world that needs clarification is imposed on the person.

Mordecai Joseph then suggests that inciting the good inclination means interrupting one’s indulgence by reminding oneself that the pleasure it entails is not eternal, since we only have a limited life span. Of what value is something that may last seventy or eighty years at most? If one is still troubled by the evil inclination and has not succeeded in overcoming it, he should proceed to the second step, which is the study of Torah. The teachings of the Torah help a person extricate himself from indulging in pleasures. “But when the evil inclination is 29 dominant, nobody remembers the good inclination.” This is why God made the Torah variegated. In truth, the person who is immersed in desire cannot extricate himself. At that point it will not help him to remember that it is forbidden. The prohibition does not have the power to separate the person from evil when the evil inclination is dominant. There the person is advised to remember that he can find the same good in the Torah, in holiness.

If the study of Torah does not overcome the evil inclination, the next step is to read the Shema. This will serve as a reminder of our 27

B. Berakhot, 5a. The term used here, hitpashet, normally has an antinomian connotation in Mordecai Joseph’s writings. 29 B. Nedarim, 32b. 28

62

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

special relationship with God and that God’s actions are always for our ultimate benefit. If he is successful, it is good. If not, he should remember the day of death … he should imagine that now is the time of his death, and in that situation there is no place for physical pleasure. If, after all this, the delight or joy still remains in his heart, then it is evidence that it comes from God and will be eter30 nal.

Each person, in completing the four steps, sequentially sorts and sifts his motivation and determines whether it is truly the will of God that he partake of earthly delights or positive experiences. By attaining inner detachment, by being mebarer, clarified, one truly discerns the will of God. Having dealt with Mordecai Joseph’s practical advice in some detail, it is appropriate for us to ask why he feels the need to include these concepts in his teachings. They appear incongruous to his theology, which is based on absolute providence and human passivity. In contradistinction to the mainline kabbalistic tradition, Mordecai Joseph asserted that man’s deeds play no cosmic role and that human freedom is only an illusion. When he says that Adam’s sin is illusory and based on a misunderstanding, he removes the cornerstone of Lurianic Kabbalah. In effect, he denies that there was an actual breaking of the vessels or an exile. Mordecai Joseph could have dispensed with those concepts if he were operating in a vacuum. But being a good rabbinic Jew, he must find a place in his theology for the commandments and a rationalization for their observance. His theology needed to be harmonized with the dicta of the Talmud and the accepted content of the tradition. His solution to this dilemma is to appropriate the concept of “raising the sparks,” found in Lurianic Kabbalah and Hasidism, and give it a new interpretation. Man’s task is no longer the repair of the macrocosm, the world, but the repair of the microcosm, himself. The focus of attention has dramatically shrunken from the world to the individual.

30

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayigash, 16b–17a.

MAN AND AVODAH

63

3. ASCETICISM One of the Besht’s significant innovations was his doctrine of avodah be-gashmiut, serving God through one’s physical needs rather than negating them through ascetic practices. It is noteworthy that the Besht’s two most important disciples, Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye (d. 1782) and the Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezhirech (1704– 1772), were initially attracted to the Besht because he taught them a new way of serving God that replaced their previous ascetic prac31 tices. Though the concept of avodah be-gashmiut was deemphasized in subsequent generations, the legacy of antipathy to 32 asceticism remained. The Przysucha-Kotsk school deviated from Hasidic norms by reintroducing a form of asceticism. It was not asceticism in the formal sense of self-mortification as a mode of religious worship. Rather, the asceticism was a by-product of the total devotion to the study of Torah and the worship of God. The Przysucha-Kotsk school attitude was close to classical Stoicism. Asceticism as an end in itself was still viewed negatively. This tendency, which began in Przysucha, was intensified in Kotsk. The Kotsker attitude was summarized by Samuel of Sochaczew, an important Kotsker disciple, when he wrote: “It is easier for the body to endure all sorts of ascetic practice and torments than it is to endure the yoke of 33 heaven.” When Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk was once asked to pray on behalf of a ḥasid who had become impoverished, he responded: “If that man is indeed a ḥasid and God fearing, then he 34 lacks for nothing.” The Przysucha-Kotsk school was not opposed 35 to meeting the needs of the body, only indifferent to them. Mordecai Joseph’s attitude to this question is within the traditions of the Przysucha-Kotsk school. However, in this area, as in a 31

See Mintz and Amos, In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov, 63–65, 81–83. Two notable exceptions are Elimelekh of Lyzhansk and Nahman of Bratzlav. For the more typical Hasidic attitudes, see Louis Jacobs, “Eating as an Act of Worship in Hasidic Thought.” The issue of Hasidism and its relation to asceticism deserves further study. 33 Shem Mi-Shmuel, Zav, 68, quoted in Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 284. 34 Artan, Emet ve-Emunah, para. 731. 35 Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 283–86, cites numerous examples and discusses the issue at length. 32

64

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

number of others, he feels that Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk has set standards that are not attainable by the majority of people. Commenting on Deuteronomy 32:5, “a crooked and twisted generation,” he writes: Crooked refers to one who is obstinate against God and does not do the will of God. Rather, he constantly strives after his own pleasures. Twisted is the opposite, one who is ascetic and restricts himself for God when there is no need and denies himself excessively is also sinful, as it is written, He who troubles 36 his own flesh is wicked (Proverbs 11:17).

In this passage his censure of excessive denial that serves no purpose is clear. Here, too, one can see a source of tension between himself and Menaḥem Mendel.

4. PEOPLE ON DIFFERENT LEVELS Mordecai Joseph talks about two groups of people. The first group consists of those who have not yet completed the process of berur and must live by the conventional understanding of God’s will as enunciated by rabbinic Judaism. The second group consists of the minority who have completed the process of clarification. They are more directly attuned to the immediate will of God, which may at times conflict with conventionally accepted standards. Mordecai Joseph recognizes that not everyone will attain the complete negation of desire and adhere only to the will of God. Characteristically, he saw himself as ministering not only to the elite but also to ḥasidim who were householders. Hence, he also provides guidelines for ordinary persons. For them he recommends the clarification of deeds with reference to three primary concerns: Torah, the community of Israel, and the individual. As a basic step, the person should clarify that nothing he does is contrary to the will of God as expressed in the Torah. The term “Torah” is used here in its broadest sense to include even rabbinic injunctions. Second, he must be concerned that his actions will not cause harm to the community of Israel, though they may be personally beneficial. As an example, Mordecai Joseph cites the case of travelers who pray for good weather when the community is in need of rain. Finally, when the other two concerns have been met, the person 36

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ha’azinu, 65b.

MAN AND AVODAH

65

should consider his own needs. His actions should be aimed to lead him to life in the world to come and not be directed to gratification 37 in this world at the expense of the next world. 38 However, the holy person whose heart is purified is not bound by these restrictions and can do what comes to mind, even if it appears contrary to the above-mentioned principles. A person who has attained this level is incapable of doing anything that is contrary to the will of God. Mordecai Joseph argues that what such a person does is by definition the correct thing. He explains: As it is written in the Talmud, “the whole world was created as 39 a satellite for him”, for this is the cardinal principle. The whole world—all the people in it—are like garments in relation to a person’s body. At the depth of it, his own good is what is good for the community even if it may appear to be the oppo40 site to the human eye. This is also the will of God.

The great desire to please God or the self-sacrifice of the seeker is no guarantee that one is in harmony with God’s will. The specific will of God cannot be taken for granted. It does not always flow as expected by the pious believer. It is so specific that even the same person may be led one way at one time and the other way at another. Neither may a more accomplished person take his position for granted, no matter how great the desire to please God or the self-sacrifice of the seeker. According to the Midrash, Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, died because they entered the tabernacle 41 without robes. Mordecai Joseph understands this to mean they entered a place where they needed the “garments” of the commandments. By seeing themselves as having transcended the need 42 for garments, they acted against God’s will. Their desire to attain a higher spiritual level than that granted them by God brought about their punishment. Mordecai Joseph explains:

37

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Qedoshim, 37b–38a. Mordecai Joseph uses the term “holy person” as an implicit reference to the z9addiq. 39 B. Berakhot, 6b. 40 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Qedoshim, 38a. 41 Leviticus Rabbah, 20: 9. 42 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shemini, 34a. 38

66

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN God is at the center of everything that has happened since the creation of the world and until its end. Without his will, nothing is actuated. This is pointed to by the incense, as is ex43 plained in the commentary on Tez9ave. In truth, to the extent that a person comes close to God, he is worthy of receiving the revelation of the divine light without the garments which are boundaries and restrictions. For in the clear light, boundaries and restrictions do not exist, and all deeds of a person are clearly for God. This is the matter of the incense, which was an 44 arcane secret, and it is forbidden to be too clear in this area.

Mordecai Joseph’s warning against being too clear protects his more radical teachings. Hedging them in this manner, he does not openly push the limits of orthodoxy and seeks to avoid accusations of heresy.

5. DOUBT AND CERTAINTY The question of doubt and certainty is one of the central problems which arises out of Mordecai Joseph’s concept of clarification (berur). Can one ever be ultimately certain that one has attained the true berur and that everything one is doing is truly the will of God? One solution to this dilemma is to live in a quietistic condition of contemplation, guarding oneself from all actions, good or bad. Mordecai Joseph is aware of this trap and argues emphatically against it. For Mordecai Joseph, the patriarch Jacob is an archetype for the quietistic person who wishes to dwell in tranquillity, unbuffeted by doubts about whether he has properly done the will of God. Mordecai Joseph comments: 45

And Jacob wanted to dwell in tranquility. This is the tranquility of a person who conducts himself in such a way that he keeps away from all doubt and protects himself from all bad deeds. Then he is tranquil. Concerning this, God said to him that as long as a person is in his physical body, it is impossible to act with that degree of care, fear [of God], and humility. God de-

43

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Tez9ave, 29a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shemini, 34a. 45 This interpretation is based on Targum Jonathan to Genesis 37:1. 44

MAN AND AVODAH

67

sires man’s avodah. In this world one must act with love and do 46 deeds that are not yet totally clarified.

Jacob’s desire for certainty manifested itself spiritually. However, in his less spiritual descendants this desire for certainty and perfection manifested itself in more negative ways. Whereas Jacob had been careful not to harm the perfection of his worship of God, his grandson Er transposed this idea from the spiritual plane to the 47 physical. According to the commentary of Rashi, Er did not want his wife to become pregnant and thus mar her beauty. That is why 48 God punished Er and he died young. Jacob and Israel are archetypes of two stages in the spiritual journey of every person. Jacob (related to ‘eqeb, “heel”) represents the state of not having attained complete clarification, while Israel denotes one who has achieved clarification and follows the will of God completely. When one finds oneself in the state of Jacob, the divinely desired response is not to seek tranquility and escape uncertainty. Just as Jacob wrestled with the angel of the Lord, so too each of us should wrestle with his defect and strive to become an 49 Israel. Occasionally, periods of reflection, pulling back and assessing one’s spiritual situation, are called for. Mordecai Joseph recognizes that in every spiritual journey there are times and seasons of uncertainty when the best advice is to refrain from action, rest, and circumscribe one’s activities. At the appropriate time God will give 50 the person strength to continue on his spiritual journey. Mordecai Joseph criticizes withdrawal from doubt and the search for tranquility as a permanent state of being in the service of God. Another situation in which one legitimately should not enter into doubt is when one lacks faith. Attaining a high level of faith is an essential aspect of the spiritual preparations one must complete before even contemplating putting oneself into situations requiring the clarification of doubt. The issue of doubt and certainty relates

46

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 14a. Genesis 38:7, ad loc. 48 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 15b. 49 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Balaq, 53a–b. 50 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Masa’ai, 55b. 47

68

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

only to the person who has made significant progress in his spiritual journey. To sum up, Mordecai Joseph is optimistic that if a person sincerely attempts to clarify doubts in the service of God, he will be successful. For him, a person who is willing to deal with doubt is greater than one who turns away from it. To shy away from doubt 51 completely is in some way to doubt God’s goodness. Were it not the will of God, the doubts would not have come. At the same time, even if one’s intent is to glorify the name of heaven through overcoming one’s evil inclination, it is forbidden to deliberately 52 seek out situations in which one will be tested.

6. BIBLICAL ARCHETYPES Judah is the biblical archetype of the person who looks to God for direction and is willing to live with the tensions of doubt. Joseph, his opposite number, looks only to the letter of the Torah and seeks to remove himself from all doubt. The dispute between these two archetypal biblical heroes is a conflict between two diametrically opposed attitudes to the worship and service of God. Joseph’s mode of serving God is to examine everything through the perspective of the law and halacha and never to budge from it. Judah, on the other hand, always looks to the specific will of God. He, too, looks to the law and halacha for guidance but does not stop there. He will endeavor to discern the will of God in each specific situation. Does God desire that the halacha be followed, or is this a special situation where the specific will of God transcends the rules of the halacha? This conflict continues to be reflected in the lives of the descendants of the two and ultimately manifests itself in the different fates of the kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim. Not until the future messianic age will the two be reconciled, as Mordecai Joseph explains: These two tribes are opposed to each other. Concerning the future, it is written, Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, and Judah will not vex, etc. [Isaiah 11:13]. Ephraim will have no argument against Judah about why he went outside the halacha. he will not be vexed by this because God will show Ephraim that

51 52

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Toldot, 10a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Yitro, 16b.

MAN AND AVODAH

69

Judah’s intention [kavvanah] was for the sake of heaven and not 53 for his own pleasure, and there will be peace between them.

Between the two archetypes of Judah and Joseph, Mordecai Joseph 54 clearly favors Judah as the proper model. The stories about Judah are archetypal examples of how the person who looks to God for guidance should behave. He writes about Judah: The life source of Judah is to look to God in all things and not to act according to “a commandment of men, learned by rote” [Isaiah 29:13]. Though he did a similar deed yesterday, he does not wish to rely on himself. Instead, he looks to God to show him His will anew. This will sometimes require that he do things which are contrary to the halacha, “for it is a time to do for the 55 Lord,” etc. [Psalm 119:126].

The biblical stories about Judah illustrate how these principles are worked out in actual situations. Judah’s role in the story of Joseph’s dreams and transfer by sale is one example. Judah is the model of proper conduct in each set of circumstances. In the first example: Jacob was at that time the z9addiq who is the foundation of the 56 world, by whom the world is supported. He was God’s representative in this world, and they [the tribes] were all of Israel. For they were all included in the word “one” [eḥad] of the Shema Israel. … According to [the brothers’] understanding, it was [Joseph’s] desire to divide this unity. Only Judah, in his wisdom, said that the judgment was not sufficiently certain [mevurar]. Perhaps he is good and we are in error?. … Therefore, [Judah] advised [the brothers] to sell Joseph [so that no harm would come to him] through their hands. [Let] God clarify whether he is good at the root [of his soul]. If so, then God

53

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 15a. Weiss, “Late Jewish Utopia”, 219–20, observes that Mordecai Joseph is silent about which type (Judah or Ephraim) he associates himself with. Though Mordecai Joseph does not explicitly identify with Judah, there can be no doubt as to where his sympathies lie. Gershon Henoch’s introduction to the Bet Ya’akov explicitly states that Mordecai Joseph was not only a spiritual descendant of Judah, but also a physical one. 55 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 15a. 56 This theme is discussed in A. Green, “The Zaddiq as Axis Mundi in Later Judaism.” 54

70

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN will certainly protect him from the Egyptians, and no harm will 57 befall him.

It is the quality of Judah that he does not see things in abstract and absolute categories of forbidden and permitted but looks to God for the ultimate resolution of dilemmas. Though it appeared that Joseph was guilty of trying to divide the unity of the tribes and undermine the leadership of Jacob by boasting of his dreams that his 58 parents and brothers would bow down to him, Judah looked beyond the surface for the deeper meaning in Joseph’s deeds. There are times when the surface level of rules becomes an illusory distraction or disappears in confusion and contradiction. At these times one can only fall back on the deeper resources to avoid falling into serious error. In this case, while the brothers thought that according to the rules they had a capital case against Joseph, the deeper sources pointed to his lack of guilt. Mordecai Joseph reinterprets the decision not to kill Joseph in the following way: We find in the Talmud, “When the evil inclination dominates, 59 nobody remembers the good inclination.” When God wants to test somebody, He makes the person forget the severity of the prohibition regarding the matter with which He wants to test him. This was the situation the tribes [found themselves in] when they wanted to kill [Joseph]. The prohibition [against fratricide] disappeared from their awareness, and only counsel apart from the [rules of the] Torah saved [Joseph] from [his brothers] and them from sin. Judah was very shrewd in a worldly way and he advised them, saying, “What will we profit from this?” [Genesis 37: 26]. Though it appeared legally permissible to kill him, what benefit would they derive from this? Immediately after, when they agreed [that it was not for their benefit] to kill him, they saw that it was also legally forbidden 60 to kill him.

Mordecai Joseph advises that this mode of deliberation be used only in a situation where someone is being tested. In such cases the only resources available to the person are his prudence, his character, and his internal resources. These are not recommended as a 57

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev,15a-b. Genesis 37: 5–12. 59 B. Nedarim, 32b. 60 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 15a. 58

MAN AND AVODAH

71

normal mode of decision making. Normally, one should follow the rules of the Torah. The purpose of this type of “test” is to determine the person’s true inner character when it is unguided by conventional social norms. We see again that Judah is shown as the ideal type for Mordecai Joseph. He is the only one of the brothers to pass the test. All of Judah’s actions which appear to be wrong, such as his relations with Tamar (Genesis 37:13–26), are in fact the will of God. Judah’s inclination overcame him, and he could not do any61 thing else. He was compelled to follow the will of God. Mordecai Joseph extends this principle to Judah’s descendants in similar cir62 cumstances. The story of David and Bathsheba come to mind as a parallel to which Mordecai Joseph is alluding (2 Samuel 11). The two archetypes, Judah and Joseph, are symbolic of the dialectic that one finds in many of Mordecai Joseph’s concepts. The primary tension is between the pre-eschatological period, which is characterized by uncertainty and illusion, and the eschaton, in which certainty and reality are found. In the preeschatological period it is impossible to achieve certainty and completeness in the service of God. Even one who fulfills all the rules of the Shulḥan Arukh cannot be certain that he has divined God’s 63 true will. Fulfillment of the commandments deriving from a real understanding of the divine will has to be totally free of illusion or coloration. This state cannot be attained with certainty before the 64 berur. The inherent paradox is that attaining the desired clarity means achieving the state of clarification where the commandments are no longer needed.

7. AVODAH: WORSHIP AND SERVICE OF GOD A similar tension lies at the heart of Mordecai Joseph’s discussions 65 of avodah. On the one hand, his radical views on providence would seem to negate the significance of avodah by an autonomous person. Yet, as a Jew committed to halacha, he must find a signifi61

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Teiz9e, 62a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vayeshev, 14b. 63 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Beḥuqotai, 27a-b. 64 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Beḥuqotai, 44b. 65 In the Hasidic context, the term avodah includes not only the worship and service of God but also working on one’s spiritual improvement. 62

72

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

cant role for avodah in his teachings. He incorporates it into the process which leads to the clarification in several ways. One of these is the realization that the heart cannot, even for a moment, remain free of thoughts and desires. If a person should manage to remove lusts from his heart, their place will be taken by anger or some other negative quality. Avodah provides an active and positive stimulus which displaces the negative attributes which tend to dis66 tract a person from his primary task, the clarification of his soul. God does not make it easy for man to achieve the goal of clarification and thus to find the source of his soul. Normally, the true source of the soul is hidden by a “garment” which gives the appearance of being the opposite of the true inner soul. If, for example, the source of a person’s soul is humility, the external appearance may be arrogance. In other words, the person’s ego is the “garment” of the true self, the soul. The two are often in tension. God does this because He desires man’s avodah. It is only through exertion in the service of God that it is possible to reach beneath the outer garments to the true source of one’s soul. Therefore, a person must always examine his actions so that the surface attributes of the “garment” do not control his heart and lead him astray. 67 Avodah is a framework for accomplishing this. Service of God also serves to reinforce the proper relationship between man and God. If good things happened without avodah, man could be led to one of two erroneous conclusions. From one side man could come to expect God’s goodness as due him, without the need to reciprocate His bounty. Prayer and avodah are the appropriate human responses of appreciation to the divine goodness. The other side is that man may forget that God gives him the strength to worship Him, which may lead to hubris. The need for avodah is a reminder that everything comes from God, even the 68 ability to worship. The idea that the ability to worship is granted by God can lead to discontent and complaints from someone who seeks to worship God with wholeness but is not able to do so. Mordecai Joseph is sympathetic to this predicament and urges patience and a charitable attitude. God will eventually reveal the path on which He has been 66

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bo, 22a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Isaiah, 45a. 68 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ekev, 58b–59a. 67

MAN AND AVODAH

73

leading him and will send consolation. The person will see that his tribulations are not wasted but have served a significant purpose. Mordecai Joseph compares such a person to a priest who cannot 69 serve in the Temple because of a bodily defect. Though he cannot attain the good of serving actively and in a sacerdotal manner in the Temple, he can attain a greater good if his faith in and cleav70 ing to God are not diminished. Approaching the question from another perspective, Mordecai Joseph sees the commandments and worship as a form of protection against the many manifestations of the evil inclination that exist in the world before the completion of the berur. After the completion of the clarification, when these evil influences disappear, so will the need for avodah. Everything will be united in com71 plete harmony; avodah will no longer be necessary. Mordecai Joseph does not shrink from taking his ideas to their logical conclusions. In one place he admits that from the divine perspective there are no boundaries. It is only from the human perspective that limitations exist. Worship and service of God is the process by which one expands horizons. It provides a path so that one does not abandon necessary limitations prematurely. Although the ability to worship comes from God, acting on the implications of this fact before it is appropriate can be dangerous. Avodah pro72 vides the framework and pace for the unfolding of these truths. At the same time, God’s absolute providence must always be kept in mind. Mordecai Joseph’s analysis of the first verse of the Ten Commandments is paradigmatic of his integration of the need for avodah into his teachings on absolute divine providence. He writes: I am the Lord your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt [Exodus 20:2]. The power of the land of Egypt is the waste product 73 of the seven manifested attributes. It appeared to [the Egyptians] that the power to succeed resided in themselves. When Israel was enslaved to [the Egyptians], they also shared somewhat in this illusion. This was the essence of their exile. God in 69

Leviticus 21:16–24. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Emor, 41b. 71 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Pesahim, 58b. 72 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Re’eh, 60a. 73 I.e., the kelippah of the seven lower sefirot. 70

74

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN taking them out of this exile showed them that the essence of power lies with Him. As long as a person imagines that he has independent power and strength, even in the realm of prayer and worship, he is still enslaved in exile and not free. This was the reason that God gave Israel the miz9vot [commandments] of the paschal lamb, matzoh, and the other forms of avodah. When they reached the seventh day of Passover, [the Israelites] saw the power of God explicitly [at the crossing of the Red Sea] and [realized] that without Him no action can occur. … After God redeemed man, the person can be mistaken and imagine that the illusions were removed from his heart through his own efforts. In reality, man’s efforts do not help him at all. Only God can redeem him, as King David, of blessed memory, said: Everything comes from You, and from Your hand have we given You [1 Chronicles 29:14]. Similarly, a person might imagine that the power of his prayer initiated [the process of] redemption from the exile of Egypt. According to the illusion, it appeared that the outcry [originated] with Israel. At the giving of the Torah, Israel saw clearly that there was no awakening [of the divine forces] from their side. … This is why God began with the statement I am the Lord, who took you out. That is, just as they recognized that the receiving of the Torah was not [initiated] by them, so too the Exodus from Egypt did not [result] from their awakening of prayer. Rather, I am the Lord your God, who took you out of Egypt and sent you the power of prayer and the awakening to pray. This is called receiving the Torah, when it is explicitly seen that all power comes from the Blessed One, even the awakening to 74 prayer.

Avodah is a necessary concept for the person who has not attained the state of berur. It provides useful boundaries and guidelines which will ultimately lead him to clarification. Yet, one must always be conscious that this is only a transitory stage and does not represent ultimate reality. In this way Mordecai Joseph is able to find a significant role for avodah without compromising the absolute nature of his concept of divine providence.

8. CONCLUSION Providing a meaningful role for man in his extremely theocentric theology was an important task for Mordecai Joseph. He resolved 74

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Yitro, 16a–b.

MAN AND AVODAH

75

the problem by individualizing and psychologizing the central Lurianic myth, which was also at the heart of Hasidic theology. He moved the plane of action from the cosmos to the individual by reinterpreting the concepts of shevirat ha-kelim and tiqqun. In their place are the concepts of ḥisaron and berur. Instead of the cosmic cataclysm arising from Adam’s sin, Mordecai Joseph posits the idea of ḥisaron, a deficiency that each person is born with and which must be identified and corrected through the process of berur. When the process of berur is completed, the person achieves his own personal state of redemption in which the commandments of the Torah are no longer obligatory. There are many stages in the process of clarification. Mordecai Joseph explains how one identifies one’s ḥisaron and the process of berur which follows this realization. Attaining the state of berur is, like everything else in his theology, in the hands of heaven. Not everyone who wishes to attain this level fulfills his desire. Mordecai Joseph emphasizes that one must always look to God to determine what is the divine will for oneself at that given moment. Different people are destined to occupy different rungs of the spiritual ladder. Mordecai Joseph deals with this question and warns against the dangers inherent in this concept. One must be careful not to try to exceed one’s divinely ordained place. At the same time, a person who has attained the state of berur must be careful not to flaunt his status and thereby mislead his fellows who have not attained this level. Mordecai Joseph teaches a form of passive asceticism to be followed during the process of clarification. One must take care to avoid being distracted by the pleasures of the world. Asceticism in the classic sense of self-mortification is not advocated, but an attitude of detachment and indifference to the physical world is stressed. One’s energies should be completely focused on the spiritual quest. Since attaining the state of clarification in which the commandments are no longer obligatory can lead to anomism and libertinism, Mordecai Joseph is careful to interpret his teachings in such a way as to preclude these dangers. The problem of doubt and certainty in the spiritual quest is also addressed. One can never be certain that he is doing the will of God, even when following the commandments of the Torah. One must look to God before every act to determine what is the special will of God at that time and place. The biblical figure who is the

76

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

archetype for looking to God is Judah. His antithesis is Joseph, who follows the rules of the Torah without reflection and without asking what is the specific will of God in each instance. The interactions between these two biblical figures reflect the virtues and pitfalls of their respective approaches. Mordecai Joseph also reconciles his theory of absolute divine providence with the need for avodah— prayer, worship, and working on one’s spiritual improvement. Avodah is important for the person who has not attained clarification because it gives him a framework and provides a path to follow in his spiritual quest. It sets parameters within which he can hope to ascend the spiritual ladder. When one has attained the berur, it provides a means of maintaining solidarity with one’s fellows who are on a lower level. The concept of Klal Israel, the unity of Israel, is very important for Mordecai Joseph. He constantly strives to negate the divisive tendencies of his teachings. In conclusion, it can be said that Mordecai Joseph successfully harmonizes his teachings of absolute divine providence with the requirements of rabbinic Judaism.

5. THE Z9ADDIQ The concept of the z9addiq is of relatively minor significance in Mordecai Joseph’s writings. The majority of references to the z9addiq in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ reflect Mordecai Joseph’s attempt to deal with his relationship to his former mentor, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. The remaining references to the z9addiq are scattered reflections which do not form a coherent theory. They do provide some insights into Mordecai Joseph’s self-perception as a leader and his perspective on his fellow z9addiqim.

1. MORDECAI JOSEPH’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MENAḤEM MENDEL Mordecai Joseph’s relationship with Menaḥem Mendel was highly ambivalent. Though he disagreed so strongly with his friend and mentor that he dramatically left Kotsk and established himself as an independent leader, he still retained a strong measure of respect for Menaḥem Mendel. 1 The relationship between the two protagonists is not explicitly discussed in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ. However, Mordecai Joseph does allude to Menaḥem Mendel and his spiritual path in his discussion of the z9addiq. With one notable exception, Menaḥem Mendel’s attitude toward Mordecai Joseph and those who left him was implacable anger and hostility, as we have seen in some of the examples cited above.2 His anger stemmed in part from his sense of being betrayed and deserted by one of his oldest and closest friends. The only positive statement by Menaḥem Mendel about Mordecai Joseph as a z9addiq occurred shortly after his departure. 1 Mordecai Joseph was not the first disciple to leave his teacher and become a zaddiq in his own right. Among the more famous examples are the Seer of Lublin, who left Elimelekh of Lyzhansk, and the Yehudi of Przysucha, who left the Seer of Lublin. 2 See chapter 2 above.

77

78

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Menaḥem Mendel’s wife complained to him that since Mordecai Joseph’s defection, fewer ḥasidim were coming to Kotsk, resulting in a significant decline in income for Menaḥem Mendel’s family. Menaḥem Mendel answered his wife sharply, “What do you think he learned from me, to be a shoemaker?”3 With this backhanded compliment, Menaḥem Mendel acknowledged that Mordecai Joseph had indeed attained the spiritual level to be a rebbe during his time in Kotsk. However, Menaḥem Mendel also saw himself as the z9addiq ha-dor, the one z9addiq who is the true leader of the generation.4 Thus Mordecai Joseph’s departure was not only a personal affront but a rebellion against the divinely appointed leader of the generation. Mordecai Joseph also accepted the doctrine of z9addiq ha-dor. According to Mordecai Joseph, “In every generation, the z9addiq of the generation sees the will of God.”5 He cites as an example the Yehudi of Przysucha, who saw that it was the will of God, in his generation, that the time of prayer be delayed in order that one should be properly spiritually prepared for prayer.6 In light of his doctrine of z9addiq ha-dor, Mordecai Joseph raises a paradoxical problem. He asks if it is possible that God elevates two z9addiqim to the level of z9addiq ha-dor in one generation. He resolves the apparent contradiction by postulating that this is a miracle. He compares it to Moses and Aaron, each of whom was the foundation z9addiq, the unique one in the same generation, unique, thus different from the other.7 Who is the second z9addiq with whom Mordecai Joseph shares the title of z9addiq hador? It is none other than his teacher, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk.8 This hypothesis is supported by Mordecai Joseph’s exegesis of Deuteronomy 20:1, which presents a view of this relationship from Mordecai Joseph’s perspective. The verse reads: When you go forth to Heschel, Kotsk, 2:575. On the concept of z9addiq ha-dor, see Green, “Z9addiq as Axis Mundi.” 5 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Behalotekha, 29a. This position was in accord with the teachings of the Yehudi and Simhah Bunem. Cf. respectively Ramatayim Z9ofim, chap. 3, no. 34; and Qol Simḥah, Noah. 6 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Behalotekha, 29a. The delay in the time of prayer was a major source of contention between the Polish school and its opponents. 7 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Naso, 47b. 8 A. J. Heschel is of the same opinion. Cf. Kotsk, 2:627. 3 4

THE ẒADDIQ

79

do battle with your enemies and you see horse and chariot and an army greater than yours, do not fear them, for the Lord your God, who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, is with you. Mordecai Joseph comments: Horse, that is, a disputant, such as Jereboam. And chariot, that is, even if you see that standing against you is a z9addiq who is a vehicle for the divine presence [merkavah le-shekhinah]. A great army, as, for example, Rehoboam against the eleven tribes. Concerning this, David said, Though a host shall encamp against me, etc. [Psalm 27:30]. And the Blessed One says, Do not fear them [Deuteronomy 20:1].9

In this passage, which reflects the conflict between the followers of Izbica and those of Kotsk after Mordecai Joseph’s break with Menaḥem Mendel, Mordecai Joseph still shows profound respect for Menaḥem Mendel. Mordecai Joseph describes him as a z9addiq who is worthy of being a vehicle for the divine presence—in other words, as divinely inspired. Yet at the same time Mordecai Joseph feels equally strongly that his own actions are divinely sanctioned and the path he has taken is a correct one. Mordecai Joseph’s conflict with Menaḥem Mendel was more than just a dispute over who was the z9addiq ha-dor. Equally important in understanding his departure from Kotsk are his differences with Menaḥem Mendel over issues which were integral to the latter’s personality and teachings. Menaḥem Mendel approached the material world with disdain, from a thoroughly ascetic perspective. He once remarked that the whole world is not worth a single sigh.10 On another occasion, he boasted that a young man given into his care would soon learn to find the world so repugnant that he would not be able to eat.11 Menaḥem Mendel’s attitude toward sexuality was also very negative. According to Hasidic tradition, he separated from his first wife after the birth of his son, David, and did not have marital relations with her until just before her death, a period of almost twenty-five years.12 After the death of his first wife, his close disciple, Isaac Meir of Ger, suggested a match with his wife’s sister. The prospective bride agreed to the marriage only on condition that Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shoftim, 61b. Artan, Emet ve-Emunah, para. 337. 11 Ibid., para. 666. 12 Rakatz, Siaḥ Sarfei Qodesh, 1:64. 9

10

80

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Menaḥem Mendel promise that they would have marital relations and children would be born of this union. Menaḥem Mendel reluctantly agreed to the condition.13 Mordecai Joseph strongly disagreed with such ideas. He believed that the world and its bounty were created by God and were meant to be enjoyed by man, within the limits of religious law. He strongly castigates the z9addiq who denies himself the enjoyment of the world. It is a self-defeating spiritual path that leads away from rather than toward God. Mordecai Joseph observes: Earth points to the body, and heaven points to the soul, and the soul is always directed toward God. However, the z9addiq who restricts his body with regard to the pleasures of the world is called one whose path is not for God and heaven.14

Commenting on the passage A crooked and twisted generation (Deuteronomy 32:5), Mordecai Joseph elaborates on this theme. Crooked refers to the one who makes himself crooked against God and does not do the will of God but always goes after his own pleasures. Twisted is one who is the opposite. He mortifies and restricts himself for God, where there is no need for this at all, and afflicts himself unnecessarily. This too is a sin, as it is written, He who troubles his flesh is cruel (Proverbs 11:17).15

Mordecai Joseph’s sharp critique of Menaḥem Mendel’s asceticism reflects the basic difference in temperament between mentor and student. Menaḥem Mendel was a perfectionist who had no use for human foibles or the demands of everyday life. Commenting on his role as a z9addiq, Menaḥem Mendel once cried out, “I thought I would be a physician for the brokenhearted [i.e., penitents], instead I have become a flayer of carcasses.”16 Mordecai Joseph had a more positive outlook and tried to find the positive aspect in each person. Rather than demand that his followers rise to his level, he tried to reach them on their own level. Toward the end of his life, Menaḥem Mendel relented somewhat and began to deal with people on their own level when they approached him with truth and honesty. His wife observed that when simple people came to him for a blessing, he would see them immediately, give them their Alter, Meir Eynei Ha-Golah, 1:71. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Liqutei Shas, 21a. 15 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ha’azinu, 65b. 16 Heschel, Kotsk, 2:536. 13 14

THE ẒADDIQ

81

blessing, and send them on their way. On the other hand, very elegant [sheine] ḥasidim would have to wait for weeks before he would see them. Surprised, she asked him about this. He responded. “[The simple] one means a cow and says a cow. While the other one [the ḥasid] says God and means a cow.”17 Menaḥem Mendel could not tolerate those who pretended to have spiritual concerns when in fact their real concerns were purely materialistic.

2. REFLECTIONS ON THE Z9ADDIQ Mordecai Joseph’s teachings on the role of the z9addiq are in the mainstream of the Polish school.18 One of the central areas of contention between the Yehudi of Przysucha and his opponents pertained to the role of the z9addiq.19 The Polish school moved away from the concept of the z9addiq as miracle worker and intermediary between man and God. The emphasis was instead placed on the z9addiq as spiritual guide and teacher. Mordecai Joseph endorses the Polish school’s attitude toward the z9addiq–ḥasid relationship. He strongly warns against deifying the z9addiq and turning him into an idol. Commenting on the verse You shall not plant an Asherah or any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 16:21), Mordecai Joseph says: Though a person has been commanded to subordinate himself to a scholar [talmid ḥakham], as has been explained earlier with regard to the incident of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua,20 this is only in matters of Torah. However, in prayer it is forbidden to be subordinate to anyone. The altar is a place of prayer and worship. This why the Talmud states, “A person should not pray behind his teacher.” (b. Berakhot 27b)21

The verse he comments on is especially relevant. The z9addiq who places himself between the people and their prayers to God is compared to an Asherah, a pagan object of worship. For Mordecai Ibid., 2:550–51. Weiss, “Late Jewish Utopia,” 216; Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 268; see also chap. 1 above. 19 Cf. Rabinowicz, Rabbi Yaakov Yizḥak Mi-Przysucha, 80–96. 20 This refers to the dispute over the intercalation of the calendar and Rabban Gamaliel’s assertion of the authority of the scholars. Cf. m. Rosh Hashana 2:8–9. 21 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shoftim, 61a. 17 18

82

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Joseph, it is most important that one never lose sight of the fact that the z9addiq is also a human being. “Imitatio Dei” is a virtue that refers exclusively to God and not to the z9addiq. Each person is an individual and must approach God as an individual.22 In another passage, Mordecai Joseph presents a rarely seen side of the z9addiq’s self-perception. It would be a reasonable assumption that the z9addiq is identical with the person who has completed the berur and is beyond doubts and imperfections. Mordecai Joseph surprises us, however, by showing the z9addiq as having human uncertainties. He asks: The essential task of z9addiqim is to illumine and add to the creation of heaven and earth, and to show that God is explicitly found in all the worlds. If so, what is all their effort worth when deeds are not completely clarified?23

After pondering the question, he concludes: The essence of the human will is a [gift] of grace [ḥesed] from God, and since he desires that the deeds of the z9addiqim should illumine the recognition of God in all the worlds, God will certainly assent to all their deeds.24

This passage is virtually unique in the literature of Hasidism. It shows the z9addiq at his most human. He, too, has insecurities and must also take the leap of faith, ultimately putting his trust in God’s grace. This stance is very different from the traditional Hasidic attitude toward the z9addiq, which is summarized in the motto “God decrees and the z9addiq annuls.”25 Despite his de-emphasis of the z9addiq’s centrality, Mordecai Joseph does not maintain that “all men are created equal.” God endows us individually with different levels of spiritual ability and understanding. The z9addiq stands at the top of the spiritual ladder. In descending order, depending on our various spiritual capacities, the rest of us occupy the rungs below the z9addiq. Thus, when God 22 This stands in sharp contrast to the classical attitudes of Hasidism. See Ada Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Z9addik.” 23 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Ketubot, 63a. 24 Ibid. 25 This is the ideological basis of “popular z9addiqism,” the antithesis of the Polish school. The concept is rabbinic in origin and is also found in kabbalistic sources. For a list of sources, see R. Margulies, Niz9oz9ei Zohar, Zohar 1:45b, n. 1.

THE ẒADDIQ

83

introduces an innovation in the understanding of the Torah to Israel, it is first understood by the z9addiqim and then filters down level by level.26 This is why there was no spiritual preparation by the Israelites when they received the Torah at Sinai, according to Mordecai Joseph. God wanted to reveal his light to each person according to their spiritual level.27 The sabbatical and jubilee years are times of return to one’s original spiritual level. By fulfilling the commandment of the sabbatical year, a person puts himself into the hands of God and attains an understanding of his true spiritual place. Following his theory of absolute providence, Mordecai Joseph states that there is nothing anyone can do to change the original will of God, not even by a hair’s breadth. The Jubilee year will reveal this to all.28 The hubris of trying to occupy a place beyond one’s level or putting oneself in an unsuitable situation is a common motif in his reinterpretation of the Torah’s stories. The very first human conflict, between Cain and Abel, was in part caused by Cain’s desire to attain a spiritual level beyond that ordained for him by God.29 The classic example of attempting to attain an unsuitable position is revealed in the dispute initiated by Korah, who felt that he was as worthy as Aaron to be the high priest.30 The ideal human relationship in the pre-eschatological world is that of Moses and Aaron. Each occupies his assigned place and performs his assigned task without rancor or jealousy of the other’s prerogatives.31 The desire to go beyond one’s divinely assigned place is one of the defects of the pre-eschatological world that will be corrected in the eschaton. Then each person will occupy his assigned place in the cosmic order and will not lust after his neighbor’ place.32 An important consequence of the idea that we all occupy different levels in the spiritual hierarchy is that what is permitted to one person may not be allowed to another. Some of us are more Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Beshallaḥ, 24a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Yitro, 16a. 28 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behar, 43a. 29 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bereshit, 4b. 30 Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk interprets the reason for Korah’s rebellion in a similar manner. Cf. Heschel, Kotsk, 2:514. The similarity in interpretation reflects Menaḥem Mendel’s influence on Mordecai Joseph. 31 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Bamidbar, 45b. 32 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Korah, 51a. 26 27

84

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

capable of entering into doubtful situations than others. In the biblical story of Dinah’s rescue by her brothers Simeon and Levi,33 Simeon jumped more resolutely into the situation than Levi, according to Mordecai Joseph. Levi feared that his actions might not be totally for the sake of heaven. This characteristic was also transmitted to his descendants. Awe (yirah) is a trait that the whole tribe of Levi emphasized, and they kept away from doubts.34 For this reason, one should not rebuke one’s friend, for it could be God’s will that he do this (apparently) forbidden act at this time. Instead, one should always strive to find the positive aspect of every action. Similarly, one should avoid being selfrighteous and overly judgmental of others. Mordecai Joseph reminds his readers that even z9addiqim could not emerge unblemished from God’s careful scrutiny of their deeds. We should deal mercifully with our fellows, as God deals mercifully with us.35 In summary, Mordecai Joseph’s discussion of the z9addiq is centered around three concerns. First and foremost is his ambivalent relationship with his mentor, Menaḥem Mendel. Mordecai Joseph felt a need to justify his departure from Kotsk. He acknowledges Menaḥem Mendel’s position as z9addiq ha-dor but argues that it is possible to have two z9addiqim in the same generation who share this distinction. He argues for a “separate but equal” concept. In this way he justifies his own departure without totally rejecting his teacher. Second, his discussion of the role of the z9addiq shows that Mordecai Joseph’s views in this area are in the mainstream of the Polish school, when placed in the larger context of the history of Hasidism. His final concern is to explain the role of the z9addiq in light of his central doctrine of absolute divine providence. For Mordecai Joseph, the z9addiq, like everyone else, is not an autonomous entity. He too must adhere to the will of God. Similarly, the z9addiq’s exalted spiritual level is divinely ordained. God has made the z9addiq a vessel for the dissemination of the divine will, and it is this divine dispensation that gives the z9addiq his status and authority.

Genesis 35:25–31. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Toldot, 10a. 35 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behar, 34a–b. 33 34

6. ANGER Anger is considered a negative emotion in rabbinic literature. The Talmud compares one who becomes angry to an idol worshipper.1 The Zohar, following the talmudic tradition, equates anger with idolatry and the Sitra Achra. At the same time, the Zohar recognizes that there are times when anger is an appropriate emotion. The anger of the sages in protecting the Torah or the anger of a teacher with his pupil in order that the pupil should respect him and the Torah are both appropriate expressions of righteous anger. Thus, the Zohar recognizes two types of anger, one that is evil and one that is good.2 Mordecai Joseph relies on this dichotomy in his discussion of anger and the z9addiq and provides a framework for his attempt at justifying the anger of his mentor, Menaḥem Mendel, despite his obvious discomfort with this emotion. Anger is a topic not normally written about in Hasidic literature.3 Yet, there are over twenty passages in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ where anger is the central theme or an important component in the discussion. What is the source of this preoccupation? A. J. Heschel has observed that this is a polemic against Mordecai Joseph’s former teacher, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk, whose anger and impatience were central characteristics of his personality.4 Mordecai Joseph’s personality was the opposite, stressing calm and attempting to find something positive in all people. He was uncomfortable with anger both as a personality trait and as a quality of the z9addiq. As with his discussion of the z9addiq, this theme is a reflection of his ambivalence toward his former mentor. The discussion of anger is divided into two parts, a general discussion of the problem and an analysis of its relation to the z9addiq. B. Shabbat, 105b; b. Eruvin, 65a. Tishby, Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1333–36, 1344–47. 3 Heschel, Kotsk, 2:625–27. 4 Ibid., 627. 1 2

85

86

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

1. THE PLACE OF ANGER For Mordecai Joseph, anger is an emotion that has no place in Israel.5 It has no place in the world6 and will cease to exist in the messianic age.7 Anger is an emotion that leads away from God rather than toward Him. Lust is the opposite of anger. For this reason the Levites were told to shave the hair from their bodies.8 The Nazirite, also, as part of his purification, had to cut his hair9 because hair symbolizes anger. Mordecai Joseph finds this concept in the Zohar.10 Therefore, he continues, the Levites who were free of lust should also be free of hair. Similarly, the Nazirite, who took his vow because of lust, when freed of his vow was freed of the burden of hair, which symbolizes lust and anger.11 Anger and lust are polar opposites that are constantly in tension, pulling a person in opposite directions. While one may save a person from the other, neither is desirable. The middle path is the golden mean for which one should strive. For by stratagems you wage war [Proverbs 24:6]. The explanation of this matter is like the captain of a ship who uses his expertise to keep the ship on an even course. If he turns the wheel too much in one direction it would not be good, since he might sink the ship. Thus it is with the internal battle in a person, that he vacillates between attributes, from loving-kindness to sternness, or from lust to anger. Anger is the opposite of lust, as we find in the Talmud, “He should wear black” [b. Qiddushin, 40a]. This is depression, which is related to anger. This saves one from lust, and lust saves from anger. In truth, neither is good, and this is why the verse concludes, and victory comes with much planning. When a person changes his ways in order to save himself from sins, God takes mercy on him and

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shelaḥ, 50a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Mez9ora, 36a. 7 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Beshallaḥ, 24a. 8 Numbers 8:7. 9 Numbers 6:5. 10 I have not been able to find a specific reference in the Zohar that equates hair with anger. However, hair is equated with the evil side (sitra aḥra), Zohar, 3:48b, 151b, as is anger, Zohar, 2:263b. 11 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vaera, 21a. 5 6

ANGER

87

sends him help through the middle path, and then all will be good.12

Though anger and lust take a person away from God, Mordecai Joseph finds more redeeming value in lust. At least it is possible to find some good in it, but anger takes a person further from God, and it is much harder to find any redeeming value in it.13 Study of Torah affords the opportunity of disengaging from the negative emotions and achieving the desired state of equanimity. The positive attributes that one should cling to are faith and trust, necessary prerequisites to equanimity. Sometimes a person may think he has faith and yet be in a state of depression. This is an indication that his faith is very shallow, for at the center faith is lacking. It is a contradiction to be depressed and truly have faith.14 Deep depression has anger at its source and clearly indicates a lack of both faith and trust.15 Mordecai Joseph’s other antidote for anger is yishuv ha-da’at, calm and careful consideration of every situation. A person may indeed become angry, but he should always consider his course of action and never allow his anger to emerge into the open. Mordecai Joseph believes that if a person reflects on his own deeds and remembers that God created the world, he will be able to purge the anger from his heart.16 He quotes approvingly and expounds the talmudic passage that states: “God loves three types: he who does not get angry, he who does not get drunk, and he who examines his deeds” [b. Pesaḥim, 113b]. “He who does not get angry” refers to one who does not become angry in practice. “He who does not get drunk” refers to one who is tranquil, recognizes and believes in the Creator of the world. “He who examines his deeds” refers to one who removes anger from his heart so that he will not have any complaints against his friend in his heart.17

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Taiz9ai, 38a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Vaera, 21a. 14 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Re’eh, 36a. 15 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Ekev, 35b. 16 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Noah, 5b; Behalotekha, 48b. 17 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Noah, 5a. 12 13

88

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

One should strive for the quality of tranquility (yishuv ha-da’at), the opposite pole from anger. Tranquility is the ideal one should cultivate in place of anger. This is especially true with regard to interpersonal relations. Commenting on “Justice, justice shall you pursue” [Deuteronomy 16:20], Mordecai Joseph writes: The first [instance of the word justice] refers to God. The second refers to his friend. If he sees his friend, heaven forbid, transgress the will of God and wants to be angry with him because of this, for this the second justice is mentioned. God does not wish one friend to condemn another. Just as the Sanhedrin would sleep on their judgments even though they knew they were just [so should he]. Perhaps God will illumine their eyes and open for them a new light to find something positive in a soul in Israel.18

The thrust of his strictures on anger is in the area of interpersonal relationships. He is particularly concerned that one should try to see others in the best light and think carefully before condemning them. One should be so divorced from the emotion of anger that it will not come out even in situations where the anger might appear justified. Equanimity is desirable even in the face of apparent provocation. Mordecai Joseph recognizes the need for a person to be exacting with himself, but this does not carry over to relations with others. In dealing with others, one must always judge the other person in the best possible light and not be hasty in judgment.19 What applies to another individual applies even more so to a whole community. Mordecai Joseph’s negative attitude toward anger is not completely consistent. He considers it a justifiable reaction to a transgression of God’s will.20 This statement occurs in the midst of a discussion in which Mordecai Joseph argues that everything created by God has a positive side. Even something as negative as anger can be beneficial in the appropriate circumstances. Mordecai Joseph does not endorse anger in any sense. He is only trying to understand why anger exists at all. He also juxtaposes anger and lust. While both are negative vices, anger can also be used as an antidote to lust. Someone who Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Shoftim, 36b. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Shoftim, 61b. 20 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Toldot, 11b. 18 19

ANGER

89

feels he is losing control in the area of lust can be saved from its temptations by becoming angry.21 He writes: And he sent forth a raven, and it went to and fro, until the waters receded [Genesis 8:7]. The raven alludes to anger. Noah desired that the emotion of anger not be found in the world. God showed him that for the present time this emotion is still needed in the world. Occasionally a person may encounter some evil desire and he will be able to save himself by becoming angry. This is the meaning of it went to and fro, until the waters receded. That is, until evil desires disappear from the world. Then, too, anger will be nullified.22

Despite his distaste for anger, Mordecai Joseph still sees it as having been placed in the world by God. Like all of God’s creations, it has a purpose and can be beneficial in specific instances. These, however, are very limited and cannot be seen as a justification for anger in its manifold manifestations. Both anger and lust share a common remedy or antidote, the study of Torah. Through the words of Torah, it is possible for a person to change his attitudes and to overcome both his anger and his lusts.23

2. ANGER AND THE Z9ADDIQ The positive valuation of equanimity and the negation of depression and anger are characteristic of Mordecai Joseph’s overall attitude throughout his writings, which are essentially optimistic and positive in approach. It stands in sharp contrast to the negative and gloomy personality of his teacher, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. Mordecai Joseph’s disapproval is apparent in his discussion of anger and the z9addiq. He writes: When a person schemes against his friend and kills him treacherously, from My very altar [shall you take him] to be put to death [Exodus 21:14]. The reason it is written here from My very altar is because there are several kinds of malice and anger. Sometimes a person is temporarily seized and perpetrates a malicious act. This can be mitigated by saying that his [positive] nature was temporarily overcome. However, when a person schemes against his friend to kill him treacherously, that is when his anger Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Behalotekha, 48b; 2, Taiz9ai, 38a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Noah, 5b. 23 Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ki Tisa, 29b. 21 22

90

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN against the community accumulates to a great degree. For treachery [ormah] is related to heap [arimah]. That is, he heaps up his anger in his heart in order that he should profit from his treachery. Concerning this, it is written, from My very altar [shall you take him] to be put to death. Even a z9addiq and servant of God will not be helped by all of his merits, for anger like this has no place in Israel.24

Mordecai Joseph can understand and even condone an outburst of anger when it is no more than a temporary aberration. However, when anger becomes deeply ingrained in someone, even if that person is a z9addiq, it is inexcusable and unforgivable. The idea that this discussion of anger in relation to the z9addiq is directed toward his former mentor is strengthened by another passage that speaks about anger. Mordecai Joseph writes: Leprosy teaches us about the defect in the attribute of anger. This attribute is found more often in great people because they derive no satisfaction from the goodness of this world. The solution to this is to hold on to the attribute of generosity. This attribute has three levels. The first is one who wants God to give goodness to the world in general and to all of Israel. The second is even if his friend will receive the goodness, he will receive a very limited amount and feel generous. The third is if the influence of God will only reach his friend, and he himself received none of it. Nonetheless he will derive satisfaction from the goodness God has bestowed on his friend.25

The association of anger with the negation of the pleasures of this world is another clear reference to Menaḥem Mendel. His denigration of everything relating to the physical world is attested in many of his statements and teachings. Similarly, his unabashed elitism, a hallmark of Kotsker teachings, is condemned by Mordecai Joseph. In light of these passages, there can be no doubt that Mordecai Joseph’s discussion of anger is directed at this teacher. The strength and passion of his language indicate a fundamental difference in personality and outlook that may have played a significant role in Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk. Mordecai Joseph, in contrast to Menaḥem Mendel, had an optimistic nature and sought to find something good to say even about anger, which he so passionately disliked, and about the 24 25

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Mishpaṭim, 17a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Tazria, 35b.

ANGER

91

teacher whom he had left. In one passage he tries to justify the anger of the z9addiq who is the pillar of the generation, Menaḥem Mendel. He writes: God has manifestations which show the attribute of His anger. When God manifests this attribute, the z9addiq who is the pillar of the generation also manifests this attitude. Two examples are Phinehas in his generation and Elijah in his. The z9addiq is a manifestation of the divine and appears to accuse Israel. Elijah said, For the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant [1 Kings 19:10], for example. When God removes this manifestation from Himself and acts with the attributes of goodness and mercy, the z9addiqim too will see that in the depths of His thought there was at no time, heaven forbid, any anger. Then the hearts of the z9addiqim will be at peace with Israel.26

Mordecai Joseph tries to mitigate Menaḥem Mendel’s anger by comparing it in some way to the righteous wrath of Phinehas and Elijah, two biblical figures whose anger was seen as justified and for the sake of heaven. Yet he cannot fully admit the legitimacy of anger and rationalizes it as a temporary manifestation for a specific purpose. At bottom, even this anger is only an external manifestation that covers God’s true nature, which is good and merciful. The obvious question is, why does Mordecai Joseph feel the need for this half-hearted rationalization of Menaḥem Mendel’s anger? The answer lies in the complex attitude of Mordecai Joseph toward Menaḥem Mendel. Though he left Kotsk to found his own school and showed unusual antipathy toward his former mentor’s central personality trait, Mordecai Joseph still felt very respectful toward Menaḥem Mendel and continued to see him as the z9addiq ha-dor, the central figure of the generation.27 Mordecai Joseph’s attitude toward the three negative attributes of anger, lust, and depression are summarized in a most interesting passage. He writes: And they shall send from the camp anyone with an eruption, a discharge, and anyone defiled by a corpse [Numbers 5:2]. An eruption is anger, for an eruption comes from the sin of slander.28 One with a discharge is a lustful person, and defiled by a corpse is depression. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Ki Tisa, 30a. This is discussed in greater detail in chap. 5. 28 B. ‘Arakhin, 15b. 26 27

92

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN Therefore, the one with an eruption is sent out of all three camps because the attribute of anger has no place at all in Israel. The one with a discharge is only sent out of the camp of the Levites and the camp of the divine presence [Shekhinah]. This is because the attribute of lust is not proper for scholars. One defiled by a corpse is sent only from the camp of the Shekhinah because it is sometimes found among scholars, as we find in the Talmud, “The Torah inflames him.”29 Inflammation is depression, and he is sent only from the camp of the Shekhinah because it is the place of strength and joy.30

It is noteworthy that Mordecai Joseph places anger lower on the scale of values than lust. For him, anger is literally beyond the pale. One afflicted with this condition is totally excluded from the bounds of the community. While lust cuts one off from the realm of holiness, anger cuts one off from all communal contacts. For Mordecai Joseph, it was a profoundly disturbing emotion. We have seen that he can find something positive about almost every sin mentioned in the Torah. Yet, in this one case, his attempts at mitigation and explanation are half-hearted and forced at best. It is also the one thing that finds no place at all in his worldview. The few bits of evidence we have point to his complex and ambivalent relationship with his former mentor, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. Unfortunately, the lack of sources, as noted, prevents our delving deeper into this important question. In summary, Mordecai Joseph’s discussion of anger is a further reflection of his ambivalent relationship toward Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. Anger, which was one of Menaḥem Mendel’s most characteristic personality traits, is an emotion that has no place in Mordecai Joseph’s world. It is a characteristic especially undesirable in the z9addiq. His linkage of depression and anger is a further indication that the discussion of anger is directed toward Menaḥem Mendel. The antidote for anger is yishuv ha-da’at, equanimity. Despite his uncompromising opposition to anger, Mordecai Joseph goes to great lengths to find some positive value in it. He even attempts to justify and legitimize anger in the z9addiq. His ambivalence in this area mirrors his ambivalent attitude toward Menaḥem Mendel. His disagreement with his former teacher was 29 30

B. Ta‘anit, 4a. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 1, Naso, 47a.

ANGER

93

profound and fundamental. At the same time, his respect for Menaḥem Mendel was so great that he could not completely disparage his central characteristic. This discussion sheds further light on the disparity in perspective that led to Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk and his subsequent attitude toward Menaḥem Mendel.

7. MESSIANISM Mordecai Joseph’s approach to messianism in the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ follows the Hasidic tradition of personal redemption, which emphasizes the spiritual redemption of the individual rather than the physical redemption of the community.1 The first important Hasidic statement on messianism is the “Holy Epistle” written by the Baal Shem Tov to Gershon of Kutow, his brother-in-law, circa 1752. This epistle has been interpreted in different ways.2 My own view agrees with those who argue that it is not a vision of imminent messianism, but one that puts the eschaton well into the future. Personal redemption was an important aspect of the teachings of the Besht’s two most important disciples, Jacob Joseph of Pollnoye and the Maggid of Mezhirech. Though many of the Maggid’s disciples moved away from this concept and emphasized the theurgic powers of the z9addiq, the Przysucha-Kotsk school of Hasidism restored personal redemption to a prominent place in its teachings. In this respect Mordecai Joseph follows the path of his mentors, Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha and Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. Gershon Henoch of Radzyn, Mordecai Joseph’s grandson and the editor of his writings, takes a radically different approach to the question of messianism in his introduction to the Bet Ya’akov. Gershon Henoch’s introduction is an attempt to define the raison d’être of the Izbica-Radzyn school of Hasidism. However, it is an apologia for Gershon Henoch’s own creative radicalism rather than an exposition of his grandfather’s teachings.

For an overview of the concept of personal redemption in Hasidism, see Morris Faierstein, “Personal Redemption in Hasidism”; Paul Fenton, “La Redemption individuelle dans le hassidisme d’Izbica.” 2 On the differing approaches to the Epistle and an analysis of the large body of literature surrounding it, see Moshe Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 97–113, and Immanuel Etkes, Ba’al ha-Shem, 302–9. 1

95

96

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

1. MESSIANISM IN THE MEI HA-SHILOAḤ The central emphasis of the Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ is the spiritual destiny of the individual. The primary themes of defect (ḥisaron), doubt, and clarification (berur) are all applicable to the individual as a microcosm and not to the whole community of Israel. Each person must go through his own process of clarification. If he is successful, he will have attained his personal redemption and will be entitled to live in his own messianic microcosm. This is given concrete expression in the release from the obligation to keep the commandments. In the messianic age, the commandments will no longer be applicable,3 a theme that recurs in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ. It is only Mordecai Joseph’s strong sense of the unity of Israel (klal Yisrael) and the adverse impact on this unity that prevents him from implementing his concepts.4 As we have seen, he has taken the Lurianic myth from its cosmic dimensions and brought it down to the level of the individual. The whole drama is now enacted on the level of the individual rather than the cosmic plane. In doing so, Mordecai Joseph has brought messianic redemption to the same level. As J. G. Weiss noted, “Redemption is an incident in man’s concept of himself, an incident in religious awareness, and not of outer reality.”5 This observation would be equally valid for all the concepts that comprise Mordecai Joseph’s theology. Everything applies to the individual. Nowhere in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ does one find a central motif or concept that applies to the community as a whole, with the notable exception of the concern for maintaining the unity of Israel. The messianism in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ is intimately associated with the concept of berur and its implementation. A person who has completed his own clarification can be said to be living in the messianic period. In effect, the messianic and pre-messianic periods are not absolute temporal opposites but relative to each individual. Mordecai Joseph’s messianism is a form of gnosis. Someone who attains the berur is truly cognizant that all is in the hands of heaven and is no longer bound by the commandments. This state of gnosis is normally not publicly implemented, out of a sense of B. Niddah, 61b. On Mordecai Joseph’s strong sense of klal Yisrael, see, Mei HaShiloaḥ, 1, Vayera, 9a; Mishpaṭim, 23a, 27a. 5 Weiss, “Late Jewish Utopia”, 243–44. 3 4

MESSIANISM

97

solidarity with those who have not yet attained this spiritual level. The messianic era, in the conventional sense, will only come when all of Israel has attained this level. Two other concepts which shed light on Mordecai Joseph’s approach to messianism are sin and illusion. J. G. Weiss has argued that all of the historical sins discussed in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ can be seen as examples of messianic anticipation.6 By this he means that the biblical figures involved based their actions on the assumption that they were already in the messianic era, when in fact they had not yet attained the requisite spiritual level. They assumed that their actions were the will of God, when in actuality they were not. Mordecai Joseph’s analysis of the sin of Nadab and Abihu is illustrative.7 Mordecai Joseph’s concept of illusion raises the question whether he believed in the messianic promises in their traditional form. In talking about Adam’s sin, which is the primal instance of exile, he argues that Adam never really sinned. The expulsion from Eden was merely an illusion projected by God. He goes even further and says that the people of Israel were never really in exile.8 Since exile is a prerequisite condition for redemption, messianic hope is meaningless. In addition, the person of the Messiah plays no role in any of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings, since the concept of berur makes each person the agent of his own salvation. In effect, each individual is his own Messiah. In summary, messianism in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ is closely associated with the concept of berur and is entirely individualistic.9 It is a term which applies to an internal spiritual state and not to external realities. An argument can thus be made that if exile is illusory, then messianism is not a meaningful category in Mordecai Joseph’s thought. In some respects, Mordecai Joseph’s approach is comparable to the “neutralization” of messianism characteristic of the Magid of Mezhirech and his school. The process is different, but the final result is similar.10 Weiss, “Torat ha-Determinism,” 452. See chap. 3 for an analysis of this story. 8 Weiss, “Late Jewish Utopia,” 239; Heschel, Kotsk, 2:637. 9 Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 303–4, believes that Mordecai Joseph’s radical individualism is derived from his teacher, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. 10 Cf. Scholem, “Neutralization of the Messianic Element”; Schatz, 6 7

98

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

2. MESSIANISM IN GERSHOM HENOCH’S WRITINGS Gershom Henoch presents an entirely different picture in his introduction to the Bet Ya’akov.11 Dor Yesharim, a Leiner family history written by H. S. Leiner, follows Gershom Henoch’s approach. This view is intimately connected to the widespread messianic excitement in 1840 (i.e., 5600, ‫[ ת״ר‬TaR]), the year Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk. This messianic enthusiasm, fueled by the Zohar’s statement that “the wellsprings of wisdom will be opened in the year 5600,”12 was felt in all sectors of the Jewish community. Jews throughout Eastern Europe, including many Hasidic rebbes, eagerly expected the Messiah. There were even reports from Warsaw of people selling their possessions in preparation for the journey to Israel— incidents reminiscent of the great Sabbatian explosion of 1666.13 The messianic expectation was also felt in Kotsk. However, a tradition maintained that Mordecai Joseph’s departure had prevented the Messiah’s coming.14 Aryeh Morgenstern has shown in a number of studies that the emigration to Israel of the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna in the early nineteenth century was also related to the messianic expectations for 1840.15 Based on the assembled evidence, one can state that it did have a significant impact on all sectors of the religious community in Eastern Europe. It is in this context that Gershom Henoch’s explanation of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings must be seen. H. S. Leiner, echoing Gershom Henoch, writes that in 1840 Mordecai Joseph “began to awaken and illumine a new and pure light, revealing the secrets of the Torah which had been hidden until then.”16 Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk and the establishment of his own court in Izbica were indicative of much “Self-Redemption in Hasidic Thought,” 207–12. 11 The Bet Ya’akov contains the teachings of R. Jacob Leiner, Mordecai Joseph’s son. The introduction is in vol. 1. The Bet Ya’akov, like the Mei ha-Shiloah, was edited by R. Gershom Henoch. 12 Zohar, 1:116b–17a, 119a. 13 Y. Alfasi, Ha-Sabah ha-Qadosh, 86–89, provides interesting details. See also Abraham Duker, “The Tarniks,” and the sources cited there. 14 Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 55. 15 Aryeh Morgenstern, “Z9ipiot Meshiḥiot ve-Yishuv Erez9 Yisrael beMaḥaz9it ha-Rishonah shel ha-Meiah ha-19”; “Z9ipiot Meshiḥiot Likrat Shenat ha-TaR (1840)”; Mistika ve-Meshiḥiut, chaps. 8–12. 16 Dor Yesharim, 12.

MESSIANISM

99

more than a disciple’s desire to be independent and teach. They signaled the beginning of a new era in which it became permissible, if not necessary, to reveal “the secrets of the Torah.”17 This new era is nothing less than the beginning of the messianic age. Gershom Henoch’s justification for revealing “the secrets of the Torah which had been hidden until then” makes this clear. He explains that “when the days of the Messiah are near, even children will discover secrets of wisdom.”18 In other words, the beginning of Mordecai Joseph’s activity as a Hasidic master marks the advent of the period leading to the Messiah’s coming. Gershom Henoch sees Mordecai Joseph’s teachings as “the revelation of a new Torah for the messianic age and a new understanding of Judaism.”19 The idea that there is a Torah for the messianic age that differs from the Torah as it presently exists is found in rabbinic literature.20 Gershom Scholem observes that in the medieval period, “This doctrine provided a justification for the boldness of the kabbalists’ speculative innovations, and it was invoked as such by the author of the Zohar and by many others.”21 While most kabbalists utilized this concept as a rationale for the spread of kabbalistic teachings, the author of one work, the Ra’aya Mehemna, sought to elucidate and describe the nature of this messianic Torah.22 In the sixteenth century, the kabbalists of Safed further developed the concept of a messianic Torah and its implications.23 The Sabbatian heresy of the seventeenth century took the 17 The disciples of the Gaon of Vilna who emigrated to Israel in the first half of the nineteenth century also believed that it was a time to “reveal the secrets of the Torah.” See Aryeh Morgenstern, “Ha-Nisyonot leKarev ha-Geulah al Yedei Giluy ‘Sodot ha-Torah,’” in Mystica ve-Meshihiut, 275–306. 18 Zohar, 1:119a, quoted in Bet Yaakov, Introduction, p. 10b. 19 Schatz, “Autonomia,” 555. 20 For a survey of the rabbinic sources, see W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age. 21 Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, 17. 22 The Ra’aya Mehemna, printed with the Zohar, is the work of a second author, written shortly after the Zohar’s appearance. See Yiz9ḥak Baer, “HaReqa ha-Histori shel ha-Ra’aya Mehemna”; Isaiah Tishby, Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1089–1121. 23 Scholem, “Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism”, 71–73.

100

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

concept of a messianic Torah to its logical conclusion and attempted to put it into practice.24 Gershom Henoch follows a similar pattern of reasoning in his apologia for the apparently radical nature of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings.25 His tone and the content indicate that it was a response to criticisms and attacks on the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ and its teachings. Gershom Henoch writes: “I came only to justify the just, to uproot and close the mouths of those who speak haughtily about the righteous with arrogance and disdain, and to silence those who speak falsehoods.”26 Though Gershom Henoch does not specify the charges against Mordecai Joseph, his defense indicates that Mordecai Joseph was accused of stepping outside the accepted bounds of Judaism. The thrust of Gershom Henoch’s defense is that in this respect Mordecai Joseph was no different from the major figures of the Jewish mystical and philosophical traditions. According to Gershom Henoch, their accomplishment was the gradual revelation of teachings known to earlier authorities but only hinted at in their writings. Mordecai Joseph stands in this tradition of making explicit ideas obliquely alluded to by earlier generations of kabbalistic and Hasidic masters. Gershom Henoch further argues that the teachings of the great masters were not always understood in a uniform manner by their disciples. He cites the many interpretations of Isaac Luria’s thought as an example.27 Similarly, the Besht had many disciples who interpreted his message in a variety of ways. Yet, paradoxically, Gershom Henoch feels it is the responsibility of the disciple to teach only that which he has heard from his teacher. He concludes that “whoever is so arrogant in his soul, and says that he is able to innovate and add teachings which he did not receive [from his teacher], is like one who scoffs at the Torah and treats it lightly.”28 He further argues that the events of the day both allowed and necessitated the revelation of teachings that had previously

On Sabbatianism, see, Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi. Gershom Henoch’s apologia is found in the introduction to the Bet Yaakov. 26 Bet Yaakov, Introduction, 7a–b. 27 Ibid., 7b. 28 Ibid., 9a. 24 25

MESSIANISM

101

been considered too esoteric or potentially dangerous to be taught publicly. He cites a statement from the Zohar as a proof-text. Rabbi Simeon [bar Yohai] said: God does not desire that everything should be revealed to the world. However, when the days of the Messiah are near, even children will discover the secrets of wisdom.29

Gershom Henoch connects this statement with the previously cited quotation that in the year 5600 (1840) the wellsprings of wisdom will be opened. For him, the year 5600 is the beginning of the advent of the messianic era. This is the time when it is appropriate to reveal the teachings which had previously been transmitted secretly from master to disciple. The warnings about not making these teachings public no longer applied. Gershom Henoch gives an additional reason for the public dissemination of teachings which had been secret until now. He writes: In the present generation we have been tested with test after test, and whoever wants to break away [from Judaism] does not need to be a sophist and philosophize. The shame has departed from it and “the arrogant are glorified,” as we find in the Talmud.30 Whoever wants to follow the arbitrariness of his heart does not need to ask for support from the Torah, for who will question his act? Nonetheless, despite this, the remnant that is left, one from a city and two from a family [Jeremiah 3:14], believe in God, in His Torah and all its commentaries. They do not need proofs and principles to find the essence of God and His providence through critical study. The words of our ancestors, may they be remembered for eternal life, who are accepted by us as just, pious, and upright, the holy of the land, are relied on by us, and their words are a foundation for us. In a place where we do not understand [the intent of the author], we attribute the problem to our lack of knowledge, and we do not begin to examine the fundamentals of the faith we have received. Each [person] understands according to his degree of intelligence and grasp, and does not try to go further, lest they be destroyed.31

Zohar, 1:119a, quoted in Bet Yaakov, Introduction, p. 10b. B. Soṭah, 49b. 31 Bet Yaakov, Introduction, p. 10b. 29 30

102

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Mordecai Joseph’s teachings are, according to Gershom Henoch, a response to a crisis of such magnitude that the “footsteps of the Messiah” are heard. The crises and upheavals described in m. Soṭah 9:15 as ushering in the messianic age are at hand.32 The name of this cataclysmic event is modernity. The Zohar’s twofold prophecy that “in the year 5600 the wellsprings of wisdom will be opened” and “when the days of the Messiah are near, even children will discover the secrets of wisdom” had come to pass. This is the context in which Gershom Henoch places Mordecai Joseph’s apparent radicalism and his revelation of “the secrets of the Torah.” Gershom Henoch argues that Mordecai Joseph’s teachings stand within the traditional bounds of Judaism and that his apparent radicalism is illusory. Simultaneously, he emphasizes Mordecai Joseph’s uniqueness. He writes: The grace of God has given us wise men and seekers of God in every generation. It has opened the gates of the Torah for them according to the needs of the generation.33 He was the first to open the gate and begin to establish [his teachings] on the foundations of the true kabbalah.34 He was not afraid to reveal and explain the words of the Torah in this generation, when whoever wishes to escape the bounds [of Judaism] does not need to justify his actions through the Torah. Therefore the time has come to seek and expound the word of God.35

In addition, Gershom Henoch implicitly identifies Mordecai Joseph with King David and R. Simeon bar Yohai, the author of the Zohar. He writes: After the death of R. Simḥah Bunem, may he be remembered for eternal life, [Mordecai Joseph] suffered the tribulations of

Of particular significance for Gershom Henoch is, “With the footsteps of the Messiah … the wisdom of the sages will become odious, and those who fear sin will be held in contempt, and truth will be found nowhere.” 33 Bet Yaakov, Introduction, 7b–8a. 34 Ibid., 10b. 35 Ibid. 32

MESSIANISM

103

concealment in the cave of Adullam for thirteen years. The time had not yet come for him to teach Torah publicly.36

The cave of Adullam is where David sought refuge from the wrath of Saul, whose jealousy had been aroused against him.37 Gershom Henoch buttresses the Davidic identification by tracing his family’s lineage back to David.38 The other important figure identified with a cave is R. Simeon bar Yohai, who hid in a cave for thirteen years when he was sought by the Romans for teaching Torah publicly.39 Gershom Henoch’s reference to the cave and the thirteen years is a clear allusion to R. Simeon bar Yohai, who is traditionally considered to be the author of the Zohar, the fundamental work of the Jewish mystical tradition. It is inconceivable that Gershom Henoch used these symbols without being conscious of their meaning. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Gershom Henoch wanted to see Mordecai Joseph as a messianic figure. On the other hand, he almost certainly saw Mordecai Joseph as the new R. Simeon bar Yohai, introducing an understanding of Judaism which had hitherto been “secret.” Gershom Henoch’s apologia for Mordecai Joseph, a determined defense of his standing within the tradition coupled with an explicit admission of his originality, is a phenomenon also found in earlier periods. The literature of the Spanish kabbalists at the time of the introduction of the Zohar and of Safed in the sixteenth century, when the writings of Isaac Luria and his disciples were being composed, are among the best-known examples.40 Further evidence for Gershom Henoch’s conviction that 1840 marked a turning point in Jewish history, the beginning of the period leading to the coming of the Messiah, can be found in his own writings and activities. His magnum opus on ritual purity, Sidrei Tehorot, written with a view to its imminent applicability,41 and his “rediscovery” of the blue dye (tekhelet) for the z9iz9it lost since the

36

10b.

Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ, 2, Introduction, p. 3a; Bet Yaakov, Introduction, p.

1 Samuel 22:1. Bet Yaakov, Introduction, p. 11b. 39 B. Shabbat, 33b. 40 On this problem see Gershom Scholem, “Religious Authority and Mysticism.” 41 Cf. Haskamah of R. Jacob Leiner to Sidrei Tehorot, Kelim. 37 38

104

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

destruction of the Temple, are of particular significance.42 For Gershom Henoch these were not theological exercises but serious preparations for the messianic age, which he believed to be imminent. It is a truism that a pious Jew expects the coming of the Messiah, but this expectation is not normally expressed in such practical preparations. How can these two disparate perspectives be resolved? The central problem appears to be whether Gershom Henoch’s assertion that he is defending the theological innovations of his grandfather, Mordecai Joseph, can be taken at face value. A careful examination of Gershom Henoch’s introduction leads to an entirely different conclusion. He is, in fact, defending his own radical messianism, which was the subject of heated debate at the time the Bet Yaakov was published. Gershom Henoch had “rediscovered” the blue thread (tekhelet) several years earlier, and the controversy over this “discovery” raged at the time. An acute sense of messianic imminence characterized Gershom Henoch’s activities. In many respects he was as original a thinker as his grandfather. His originality, however, led him in directions quite different from those taken by Mordecai Joseph. The introduction to the Bet Yaakov makes sense when viewed in the context of Gershom Henoch’s teachings. Mordecai Joseph is invoked for several reasons. First, the invocation is an act of filial piety. Second, Mordecai Joseph was the founder of the Izbica dynasty and as such would be cited as an authority figure. Gershom Henoch clearly implies in his introduction that originality is not a virtue to be prized. He writes, “One should only teach what one has heard from one’s teachers and not innovate,”43 and he claims to be doing precisely that. His “teacher” was the founder of his dynasty, the figure who gave him the authority to be a Hasidic master. In the introduction, the question of authority and legitimacy is important for him. He tries to trace his authority to the Besht, the founder of Hasidism, and from him back to the central figures of the Jewish mystical tradition. When viewed in this context, Gershom Henoch’s enterprise becomes understandable. Third, the disparity between Mordecai Joseph’s teachings and those of his descendants becomes apparent when one examines 42 43

Shaul Magid, “‘A Thread of Blue.’” Bet Yaakov, Introduction, p. 9b.

MESSIANISM

105

parallel Torah portions in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ and the Bet Yaakov. A clear pattern emerges. The later teachings move toward a position more in the mainstream of late-nineteenth-century Hasidism and away from Mordecai Joseph’s teachings. Rather than representing a new departure in Hasidic theology, as Gershom Henoch would like to claim, Mordecai Joseph is the last link in the Polish school of Hasidism, which began with the Yehudi of Przysucha. To test this hypothesis fully would require a separate monograph. Unfortunately, the literature on the Polish school is minimal, and a comprehensive study remains an important desideratum in the historiography of Hasidism.

8. CONCLUSIONS Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica is one of the most original thinkers in the history of Hasidism. His teachings, partially anchored in the Przysucha-Kotsk school, contain elements that are unique in Hasidic history. He was the first Hasidic thinker to adopt the concept of absolute divine providence as a cornerstone of his teachings. His contribution to the history of Hasidism was unique and valuable. The first important influence on Mordecai Joseph was the Przysucha-Kotsk school of Hasidism. He was intimately associated with this school for over twenty years, from the time his friend Menaḥem Mendel introduced him to Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha until his departure from Kotsk in the fall of 1839. Mordecai Joseph adopted two of the central tenets of this school, its individualism and its striving for spiritual self-perfection. However, he created a new path to the attainment of these goals. The Lurianic concept of tiqqun, which had originally been intended as a concept dealing with the cosmos, was reinterpreted by Mordecai Joseph to apply to the individual. He preferred the term berur, a synonym for tiqqun. The Lurianic concept of tiqqun and Mordecai Joseph’s understanding of berur are similar in general outline but differ in specific details. For the Lurianic kabbalist, the stage was the cosmos, and the purpose of tiqqun, repair of the cosmic damage caused by Adam’s sin. The accomplishment of the tiqqun would bring about the messianic era for the entire world. For Mordecai Joseph, the stage was no longer the cosmos but the individual. Every human being was seen as having his own unique flaw, implanted in him by God. The purpose of the berur is for each of us, on our own, to find and correct this flaw. Since we must all perform this process for ourselves, we cannot help others to carry it out, and we cannot bring them closer to redemption by attempting to discern and then point out their flaws. This emphasis on the individual and his unique path is a legacy of the Przysucha-Kotsk school.

107

108

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Mordecai Joseph’s original contribution is his theology of absolute divine providence, which forms the central pillar of his teachings. This is not a concept normally found in Hasidic thought. No other Hasidic thinker had been as radical. The sources that inspired Mordecai Joseph’s teachings remain unclear. The concept of berur reinterprets man’s task in the world. While man still does the will of God, it is no longer understood in the traditional sense of fulfilling the 613 commandments of the Torah. Instead, man must discover the flaw that God has implanted in him, which corresponds to one specific commandment. When he has determined which commandment must be clarified (mevarer), he can achieve his personal salvation (berur). Attaining the state of berur has important consequences. The realization of personal redemption means that the commandments of the Torah no longer apply and the attainment of a state of perfection means that all of one’s actions coincide with the divine will. This is equivalent to living in an individual messianic age. Mordecai Joseph applies these two central concepts (absolute divine providence and tiqqun/berur) to the major aspects of Judaism. He is not deterred by the radical implications of his ideas, which in many cases mean antinomianism or, more correctly, anomianism. Torah, miz9vot, and sin are reinterpreted in light of his theology of absolute divine providence. He is willing to draw these conclusions in the realm of theory but is less daring in practice. In the area of practice, Mordecai Joseph is more conservative than in his theoretical discussions. Even though his teachings lead to the logical conclusion that someone who has attained the berur is no longer obligated to adhere to the commandments of the Torah, Mordecai Joseph warns against putting this into practice. He is concerned with the implications such actions would have for people who have not yet attained the state of berur. They may misunderstand what they see and be led astray into “unauthorized” antinomianism. The sense of concern for and solidarity with all Jews is very strong in Mordecai Joseph’s writings. It is out of his sense of solidarity that he restrains himself from fully acting on the implications of his teachings. Mordecai Joseph’s deterministic teachings stand in sharp contrast to the voluntarism and sense of individual responsibility in the teachings of his mentor, Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk. This profound theological difference was most probably the primary impe-

CONCLUSIONS

109

tus for Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk. Personality differences also contributed to the rift. Mordecai Joseph’s personality was optimistic, open, and kindly disposed to people. Menaḥem Mendel stood at the opposite end of the spectrum, being pessimistic, withdrawn, and spending much of his time in seclusion. Despite his conflict with Menaḥem Mendel, the influence of the Przysucha-Kotsk school had a permanent impact on Mordecai Joseph. His teachings in secondary areas, such as the role of the z9addiq, his negative comments on the rote observance of commandments, and his emphasis on Talmud study are all hallmarks of the Przysucha-Kotsk school. In the Hasidic universe, Mordecai Joseph is within the orbit of the Polish school. Though he is clearly a product of the Przysucha-Kotsk school, Mordecai Joseph’s thought shares many affinities with that of Aaron of Starosselje, the disciple of Shneur Zalman of Lyady. Aaron’s thought is based on an entirely different theological premise, that of acosmism. Yet the questions asked and the conclusions reached are remarkably similar. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence that Mordecai Joseph was familiar with Aaron’s writings. One can only conjecture that this is a possibility, since the Habad school and its teachings were highly regarded by Simḥah Bunem and his disciples. Mordecai Joseph shares with Aaron the distinction of being among the most creative and controversial thinkers in the history of Hasidism. This question deserves further study. Mordecai Joseph both founded a dynasty and had disciples who became z9addiqim in their own right. His two most important disciples were Leibele Eger and Zadok ha-Cohen, both of Lublin. Following the tradition of the Przysucha-Kotsk school, both disciples followed the general outlines of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings but were also independent, creative thinkers. His son Jacob, who moved to Radzyn a number of years later, succeeded Mordecai Joseph. The dynasty assumed the name of Radzyn and continued as a significant Hasidic group in Poland until the Holocaust. The pivotal figure in the history of the Radzyn period was Mordecai Joseph’s grandson, Gershom Henoch. He was as original a thinker as Mordecai Joseph but followed a different direction. Where Mordecai Joseph’s teachings centered on the spiritual perfection of the individual, Gershom Henoch reverted to a more traditional messianism. He devoted himself to preparing for the advent of the Messiah, which he felt to be imminent. His most

110

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

famous endeavors in this regard were his comprehensive commentary on the laws of ritual purity, Sidrei Tehorot, and his “rediscovery” of the blue thread, the tekhelet. The Radzyn dynasty was refounded in a very real sense by Gershom Henoch. The subsequent history of the dynasty followed the pattern established by Gershom Henoch. The last z9addiq of the dynasty in Poland was Mordecai Joseph Eleazar of Radzyn, who perished in the Holocaust. Yiz9ḥak Katzenelson memorialized him in a famous poem.1 In recent years, an attempt has been made to revive Radzyn Hasidism in Israel. Mordecai Joseph’s legacy was twofold, physical and spiritual. His physical legacy was his children, who perpetuated the school of Hasidism he founded. His spiritual legacy, his teachings, did not fare so well. His disciples and descendants built their own intellectual edifice, sometimes based on his foundations and sometimes rejecting his concepts. Just as Mordecai Joseph’s children and disciples used his teachings as a point of departure, Menaḥem Mendel’s disciples went in their own directions. This phenomenon becomes less surprising when one considers it in the context of the Polish school of Hasidism. In this school, each generation found its own direction and path in the service of God. As a result, one would look in vain for an extended commentary or analysis of Mordecai Joseph’s teachings in the writings of his disciples. At best, one finds hints, allusions, occasional quotations, and inspirations for their own original reflections. Mordecai Joseph shares with his teacher, Menaḥem Mendel, the distinction of having been an original thinker who inspired others, but whose teachings remain uniquely his own. The daring and radical nature of Mordecai Joseph’s thought raises many questions that remain unanswered. The single most important question pertains to the influences that shaped his deterministic teachings. Menaḥem Mendel and the Polish school stand at the other end of the spectrum, emphasizing voluntarism and human autonomy. Unfortunately, there are no Jewish sources or thinkers cited in the Mei ha-Shiloaḥ that can even remotely be considered possible forerunners of Mordecai Joseph’s thought. Mordecai Joseph remains a unique thinker with a highly personal vision of Judaism. “The Poem about the Radzyner,” in Yiz9ḥak Katzenelson, Yidishe Ghetto Kesovim, 660–706. 1

APPENDIX THE FRIDAY NIGHT INCIDENT IN KOTSK: HISTORY OF A LEGEND* The antinomian legend of the “Friday Night Incident” in Kotsk is one of the best-known Hasidic tales. Its truth or falsehood has been discussed for the last seventy years. In essence, it reports that on a Friday night in the winter of 1839, Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk, at a gathering of his followers, either touched the candlesticks or extinguished the candles, thereby desecrating the Sabbath. While doing this he is alleged to have muttered, “There is no Law, and there is no Judge.”1 In other words, there is no God. Shortly thereafter, Menaḥem Mendel either locked himself or was locked into his study, where he remained until his death, approximately twenty years later. This essay presents an overview of the legend’s literary history and an analysis of its truth or falsity. The first published reference to Menaḥem Mendel’s supposed heresy appears in an 1896 novella by A. N. Frenk entitled Mi-Ḥayyei ha-Ḥasidim be-Polin.2 In a passing reference to Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk, one of the main characters tells his companion that he was present when the Friday night incident occurred. He recounts how at one Friday night gathering (tish) Menaḥem Mendel appeared to be very nervous and agitated. His eyes glowed like torches and he kept fidgeting in his seat. Suddenly he got up and called out,

An earlier version of this appendix was published in the Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 179–89. 1 “Let din ve-let Dayan.” See Targum Jonathan to Genesis 4:8. 2 Frenk came from a Hasidic background but became a maskil. Like many of his contemporaries with similar backgrounds, his attitudes toward Hasidism were negative. He is not a reliable witness. On Frenk see Encyclopedia Judaica, 7:159. *

111

112

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN “My sons, do what your heart desires, for there is no Law and there is no Judge!” The gathering was astounded. Menaḥem Mendel continued, “You don’t believe me? Here is a sign: it is the Sabbath. See what I do!” With these words he grabbed the lit candle.3

Frenk’s account does not appear to have made much of an impression or created any controversy. He is not mentioned by any later authors until the recent work by A. J. Heschel.4 In 1904, S. Y. Yutzkin, in an article entitled “Pereq mi-Toldot ha-Ḥasidut be-Polonia,” briefly discusses Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk and mentions some rumors concerning him. Certain of Yutzkin’s statements5 indicate that he has confused Kotsk with Ruzhin-Sadogora and Menaḥem Mendel with Dov Baer of Leova, the son of Israel of Ruzhin, who flirted with Haskalah.6 In 1918, Rabbi J. L. Slotnick published an article in Reshumot7 on Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk in which he advances the story of the Friday night incident as the clue to understanding why Menaḥem Mendel spent the last twenty years of his life in seclusion. He published another article, writing under the pseudonym

Frenk, “Mi-Ḥayyei ha-Ḥasidim” 82. An interesting contemporary parallel occurs in M. Z. Feierberg’s novella Whither?, where the hero grabs a lit candle on Yom Kippur and extinguishes it as a sign that he has lost his faith (pp. 125–26). I would like to thank Dr. Moshe Waldoks for this reference. An interesting Hasidic parallel is the case of Dov Ber of Leova, who tampered with a lit candle on the Sabbath as a sign that he had lost his faith (S. A. Horodetsky, Ḥasidut ve-Ḥasidim, 3:125). The possibility that Dov Ber of Leova was the historical inspiration for Frenk must be considered. 4 Heschel, Kotsk, 2:571. 5 E.g., “Rabbi Menahem Mendel … conducted his house in splendor and rode in a coach with a team of horses, as did the nobles of the land. Treasurers stood before his door to collect money from all who knocked at his door, and he traveled to other countries not for medical reasons, but to waste time in amusements and entertainments” (340). 6 On Dov Baer see David Assaf, The Regal Way, index, s.v. Dov Ber of Leova; S. A. Horodetsky, “Z9addiq she-Yaza le-Tarbut Ra’ah,” in Ḥasidut ve-Ḥasidim, 3:124–54. 7 He used the pseudonym “L.Z.”: “Siḥot u-Shemuot” Reshumot (Odessa) 1 (1918): 413–16. My thanks to Prof. David Assaf for bringing this source to my attention. 3

APPENDIX

113

“Y. Elzet,”8 entitled “Kotsk” in Ha-Mizrachi, the publication of the Mizrachi movement in Poland, of which Slotnick was general secretary.9 Slotnick begins his article with a series of vignettes portraying Menaḥem Mendel as an ascetic scholar and thinker, unimpressed with miracles and unconcerned with material things. His only interests were study and the search for truth. Slotnick asserts that Menaḥem Mendel’s two favorite books were Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed and Ecclesiastes. Slotnick also mentions that after Menaḥem Mendel’s death, Maimonides’ treatise on logic [Milot haHigayon] with the commentary of Moses Mendelssohn was found in his bookcase. In the book was a notation that Menaḥem Mendel had taught this book to his children. After these introductory sketches, Slotnick comes to the heart of his story. Detailing how Menaḥem Mendel was won over to the Haskalah and the resulting consequences, Slotnick relates that as his fame spread, he came to the attention of the contemporary maskilim. They decided to convince Menaḥem Mendel of their worldview, thus influencing the whole generation. To accomplish this goal, the maskilim selected one of their own, a dentist by profession, who settled in Kotsk near Menaḥem Mendel. News of this soon reached him and his curiosity was aroused. He had heard much about the maskilim but had no personal experience with them. One day, Menaḥem Mendel complained of a toothache and ordered that the dentist be brought to him. The dentist came, examined him, and said that he would need to come to his house for treatment, as the necessary instruments were not portable. Menaḥem Mendel readily agreed and visited the dentist on a number of occasions. During these visits the dentist showed him the books in his library. He discussed their contents with him and lent them to him. Menaḥem Mendel had grown dissatisfied with the standard religious answers and had been searching for new solutions to the fundamental questions of life. Gradually, as his influence over Menaḥem Mendel grew, the dentist tried to convince him of his great responsibility to share his new insights with a S. Chajes, Oz9ar Biduyei ha-Shem, 35, no. 538. The article appeared simultaneously in Ha-Ivri (New York), the organ of the Mizrachi movement in America, under the title “Le-Qorot haḤasidut R. Mendel mi-Kotsk.” 8 9

114

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

wider audience. It was incumbent on Menaḥem Mendel to enlighten his followers. With one word he could show them the truth. The dentist argued that his sin would be very great if he failed in his duty. He urged Menaḥem Mendel to do something to publicly acknowledge his newly won truth. The battle within Menaḥem Mendel raged fiercely. His family saw that he was disturbed, but they had no idea what was wrong. They sent for his chief disciple, Mordecai Joseph of Izbica. He arrived in Kotsk on a Friday morning, but Menaḥem Mendel would not see him until the afternoon. When they met, Menaḥem Mendel suggested a walk in the neighboring woods. They walked for a while, silently immersed in their thoughts, smoking their pipes. Well into the forest, Menaḥem Mendel said, “How nice the world is. Let’s sit and talk for a while.”10 Mordecai Joseph demurred, saying that it was late and the Sabbath was approaching. In fact, he did not want to enter into a conversation. Menaḥem Mendel fixed his gaze on him and his face grew dark, as did the sun, and they returned to town. Menaḥem Mendel went to his room, where he remained during the prayers. Afterward, the disciples gathered in the bet midrash and awaited Menaḥem Mendel’s appearance. Shortly before midnight, he emerged from his room. He approached the table, and the goblet of wine was placed in his right hand. All eyes were on him. The battles between the archangel Michael and Satan raged on the battlefield of Menaḥem Mendel’s soul. Suddenly, “what happened happened … the heart cannot reveal it to the mouth.”11 Pandemonium broke out, and many ḥasidim tried to leave. Some even tried to escape through the windows. The only one to remain calm in this uproar was Mordecai Joseph. He announced in a loud voice: “Gentlemen, indeed ‘both the whole tablets and the broken tablets reside in the ark,’12 but in a place where the name of God has been profaned one does not give honor to the master [rav]. He’s lost his mind. Bind him.”13 Mordecai Joseph immediately went into another room, where his followers prepared a table for him, and he began to act as a rebbe. At the conclusion of the Sabbath, Mordecai Joseph departed Elzet, “Kotsk,” 9. Ibid. Elzet does not say what happened. 12 B. Berakhot, 8b. 13 Elzet, “Kotsk,” 9. 10 11

APPENDIX

115

for Izbica, where he set up a Hasidic court. A large number of Menaḥem Mendel’s ḥasidim followed Mordecai Joseph to Izbica. In a short time, Menaḥem Mendel calmed down and realized that nobody would listen to his ideas. He went into his room and remained there for the rest of his life. The ḥasidim of Izbica and the maskilim of the generation spread the news that Menaḥem Mendel had become a heretic. Despite this, Isaac Meir of Gur and many ḥasidim remained loyal to Menaḥem Mendel and did not leave Kotsk. This is the tale that Slotnick offered the readers of HaMizrachi. The publication of Slotnick’s article generated a storm of indignation and controversy. Not only was he vehemently denounced, but a number of leading rabbis urged that a ban of excommunication be issued against him for his defamation of Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk.14 Several issues later, Ha-Mizrachi published a rejoinder, entitled “Hiz9diku et ha- Z9addiq,” by Rabbi J. L. Graubart, a close personal friend of Slotnick’s and a co-worker in the Mizrachi movement.15 Graubart questions what he sees as Slotnick’s distortion of fact and his invention of traditions that have no factual basis. In addition, he briefly explains the intellectual basis of Menaḥem Mendel’s teachings. His basic argument against Slotnick is based on the loyalty of the majority of Menaḥem Mendel’s important followers, who were significant figures in their own right.16 Graubart argues that they certainly knew the true facts, and it is inconceivable that they would have remained faithful to Menaḥem Mendel had he behaved as Slotnick described. Two decades later, P. Z. Gliksman wrote Der Kotsker Rebbe to set the record straight and correct the inaccuracies and false legends surrounding Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk.17 Though primarily Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 61. On the relationship between Graubart and Slotnick, see David Graubart, “Rabbi Mendel Kotsker.” David Graubart is the son of J. L. Graubart. Unfortunately, he provides no new information on the Friday night incident or on Slotnick’s motivations. My thanks to Mr. Zalman Alpert for this reference. 16 The only important disciple who left Kotsk with Mordecai Joseph was Leibele Eger of Lublin. 17 I have not been able to examine the articles written by S. Petrushka and Hillel Zeitlin during the interval between Slotnick and Gliksman (cited by Heschel, Kotsk, 2:671, nn. 2, 7, 9). 14 15

116

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

a Hebrew writer, Gliksman wrote this book in Yiddish in order to reach the widest possible audience.18 He is primarily concerned with presenting an accurate picture of Menaḥem Mendel’s life and teachings in his monograph. When he comes to the problem of the Friday night incident, he accepts the traditional Hasidic view that the incident never happened. He represents Slotnick as the villain of the drama and vehemently denies that there is any truth in his account. Gliksman underscores the implausibility of the family of Menaḥem Mendel sending for Mordecai Joseph. Hirsch of Tomaszow was Menaḥem Mendel’s shammash (personal assistant) and lived in Kotsk. He would have been the natural person for the family to summon had anything been wrong.19 Secondly, Gliksman notes that according to both Kotsker and Izbicer sources, Mordecai Joseph left Kotsk after Simḥat Torah of 5600 and not in 5599,20 and he strengthens his argument by introducing in evidence an important contemporary document, a letter written by Isaac Meir of Gur to Rabbi Eliezer ha-Cohen of Poltuska. Rabbi Eliezer had evidently heard that something was amiss in Kotsk and wrote to Isaac Meir in the spring of 1841 asking for clarification. Isaac Meir replied: I have just received your letter. This past Sabbath I was in Kotsk and, thank God, all is well. Three Sabbaths he [Menaḥem Mendel] sat with the gathering. The rumors no doubt emanated from accursed evildoers. In the city of Barzin, one rich man spoke ill [of Menaḥem Mendel] and the ḥasidim acted appropriately. They made him pay a fine of 1,000 rubles. Thank God, nothing further was heard of the matter.21

The letter is important, but ambiguous. It shows that Isaac Meir denied strongly that anything unusual had happened in Kotsk. However, it also implicitly acknowledges that rumors were in the air about Kotsk and Menaḥem Mendel. Unfortunately, no other sources exist which might shed light on the origins or nature of these rumors. Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 6. Ibid., 63. 20 This is supported by Izbicer family tradition and the account in H. S. Leiner, Dor Yesharim, 30–33, which knows nothing of the Friday night incident. 21 Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 59. The letter was originally published in Alter, Meir Eynei ha-Golah, para. 359. 18 19

APPENDIX

117

Finally, Gliksman indicates that the story of Menaḥem Mendel’s seclusion has been greatly exaggerated. He cites a wide variety of evidence to show that he did not cut himself off from the world during his last twenty years. He did not hold public gatherings or grant audiences, as was customary for a rebbe, but he kept in close contact with events in both the Jewish community and the world at large. Gliksman quotes a number of letters written by Menaḥem Mendel during this period in which he comments on world events and in one case offers advice on who should be appointed to a particular rabbinic position. He continued to see his close disciples regularly and spent every Sabbath afternoon examining his grandsons on their studies of the previous week. Gliksman paints a picture of Menaḥem Mendel in semi-seclusion yet keeping a close watch on events around him.22 Both Graubart and Gliksman argue that Slotnick’s story is implausible and contrary to all the available evidence. Additionally, they argue that were Slotnick’s story true, it would have required a massive conspiracy on the part of Menaḥem Mendel’s followers to suppress the truth, and incredible loyalty and hypocrisy to remain attached to someone who had denied the most fundamental belief of Judaism. There is much merit in their argument. Slotnick’s story is sufficiently suspect to be unacceptable as a historical account. Joseph Opatoshu published his novel In Poilishe Velder shortly after the appearance of Slotnick’s article.23 Although written between 1915 and 1919, it is independent of Slotnick’s work.24 Opatoshu’s book became one of the most popular and widely read Jewish novels in the interwar period. Its setting is Poland during the 1850s, and it includes a section on Menaḥem Mendel and the court in Kotsk. Opatoshu does not directly discuss the Friday night incident, but he does imply that Menaḥem Mendel’s seclusion was not entirely voluntary. He writes in the novel: His intimates feared lest, with his interpretations of the Torah, the Rabbi [Menaḥem Mendel] might alienate the few remaining

Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 63–67. The novel was published simultaneously in Yiddish and Hebrew. It was later translated into English as In Polish Woods. Quotations are from the English translation. 24 Zalman Reisin, Leksikon fun der Yiddisher Literatur, 1:148. 22 23

118

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN adherents. So they watched over him, and kept all strangers at a distance.25

Later in the same chapter, Opatoshu puts the following words into the mouth of a fictional character named “Barefoot Israel” who is half-mad and says things others would not dare say publicly. In a dramatic confrontation with Menaḥem Mendel, Israel says to him: Now is the time, Rabbi of Kotsk, for you to do penance! Your intellectual followers are selling their phylacteries. They say that this year leather has been very cheap in Kotsk. Such upstanding Jews as Hirsch Partzever and Hayyim Beer Grapitzer have taken an example from you, Rabbi, and agreed among themselves not to put on their phylacteries for three days. They wanted to see what effect this would have upon the order of the universe.26

The idea that there is something theologically amiss in Kotsk is further reinforced by the introduction of another fictional character, named Daniel Eybeschutz.27 He is supposed to be the son-inlaw of Menaḥem Mendel’s son, David.28 Opatoshu portrays Daniel Eybeschutz as a follower of Sabbatai Sevi and Jacob Frank. The description of an orgy in Eybeschutz’s house is reminiscent of stories regarding Jacob Frank and his followers.29 Opatoshu leaves the reader with the impression that Kotsk in the 1850s was a hotbed of antinomianism. Menaḥem Mendel is depicted as having asked questions that opened a theological Pandora’s box and ended up in antinomian heresy and orgies. The Menaḥem Mendel of the novel is a bitter and disillusioned figure who has withdrawn from the world, leaving a legacy of skepticism and antinomianism. In Poilishe Velder was the literary sensation of the 1920s. It went through ten editions and was translated into six languages in In Polish Woods, 190. Ibid., 202. Heschel, Kotsk, 2:659 n. 5, indicates that this story originally was published in Aron Marcus, Der Chassidismus, 180. He also mentions that it was censored out of the later Hebrew translation of this book. 27 The name is an allusion to Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, who was accused of being a crypto-Sabbatian by Rabbi Jacob Emden. On Eybeschutz and Sabbatianism see M. A. R. Perlmutter, Jonathan Eybeschutz veYahaso le-Shabtaut. 28 For a list of David’s real sons-in-law see Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 112. 29 In Polish Woods, 268–92. 25 26

APPENDIX

119

the first decade after its appearance.30 A central theme in most of the reviews of the novel is its historical accuracy. Secular reviewers generally accepted Opatoshu’s portrayal of Menaḥem Mendel;31 religious reviewers denounced it.32 Even so eminent a historian as Meir Balaban devoted an article to the novel’s historicity.33 He judged it to be generally accurate but pointed out a few minor errors. Unfortunately, he passed over the section on Menaḥem Mendel in virtual silence.34 The ḥasidim of Poland did not remain silent, excommunicating Opatoshu and banning his novel.35 In 1928, In Poilishe Velder was made into a movie, and its premiere in Warsaw was the occasion of a riot by ḥasidim.36 Although Opatoshu does not mention the Friday night incident, a number of reviewers referred to it in a matter-of-fact way, as if it were common knowledge.37 There is no need to conjecture about Opatoshu’s motives. His biographer, Nachman Meisel, quotes his public comments concerning the novel: “With Kotsk I wanted to describe the decay of Hasidism, the decline which comes from internal exhaustion, from For a full listing of editions, translations, and reviews, see J. Schatzky, Opatoshu Bibliographie. 31 The comment of A. Koralnik, “Der Kotsker Nusach,” is typical. He writes: “For me, Opatoshu’s book is the first historical retelling about the Kotsker.” The Joseph Opatoshu Collection in the YIVO Archives contains two scrapbooks in which Opatoshu collected the positive reviews. 32 An important negative review is that of Hillel Zeitlin, “Kotsker Hasidus un Modern Kunst Historisher Balaykhtung.” Heschel cites this review as strongly supporting the negative position (Kotsk, 2:671 n. 9). 33 Meir Balaban, “Di Historishe Motiven in Y. Opatoshu’s In Poilishe Velder.” 34 Balaban’s only comment about Menahem Mendel is, “His enemies say that all is not well since ‘that Sabbath’ about which the Hasidim do not want to talk” (516). Unfortunately he does not elaborate on this comment. 35 Cf. A. Kretsher, “Vegen Herem oif Poilishe Velder” and J. Margoshes, “Yidishe Cenzur (Vegen Herem).” I have not been able to examine these articles. 36 Zisha Katz, “A Sensatzie Zevishen di Hasidim in Poilen Zulib a Muving Pictur.” 37 Koralnik repeats the story of the antinomian act in his review (see n. 31 above). A. Jacobowitz, “A Roman fun Kotsker Hoif,” remarks, “Various opinions are circulated about what happened. Some say that he was simply crazy, while others say that he said, ‘There is no God.’” 30

120

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

its own depths.”38 Meisel observes, “It wasn’t for nothing that this work so enraged the Hasidic pietists39 in Poland that they excommunicated the author.”40 Opatoshu intended his discussion of Hasidism in the novel to be polemical rather than a reflection of historical realities. Nonetheless, if the reviewers are a reliable indication, most readers saw it as historically valid. Opatoshu was less candid in an exchange of letters with P. Z. Gliksman during the same period. In his replies to the latter’s strictures about the misrepresentations in the novel, Opatoshu argues that he is a novelist, not a historian, and must be allowed poetic license.41 Surprisingly, Gliksman accepts Opatoshu’s claim and does not consider the novel to be significant in the dissemination of the story of the “incident.” Perhaps he thought fiction was not an influential medium. In 1922, Martin Buber presented a different version of the Friday night incident in his book Der grosse Magid und seine Nachfolger.42 According to Buber, the incident occurred at the third Sabbath meal (seudah shelishit). He further relates that Menaḥem Mendel rose and began to say that man is a part of God. Man has desires and lusts, and these too are part of God. The accounts differ, according to Buber, as to what else was said, but Menaḥem Mendel ended with the words: “There is no Law, and there is no Judge.” Then he touched the candlesticks and left. Menaḥem Mendel remained in his room for thirteen years until his death.43 During this time he would only extend his fingers through a crack in the door to greet visitors. Buber adds that this account is based on oral traditions. Buber discusses the incident again in the revised version of Der grosse Magid, Tales of the Hasidim. In the introduction to the second volume of Tales of the Hasidim, he gives an entirely different account

Nachman Meisel, Joseph Opatoshu, 72. He uses frumakes, a derogatory term. 40 Meisel, Joseph Opatoshu, 73. 41 Gliksman, Der Kotsker Rebbe, 70–73. Gliksman’s letters to Opatoshu are preserved the Opatoshu Collection in the YIVO Archives. 42 Pp. xcv–xcvi. 43 Buber confused the number of years Menahem Mendel acted as rebbe before his seclusion, thirteen (1827–39), with the number of years he was in seclusion, twenty (1839–59). 38 39

APPENDIX

121

of the incident.44 Employing Slotnick’s story as the basis for the new version, he adds a few bits of color from his earlier account. Nevertheless, he still says that he is basing himself on oral reports. The debt to Slotnick is not acknowledged, nor is the radical disparity between the two versions accounted for. Jiri Langer discusses Menaḥem Mendel briefly in his Nine Gates.45 Recounting stories he heard at the court of Belz, he reports a legend that Menaḥem Mendel was spotted smoking on the Sabbath while on a visit to Lemberg (Lvov). Supposedly, the furor created in the aftermath of this incident drove Menaḥem Mendel into seclusion. Langer also mentions the story of the “enlightened” doctor, first found in Slotnick’s article. Nine Gates does not contribute any new information, but it is an interesting illustration of the rumors and gossip that swirled around the memory of Menaḥem Mendel in other Hasidic courts as late as the 1930s. In the post–World War II period, a number of scholars have touched on the Friday night incident. Menashe Unger in his study Przysucha un Kotsk follows Slotnick with minor variations and contributes no new information. A. Z. Aescoli briefly mentions the incident without adding to our knowledge. He observes that many of the things ascribed to Menaḥem Mendel are taken from the life of Ber of Leova.46 We have already seen an explicit example of this transposition. Two biographies of Menaḥem Mendel, by Y. Alfasi and Joseph Fox, were written from a religious apologetic perspective.47 Following Gliksman, both deny the historicity of the Friday night incident. Fox adds a detail to the background of the story that renders reports of the incident more plausible. According to Fox’s account, the Hasidic opponents of Kotsk spread rumors that the Haskalah had gained a foothold in Kotsk. This was so widely believed that Rabbi Jacob Orenstein, one of the most outspoken opponents of the Haskalah, was ready to ban marriages with Kotsker ḥasidim.48 Tales of the Hasidism, 2:42–43. Pp. 256–61. Nine Gates was originally published in Czech in 1937. Langer was a baal teshuvah who became a Belzer Hasid (see Encyclopedia Judaica, 10:1419–20). My thanks to Dr. Louis Jacobs for bringing this source to my attention. 46 Ha-Ḥasidut be-Polin, 2:124. 47 Alfasi, Ha-Rabbi mi-Kotsk; Fox, Rabbi Menahem Mendel mi-Kotsk. 48 Fox, Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel, 55. 44 45

122

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

The most recent discussion of the incident is by A. J. Heschel in Kotsk: Der Gerangel far Emesdikeit. Heschel rejects Slotnick’s account as completely groundless, observing that the image of Menaḥem Mendel in Slotnick’s article is at odds with the image of Menaḥem Mendel in more reliable sources. Heschel adds several interesting new sources to the discussion that confirm his view that the stories of the “incident” have no factual basis. His first source is Alexander Zederbaum’s Keter Kehuna. In this work, Zederbaum engages in very sharp polemics against Hasidism and writes about the crisis in Kotsk: In his last years a rumor spread that Anglican missionaries had talked to him [Menaḥem Mendel] and led him to heresy. Later it became known that this rumor was groundless. He was mentally ill and suffering from melancholia. This is why people were not allowed to see him.49

Another overlooked source cited by Heschel is the account of Hilary Nussbaum, a proponent of assimilation. Nussbaum mentions Menaḥem Mendel’s isolation but says nothing about his supposed heresy.50 A third early source is Aron Marcus, a Hasidic opponent of Kotsk. He does not mention the Friday night incident in his book on Hasidism.51 Had he known of such an incident he would have surely used it to show the dangers of the Kotsker school of Hasidism. In place of the Friday night incident, Heschel gives an entirely different explanation of the events leading up to Menaḥem Mendel’s seclusion. According to an oral tradition, he suffered a nervous breakdown on the Sabbath of parshat Toldot, 5599 (1838). Menaḥem Mendel was ill during the whole winter and the following spring. The summer was spent recuperating, and he was again ready to resume his public activities in time for Rosh Hashanah. Mordecai Joseph, who had been Menaḥem Mendel’s closest disciple, differed with him on important issues. On the Simḥat Torah of 5600 (1839), an incident occurred that precipitated the final break between Menaḥem Mendel and Mordecai Joseph. This was the beginning of the seclusion that lasted until the end of Menaḥem Zederbaum, Keter Kehuna, 132, quoted in Heschel, Kotsk, 2:567. Hillary Nussbaum, Szkice Historyczne zZycia Zydow w Warszawie, 127, quoted in Heschel, Kotsk, 2:570. 51 Marcus, Der Chassidismus. 49 50

APPENDIX

123

Mendel’s life.52 S. Petrushka, writing in Poland at the time of the Slotnick controversy, reported a similar tradition.53 This version of Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk is corroborated by H. S. Leiner, one of Mordecai Joseph’s descendants, in the family history, Dor Yesharim.54 Another of Mordecai Joseph’s descendants, writing more recently, specifically denied that there was any truth to the story of the Friday night incident.55 The evidence of those who deny the historicity of the Friday night incident, particularly Gliksman and Heschel, far outweighs that of the proponents of its historicity. This still leaves the question of how the story started and why it attained such prominence. The Polish school of Hasidism was controversial, beginning with its inception in the dispute between the Yehudi of Przysucha and his teacher, the Seer of Lublin. Controversies between this school and other Hasidic schools continued to the end of the nineteenth century. Menaḥem Mendel’s personality did nothing to mitigate the differences with other Hasidic groups. On the contrary, it only sharpened them. The readiness of Rabbi Jacob Orenstein to believe that Haskalah had gained a foothold in Kotsk in 1838 shows the suspicion with which Kotsker ḥasidim were viewed by other ḥasidim. Another aspect concerns undisputed events in Menaḥem Mendel’s life: the nervous breakdown in 1838, the dispute with Mordecai Joseph of Izbica, and the twenty years of seclusion that followed. The dispute between the followers of Kotsk and Izbica continued for many years after Mordecai Joseph’s departure from Kotsk. Isaac Meir’s letter and the testimony of Alexander Zederbaum both indicate that contemporary rumors did circulate claiming some unholy occurrence in Kotsk. A third aspect to be considered is the case of Ber of Leova, who in fact did the things ascribed to Menaḥem Mendel. At least one of the authors cited above, S. Y. Yutzkin, clearly confused Menaḥem Mendel with Ber of Leova. A. Z. Aescoli has also raised the possibility of mistaken identity. It is not unusual in the transmission of Hasidic legends for the deeds of a lesser-known individual to be attributed to a well-known figure and vice versa. Heschel, Kotsk, 2:568–70. Der Haynt (Warsaw), October 7, 1927, quoted in Heschel, Kotsk, 2:570. 54 Dor Yesharim, 33–34. 55 Yeruchem Leiner, Tiferet Yeruchem, 149–50. 52 53

124

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Finally, the motives of those who disseminated this legend must be considered. A. N. Frenk was certainly no friend of the Hasidic movement. It may or may not be a coincidence that Judah Leib Slotnick was secretary of the Mizrachi movement in Poland and that the Mizrachi movement was involved in an acrimonious debate with the Agudat Yisrael party when he published his article. Agudat Yisrael was headed by the rebbe of Gur, who was considered by many the spiritual successor of Kotsk. In the case of Opatoshu, an avowed negative bias was shown. At the same time, it must be remembered that the legend circulated orally independent of these authors. The references found in Opatoshu’s reviewers indicate this. The solution to the puzzle most probably lies in a combination of all these factors. The legend of the Friday night incident seems to have arisen from a convergence of Menaḥem Mendel’s seclusion, the rumors circulating about the reasons for the seclusion, and Ber of Leova’s embrace of Haskalah. An examination of all the available evidence shows that the legend of the Friday night incident has no real factual basis. How it came into existence and gained popularity remains a subject of speculation.

GLOSSARY Words set in SMALL CAPITALS are defined elsewhere in the Glossary. Avodah. Worship, divine service of God in its widest sense. Spiritual self-improvement. Berur. Clarification, illumination. The process by which one attains an intuitive understanding of the divine will. Bet Midrash. House of study and prayer. Gevurah. Lit. “power.” One of the names for the fifth SEFIRAH, representing divine judgment. Halacha. The path; legal traditions of Judaism. The legal portions of rabbinic writings. Haqafah (pl. haqafot). One of the seven circuits with the Torah on SIMḤAT TORAH. Ḥasid (pl. ḥasidim). Disciple of a Z9ADDIQ. Member of the Hasidic community. Haskamah (pl. haskamot). Rabbinic approbation, recommending a book and offering protection against unauthorized reprints. Ḥisaron. Lit. “defect.” The unique defect or fault that a person must correct through the process of BERUR. Kavvanah. Inner direction; inwardness in prayer and religious acts. Kvitel (pl. kvitlekh). A note handed by the ḤASID to the Z9ADDIQ. The ḥasid’s request is written on it. Minyan. A prayer quorum of ten men. Mitnagged (pl. mitnaggedim). Opponent of Hasidism.

125

126

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Miz9vah (pl. miz9vot). Commandment; one of the 613 precepts of the Torah. By extension: good deed. Pidyon (pl. pidyonot). Lit. “redemption.” Gift given to the Z9ADDIQ accompanying a request for his blessing (KVITEL). Piquaḥ Nefesh. The saving of life. Rebbe. Hasidic master. Often, but not necessarily, a formally ordained rabbi. Sefirah (pl. sefirot). One of the ten emanations from eyn sof that together comprise the divine world of kabbalistic speculation; an aspect of the deity. Shammash. Lit. “attendant, servant.” A REBBE’s personal assistant. Shefa. The divine effulgence, flow, spiritual energy, which makes the existence of the world possible. It is mediated through the SEFIROT. Shekhinah. The indwelling presence of God. In kabbalah, described in female terms and identified with the tenth SEFIRAH, Malkhut. Shemini Azeret. The eighth day of SUCCOT. Shevirat ha-Kelim. Lit. “breaking of the vessels.” In Lurianic kabbalah, the cosmic cataclysm in the divine world brought about by Adam’s sin. Simḥat Torah. The festival of rejoicing with the Torah. Sin. The transgression of one or more of the MIZ9VOT by commission or omission. Succot. The autumnal festival, characterized by dwelling in booths and ritual waving of lulav and etrog. Talit. Prayer shawl. Talmid Ḥakham. Lit. “disciple of the wise.” A scholar. Tekhelet. The blue thread on the Z9IZ9IT. Tiqqun. Repair or restoration; the setting right of the cosmos by means of devotion or kabbalistic meditations. Also the “repair” of sin-burdened souls.

GLOSSARY

127

Yez9er (pl. yez9arim). Inclination. Yez9er ha-Ra‘—evil inclination. Yez9er Ṭov—good inclination. Z9addiq. (pl. z9addiqim). Righteous one; holy man. Master of a Hasidic community. Z9addiq ha-dor. The one true Z9ADDIQ of the generation. There can only be one z9addiq ha-dor in each generation. Z9iz9it. Fringe worn on the corners of the TALIT. Cf. Numbers 15:37–40.

BIBLIOGRAPHY The following is a list of works consulted in the preparation of this study. Standard reference works have been omitted from this bibliography, as have basic classics of pre-Hasidic Jewish literature, e.g., Bible, Talmud, Midrashim, the works of Maimonides, Zohar, etc. These works have been cited according to the standard editions. Aescoli, A. Z. Ha-ḥasidut be-Polin. Edited by David Assaf. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999. Alfasi, Y. Ha-Rabbi mi-Kotsk. Tel Aviv, 1952. ———. Ha-Sabah Ha-Qadosh. Tel Aviv, 1957. ———. Ha-Ḥoze Mi-Lublin. Jerusalem:Mosad Harav Kook, 1969. Alter, A. Y. B. Meir Eynei ha-Golah. Piotrikov, 1928. Altmann, Alexander. “The Religion of the Thinkers: Free Will and Predestination in Saadia, Bahya and Maimonides.” In Religion in a Religious Age, edited by S. D. Goitein, 25–52. Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 1974. Artan, Y. Y. Emet ve-Emunah. 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1948. Assaf, David. “Ha-Ḥasidut be-Hitpatḥuta—Diyukno shel R. Nehemiah Yeḥiel mi-Bychawa ben ‘Yehudi ha-Qadosh.’” In KeMinhag Ashkenaz u-Polin: Sefer Yovel le-Chone Shmeruk, edited by Israel Bartal, Chava Turniansky, and Ezra Mendelsohn, 269– 98. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1993. ———. “Ve-ha-Mitnagedim Hitloz9ez9u she-Nishtaker ve-Nafal: Nefilato shel ha-Ḥoze mi-Lublin Beraei ha-Zikaron ha-Ḥasidi ve-ha-Satira ha-Maskilit.” In Be-Ma’aglei Ḥasidim: Kovetz Mehkarim Mukdash le-Zikhro shel Mordecai Wilensky, edited by Immanuel Etkes, David Assaf, Israel Bartal, and Elhanan Reiner, 161–208. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1999. (An English version of this article is in Polin 15 [2002]: 187–202.) ———. The Regal Way: The Life and Times of Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.

129

130

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Azulai, Abraham. Ḥesed le-Abraham. Lvov, 1861. Baer, Yiz9ḥak. “Ha-Reqa ha-Histori shel ha-Ra’aya Mehemna.” Z9ion 5 (1944): 1–44. Balaban, Meir. “Di Historishe Motiven in Y. Opatoshu’s In Poilishe Velder.” Bichervelt, 1922, no. 6: 516–23. Berl, Hayyim Yehuda. R. Abraham Joshua Heschel: Ha-Rav mi-Apta. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1984. Boim, Yehuda Menaḥem. Rabbi Bunem mi-Przysucha. 2 vols. Bnai Brak, 1997. Brill, Alan. “Grandeur and Humility in the Writings of R. Simḥah Bunim of Przysucha.” In Ḥazon Nahum: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought and History Presented to Dr. Norman Lamm on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Yaakov Elman and Jeffrey Gurock, 419–48. New York, 1997. ———. Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2002. Bromberg, A. Ha-Ḥoze mi-Lublin. Jerusalem, 1962. Buber, Martin. Der grosse Magid und seine Nachfolger. Frankfurt am Main, 1922. ———. Tales of the Ḥasidim. 2 vols. New York: Schocken, 1948. ———. For the Sake of Heaven. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1953. Chajes, S. Oz9ar Biduyei ha-Shem. Vienna, 1933. Davies, W. D. Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come. JBL Monograph series, no. 7. Philadelphia, 1952. Dienstag, Jacob. “Ha-More Nebuḥim ve-Sefer ha-Mada be-Sifrut ha-Ḥasidut.” In Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume, 307–38. New York, 1964. Dresner, Samuel. The Zaddik. London: Abelard Schuman, 1960. Dubnow, Simon. Toldot ha-Ḥasidut. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967. Duker, Abraham. “The Tarniks.” In Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, 191–201. New York, 1953. Edwards, Betsalel Philip, ed. and trans. Living Waters: The Mei HaShiloach: A Commentary on the Torah. Northvale: Aronson, 2001. Elior, Rachel. “Ha-Maḥloqet al Moreshet Ḥabad.” Tarbiz9 49 (1980): 166–86. ———. Torat ha-Elohut be-Dor ha-Sheni shel Ḥasidut Ḥabad. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. ———. “Between Yesh and Ayin: The Doctrine of the Zaddik in the Works of Jacob Isaac, the Seer of Lublin.” Jewish History:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

131

Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, edited by Ada RapoportAlbert and Steven Zipperstein, 393–455. London: Halban, 1988. A revised Hebrew version of this essay is in Z9addiqim veAnshei Ma’ase, edited by Israel Bartal, Rachel Elior, and Chone Shmeruk, 167–218. Jerusalem, 1994. ———. “Temurot be-Maḥshavah ha-Datit be-Ḥasidut Polin— Bein ‘Yirah’ ve-‘Ahavah’ le-‘Omek’ ve-Gava’an.” Tarbiz9 62 (1993): 381–432. Elman, Yaakov. “R. Zadok haKohen on the History of Halakha.” Tradition 21, no. 4 (1985): 1–26. ———. “R. Zadok haKohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process.” In Jewish Law Association Studies, edited by B. S. Jackson, 1:1–16. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. Etkes, Immanuel. Ba’al ha-Shem: ha-Besht—Magia, Mystica, Hanhagah. Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2000. Faierstein, Morris M. “God’s Need for the Commandments in Medieval Kabbalah.” Conservative Judaism 36 (1982): 45–59. ———. “The Friday Night Incident in Kotsk: History of a Legend.” Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 179–89. ———. “Personal Redemption in Hasidism.” In Hasidism Reappraised, edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert, 214–24. London: Littman Library, 1996. ———. Review of Hasidism on the Margin, by Shaul Magid. Shofar 23, no. 4 (2005): 163–65. Fano, Menaḥem Azariah. Sefer Gilgulei Neshamot. Jerusalem, 1978. Feierberg, Mordecai Ze’ev. Whither? and Other Stories, trans. H. Halkin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1972. Feldman, Seymour. “Crescas’ Theological Determinism.” Daat 9 (1982): 3–28. ———. “A Debate Concerning Determinism in Late Medieval Jewish Philosophy.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 51 (1984): 15–54. Fenton, Paul. “La Redemption individuelle dans le hassidisme d’Izbica.” Pardes 24 (1998): 95–105. Fine, Lawrence. Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003. Fox, Joseph. Rabbi Menahem Mendel mi-Kotsk. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967. Frankel, A. J. H. Mei Z9edeq. Brooklyn, 1984.

132

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Frenk, Azriel Nathan. “Mi-Ḥayyei ha-Ḥasidim be-Polin.” In Sifrei Agurah, edited by Ben-Avigdor [A. L. Shalkovitch], vol. 3. Warsaw, 1896. Friedberg, C. Bet Eked Sefarim. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1951. Friedman, Maurice. Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1955. Ginzberg, Louis. Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968. Gliksman, Pinchas Zelig. Der Kotsker Rebbe. Lodz, 1938. Graubart, David. “Rabbi Mendel Kotsker.” Jewish Daily Forward, October 30, 1980. Graubart, J. L. “Hiz9diku et ha- Z9addiq.” Ha-Mizrachi (Warsaw), 2, no. 17 (1920): 7–8. Green, A. Tormented Master: A Life of Nahman of Bratzlav. University: University of Alabama Press, 1979. ———. “The Z9addiq as Axis Mundi in Later Judaism.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 45 (1977): 327–47. Guttmann, Julius. Philosophies of Judaism. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1954. ———. “Ba’ayat ha-Beḥirah ha-Ḥofshit be-Mishnatam shel Hasdai Crescas ve-ha-Aristotalim ha-Muslamim.” In Da’at u-Mada, 149–68. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Torah min Ha-Shamayim be-Aspeklaira shel ha-Dorot. 2 vols. London: Soncino, 1962–65. ———. Kotsk: In Gerangel far Emesdikeit. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Menorah, 1973. Horodetsky, Samuel Abba. Ḥasidut ve-Ḥasidim. 4 vols. Berlin: Dvir, 1923. Jacobowitz, A. “A Roman fun Kotsker Hoif.” Haynt (Warsaw), 1921. Jacobs, Louis. Seeker of Unity. London: Vallentine, Mitchell, 1966. ———. “Eating as an Act of Worship in Hasidic Thought.” In Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History, edited by S. Stein and R. Loewe, 157–66. University: University of Alabama Press, 1979. ———. “Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will.” Conservative Judaism 34 (1980): 4–16. ———. “The Uplifting of Sparks in Later Jewish Mysticism.” In Jewish Spirituality, ed. Arthur Green, 2:99–126. New York: Crossroad.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

133

Katz, Zisha. “A Sensatzie Zevishen di Hasidim in Poilen Zulib a Muving Pictur.” Jewish Daily Forward, April 12, 1929, p. 3. Katzenelson, Yiz9ḥak. Yidishe Ghetto Kesovim—Varshe 1940–1943, edited by Y. Szeintuch. Tel Aviv: Bet Loḥamei ha-Getaot and Kibbutz ha-Meuḥad, 1984. Koralnik, A. “Der Kotsker Nusach.” Der Tog (New York), May 29, 1921. Kretsher, A. “Vegen Ḥerem oif Poilishe Velder.” Zeit (New York), November, 1921. Langer, Jiri. Nine Gates. Translated by S. Jolly. London: James Clarke, 1961. Leiner, Gershom Henoch. Sidrei Tehorot. 2 vols.: Kelim. Josefow, 1873. Ohalot. Piotrikov, 1902. Leiner, H. S. Dor Yesharim. Lublin, 1925. Leiner, Jacob. Bet Yaakov, Bereshit. Warsaw, 1890. Repr. Brooklyn, 1978. ———. Bet Yaakov, Shemot. Lublin, 1904. Repr. Jerusalem, 1972. ———. Bet Yaakov, Vayikra. Warsaw, 1937. Repr. Jerusalem, 1975. ———. Bet Yaakov al ha-Torah. Lublin, 1906. Repr. Brooklyn, 1976. Leiner, Mordecai Joseph. Mei Ha-Shiloaḥ. Vol. 1. Vienna, 1860. Vol. 2. Lublin, 1922. Repr. 2 vols. in 1. Brooklyn, 1973. New edition. 2 vols. Bnai Brak, 1995. Leiner, Yeruchem. Tiferet Yeruchem. Brooklyn, 1948. Liberman, Hayyim. “Legende un Emes vegn di Hasidishe Drukereien” Ohel RH"L, 2:17–160. Brooklyn, 1980. Liebes, Yehuda. “How the Zohar was Written.” In Studies in the Zohar, 85–138. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993. Levin, Judah Leib. Ha-Admorim mi-Izbica. Jerusalem, n.d. Magid, Shaul. “‘A Thread of Blue’: Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner of Radzyn and his Search for Continuity in Response to Modernity.” Polin 11 (1998): 31–52. ———. Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism in Izbica/Radzin Hasidism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Mahler, Raphael. Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Marcus, Aron [Verus, pseud.]. Der Chassidismus. Pleschen, 1901. Marcus, Ivan G. Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

134

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Margoshes, J. “Yidishe Cenzur (Vegen Herem),” Zeit (New York), December 19, 1921. Margulies, R, ed. Sefer ha-Zohar. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964. Matt, Daniel. “The Mystic and the Mitzwot.” In Jewish Spirituality, edited by A. Green, 1:367–404. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Meisel, Nachman. Joseph Opatoshu: Sein Leben und Werk. Warsaw, 1937. Mintz, Jerome, and Dan Ben Amos, trans. In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970. Moore, George Foote. Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927– 30. Morgenstern, Aryeh. “Z9ipiot Meshiḥiot ve-Yishuv Erez9 Yisrael beMaḥaz9it ha-Rishona shel ha-Meiah ha-19.” Cathedra 24 (1982): 52–78. ———. “Z9ipiot Meshiḥiot Likrat Shenat ha-TaR (1840).” Meshiḥiut ve-Eschatologia, edited by Z. Baras, 343–64. Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1983. ———. Mistika ve-Meshiḥiut: Me-Aliyat ha-Ramḥal ad ha-Gaon miVilna. Jerusalem: Maor, 1999. Nussbaum, Hillary. Szkice Historyczne zZycia Zydow w Warszawie. Warsaw, 1881. Ohel Torah. Lublin, 1909. Opatoshu [Opatovsky], Joseph. In Polish Woods. Translated by Isaac Goldberg. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1938. Yiddish and Hebrew originals, 1920. Perlmutter, M. A. R. Jonathan Eybeschutz ve-Yaḥaso le-Shabtaut. Jerusalem: Schocken, 1947. Piekarsz, Mendel. Bein Ideologia le-Mez9iut. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994. ———. Ha-Hanhagah ha-Ḥasidit. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1999. Rabinowicz, Zvi Meir. Rabbi Yaakov Yizhak mi-Przysucha: ha-Yehudi ha-Qadosh. Piotrikov, 1932. ———. Rabbi Simḥah Bunem mi-Przysucha. Tel Aviv: Mosad Harav Kook, 1945. Rakatz, Y. K. K. Siaḥ Sarfei Kodesh. 5 vols in 1. Lodz, 1928–31. Repr. Jerusalem, n.d.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

135

Rapoport-Albert, Ada. “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship.” History of Religions 18 (1979): 296– 325. Reisin, Zalman. Leksikon fun der Yiddisher Literatur, Presse, un Filologie. 4 Vols. Vilna: Vilner Farlag, 1925–28. Rosenstein, Neil. The Unbroken Chain. New York: Shengold, 1976. Rosman, Moshe. Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996. Sack, Bracha. “Iyyun be-Torato shel ha-Ḥoze mi-Lublin.” In Z9addiqim ve-Anshei Ma’ase, edited by Israel Bartal, Rachel Elior, and Chone Shmeruk, 219–39. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994. Samuel of Shinove. Ramatai’im Z9ofim. Jerusalem, 1978. Samuel of Sochaczew. Shem Mi-Shmuel. 9 vols. Piotrikov, 1929–34. Schatz, Rivkah. “Autonomia shel ha-Ruaḥ ve-Torat Moshe.” Molad 21 (1963): 554–61. ———. “Self Redemption in Hasidic Thought.” In Types of Redemption, edited by R. J. Z. Werblowsky and C. J. Bleeker, 207–12. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Schatzky, Jacob. J. Opatoshu Bibliographie. New York, 1937. Schohat, Azriel. “Al ha-Simḥah be-Hasidut.” Zion 16 (1951): 30–43. Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken, 1961. ———. Sabbatai Sevi. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973. ———. “Religious Authority and Mysticism.” In On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, 5–31. New York: Schocken, 1965. ———. “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism.” In On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, 32–86. New York: Schocken, 1965. ———. “The Neutralization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism.” In The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 176–202. New York: Schocken, 1971. ———. “Devekut, or Communion with God.” In The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 203–26. New York: Schocken, 1971. Schweid, Eliezer. Ha-Philosophia ha-Datit shel R. Hasdai Crescas. Jerusalem: Makor, 1971. Seeman, Don. “Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual in R. Mordecai Joseph Leiner’s Mei ha-Shiloah.” AJS Review 27(2003): 253–80.

136

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Shapira, Abraham. “Shtei Darkei Geulah be-Ḥasidut be-Aspeklaria shel Martin Buber.” In Massu’ot: Meḥkarim be-Sifrut ha-Kabbalah u-be-Maḥshevet Yisrael Mukdashim le-Zikhro shel Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb z"l, edited by Michal Oron and Amos Goldreich, 429– 46. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik; Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1994. Sherwin, Byron L. Mystical Theology and Social Dissent: The Life and Works of Judah Leowe of Prague. London: Littman Library, 1982. Shragai, Shneur Zalman. “Ḥasidut ha-Baal Shem Tov be-Tefisat Izbica-Radzyn.” In Sefer Baal Shem Tov, 153–201. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1960. ———. Be-Netivei Ḥasidut Izbica-Radzyn. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1972. ———. Be-Ma’ayanei Ḥasidut Izbica-Radzyn. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1980. Shragai, Shneur Zalman, and A. Bik. Be-Heikhal Izbica-Radzyn. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1977. Slotki, Elijah. Yad Eliyahu. Jerusalem, 1963. Slotnick, Judah Leib (Y. Elzet). “Siḥot u-Shemuot.” Reshumot (Odessa), 1 (1918): 413–16. ———. “Kotsk.” Ha-Mizrachi (Warsaw) 2, no. 14 (1920): 7–10. ———. “Le-Qorot ha-Ḥasidut R. Mendel mi-Kotsk.” Ha-Ivri (New York), 10, no. 19 (1920): 9–12. Soloveitchik, Hayyim. “Three Themes in Sefer Hasidim.” AJS Review 1 (1976): 311–58. Steinschneider, Moritz. Hebraische Bibliographie, 6 (1863). Tishby, Isaiah. Torat ha-Ra ve-ha-Kelippah be-Kabbalat ha-Ari. Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1942. ———, ed. Sefer Z9iz9at Novel Z9vi. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1954. ———. The Wisdom of the Zohar. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), 1991. Touati, Charles. “La Providence Divine chez Hasday Crescas.” Daat 10 (1983): 15–32. Unger, Menashe. Przysucha und Kotsk. Buenos Aires, 1948. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. Vital, Hayyim. Liqutei Torah. Jerusalem, 1970. ———. Sha’ar Ha-Gilgulim. Jerusalem, 1963. Walden, A. Kol Simḥah. Breslau, 1859; Warsaw, 1863.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

137

Weiss, Joseph G. “Torat ha-Determinism ha-Dati le-R. Mordecai Joseph Lerner [sic] mi-Izbica.” In Sefer Yovel shel Yiz9ḥak Baer, 441–53. Jerusalem: Ḥevra Historit ha-Yisraelit, 1961. ———. “A Late Jewish Utopia of Religious Freedom.” In Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism, 209–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Littman Library), 1985. Werses, Shmuel. “Ha-Ḥasidut be-Aspeklaria Belletristit: Iyyunim be-Gog u-Magog shel Martin Buber.” In Z9addiqim ve-Anshei Ma’ase, edited by Israel Bartal, Rachel Elior, and Chone Shmeruk, 317–56. Jerusalem, 1994. Yaari, Abraham. Toldot Hag Simḥat Torah. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1954. Yutzkin, S. Y. “Pereq mi-Toldot ha-Ḥasidut be-Polonia.” Nahum Sokolow Jubilee Volume, 335–40. Warsaw, 1904. Zederbaum, Alexander. Keter Kehuna. Odessa, 1861. Zeitlin, Hillel. “Kotsker Hasidus un Modern Kunst Historisher Balaykhtung.” Moment (Warsaw), August 19, 1921.

INDEXES NAMES Aaron, 35, 65, 83 Aaron of Starosselje, 5n18, 9–10, 109 Abihu, 65, 97 Abraham, 39 Abraham Joshua Heschel of Opatow, 7–8 Abraham of Sochaczew, 19 Adam, 41–42, 53–54, 56, 97 Aescoli, Aaron Ze’ev, 2n3, 3n12, 121, 123 Alpert, Zalman, 115n15 Alter, A. Y. B., 17n7, 24n40, 25n45, 80n13, 116n21 Alfasi, Yizhak, 1n1, 4n14, 55n9, 98n13, 121 Altmann, Alexander, 28n6 Artan, Y. Y., 7n25, 15n2, 25n45, 63n34, 79n10 Assaf, David, 1n2, 2n6, 5n17, 112n6 Azulai, Abraham, 44n62 Baer, Yizhak, 36n35, 99n22 Balaban, Meir, 119 Ben Amos, Dan, 10n40, 63n31 Berl, Hayyim Yehudah, 8n28 Besht, see Israel Baal Shem Tov Bik, A., 11n44 Boim, Yehudah Menahem, 5n19 Brill, Alan, 5n20, 11n44 Bromberg, Abraham, 1n1 Buber, Martin, 4n16, 49n82, 55n9, 120–21 Chajes, S., 113n8 Cordovero, Moses, 36 Crescas, Hasdai, 28

Daniel, 58 David, 16, 20, 71, 74, 102–3 David of Kotsk, 23–24, 79, 118 Davies, W. D., 35n30, 99n20 Dienstag, Jacob, 6n23 Dov Baer of Leovo, 112, 121, 123– 24 Dov Baer of Lubavitch, 5n18 Dov Baer (Magid) of Mezhirech, 2, 63, 95 Dresner, Samuel, 54n7 Dubnow, S. M., 10n40 Duker, Abraham, 98n13 Edwards, Betsalel P., 9n33 Eleazar Baer of Grabowice, 7 Elijah, 49–50, 91 Elimelekh of Lyzhansk, 1–2, 63n32, 77n1 Elior, Rachel, 1n1, 2n4, 2n7, 3n9, 5n18, 10n37, 12 Elman, Yaakov, 11n44 Ephraim, 68 Esau, 34 Etkes, Immanuel, 95n2 Faierstein, Morris M., 29n12, 53n1, 95n1 Fano, Menahem Azariah, 45n67 Feivel of Gritse, 7 Feldman, Seymour, 27n4, 28n7 Fenton, Paul, 95n1 Fine, Lawrence, 54n2 Fox, Joseph, 18n12, 121 Frankel, A. J. H., 11n44 Frenk, A.N., 111–12, 124 Friedberg, Hayyim Dov, 28n8 Friedman, Maurice, 49n82

139

140

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Gershon Henoch of Radzyn, 9–11, 15n3, 19–20, 69n54, 95, 98–105, 109–10 Ginzberg, Louis, 42n57, 45n66, 48n79, 49n87 Gliksman, Pinchas Zelig, 19n14, 23, 24n39, 26n46, 98n14, 115–17, 118n28, 120, 123 Graubart, J. L., 115, 117 Green, Arthur, 15n1, 20n25, 69n56, 78n4 Guttmann, Julius, 28n5 Haman, 58 Hanokh Henokh of Alexsandrow, 20 Hayyim Reigarden of Plonsk, 8 Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 7n27, 8nn29–31, 17n11, 18n13, 27n1, 41n52, 78n3, 80n16, 83n30, 85, 97n8, 112, 115n17, 118n26, 122– 23 Hillel of Baranow, 24 Hirsch of Tomaszow, 24, 116 Horodetsky, S. A., 112n3 Horowitz, Issachar, 7 Idel, Moshe, 33n23 Isaac, 34, 39, 56 Isaac of Worka, 8, 24 Isaac Meir of Gur, 7, 8, 16, 79, 115, 116, 123 Israel Baal Shem Tov (Besht), 63, 95 Israel of Pilov, 26 Jacob, 32, 34, 39, 66–67, 69–70, Jacob Isaac Horowitz (Seer) of Lublin, 1–5, 55n9, 77n1 Jacob Isaac (Yehudi) of Przysucha, 1, 3–5, 7, 40, 55n9, 77n1, 78, 81, 105 Jacob Joseph of Pollnoye, 63, 95 Jacob Leiner of Izbica/Radzyn, 11, 98, 109 Jacobs, Louis, 10n37, 27n4, 54n3, 63n32 Jehiel Meir of Gostynin, 25 Joseph, 21–22, 32, 34, 43, 44n60, 45, 68–70, 76 Judah, 32, 43, 68–71, 76 Judah Leowe (Maharal) of Prague, 6

Katzenelson, Yizhak, 110 Korah, 46–47, 83 Langer, Jiri, 121 Leibele Eiger of Lublin, 11, 109, 115n16 Leiner, Hayyim Simhah, 11, 15n3, 23, 98, 116n20, 123 Leiner, Jacob, see Jacob Leiner Leiner, Yeruchem, 44n62 Levin, Judah Leib, 12n50, 16n5, 17n8, 19n19, 21n26, 22–23, 25n43 Liberman, Hayyim, 1n3 Liebes, Yehudah, 20n24 Luria, Isaac, 44 Magid, Shaul, 11n45, 104n42 Mahler, Raphael, 6n22, 46n74, 63n33, 63n35, 81n18, 97n9 Maimonides, Moses, 6, 58n20, 113 Marcus, Aron, 122 Marcus, Ivan G., 33n24 Matt, Daniel, 29n12, 53n1 Meir of Padua, 16 Menaḥem Mendel of Kotsk, 1, 7–8, 15–25, 32–33, 40, 46, 49n81, 63– 64, 77–80, 83–85, 90–92, 95, 97n9, 107–9, 111–24 Menaḥem Mendel of Tomaszow, see Menahem Mendel of Kotsk Mendelssohn, Moses, 113 Mintz, Jerome, 10n40, 63n31 Miriam, 35 Moore, George Foote, 27n1 Mordecai, 58 Mordecai Joseph Eleazar of Radzyn, 25, 26, 110 Morgenstern, Aryeh, 98, 99n17 Moses, 35, 47, 83 Nadab, 65, 97 Nahman of Bratzlav, 15n1, 63n32 Napoleon Bonaparte, 4 Noah, 48 Nussbaum, Hilary, 122 Opatoshu, Joseph, 117–20 Piekarsz, Mendel, 1n1, 4n13 Phinehas, 43–45, 91 Rabinowicz, Zvi Meir, 3n11, 4n15, 6n21, 23, 8n28, 40n51, 55n9, 81n19

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rakatz, Y. K. K., 15n2, 17n10, 19n20, 24n38, 25n42, 79n12 Rapoport-Albert, Ada, 7n26, 82n22 Rashi, 67 Reisin, Zalman, 117n24 Rosenstein, Neil, 16n4 Rosman, Moshe, 95n2 Sack, Bracha, 1n1, 3n9 Samson, 20 Samuel, 25 Samuel Shmelke Horowitz, 1 Samuel of Shinove, 15n2 Samuel of Sochaczew, 19, 63 Saul, 20, 103 Schatz, Rivkah, 10n41, 12n47, 13n55, 31n17, 97n10, 99n19 Schohat, Azriel, 54n3 Scholem, Gershom, 35n34, 36n36, 42n56, 53n2, 54n5, 55n8, 97n10, 99, 100n24, 103n40 Schweid, Eliezer, 28n7 Seeman, Don, 12 Seer of Lublin, see Jacob Isaac Horowitz (Seer) of Lublin Shapira, Abraham, 4n16 Sherwin, Byron L., 6n23 Shragai, Shneur Zalman, 9n35, 10n39, 11n44, 12nn51–53 Simeon bar Yohai, 20, 102, 103

141

Simḥah Bunem of Przysucha, 1, 5, 7, 8–9, 16, 19–20, 32–33, 95, 102, 107, 109 Slotnick, J. L., 112–17, 122, 123–24 Slotki, Elijah, 58n19 Soloveitchik, Hayyim, 33 Steinschneider, Moritz, 9 Tishby, Isaiah, 35n35, 38n42, 42n56, 85n2, 99n22 Touati, Charles, 28n7 Unger, Menashe, 121 Urbach, Ephraim Elimelech, 27 Vital, Hayyim, 38n42, 43n59, 45n67 Walden, Aaron, 6n24 Waldoks, Moshe, 112n3 Weiss, Joseph G., 9n34, 10n42, 11n43, 12n47, 13n54, 30n3, 69n54, 81n18, 96–97 Werses, Samuel, 4n16 Yaari, Abraham, 21n28 Yehudi of Przysucha, see Jacob Isaac (Yehudi) of Przysucha Yerahmiel of Przysucha, 7–8 Yutzkin, S. Y., 112, 123 Zadok ha-Cohen of Lublin, 11, 109 Zederbaum, Alexander,122 Zimri, 43–45 Zusya of Schedlice, 7

SUBJECTS Anger, 42, 72, 85, 93 Antinomianism, 12, 33, 47, 51, 75, 108, 111–12, 118, 120–21 Arrogance, 5, 72 Asceticism, 49, 53–54, 60, 63–64, 75, 79–80, 90 Avodah (worship), 37, 45–47, 53–76, 81 Berur (Clarification), 35–38, 41–42, 55, 58, 62, 64, 66–67, 71–76, 82, 96–97, 107–8 Biblical archetypes, 34, 53, 67, 68, 71, 76, 78, 83 Cholent, 25 Commandments (miz9vot), 5, 29–30, 32, 35–41, 47–51, 55, 57–59, 61– 62, 69–70, 73–75, 83, 96, 108–9 Depression, 87, 89, 91, 122

Determinism, 1, 27–28, 37, 41 Devekut, 54 Disciples, 16, 19 Divine providence, 27, 47, 60, 71, 73, 76, 83–84, 107–8 Divine will, 28–33, 36, 38–39, 42– 45, 47–50, 59, 62, 64–66, 68, 70– 71, 75, 84, 97 Doubt and Certainty, 66, 68, 82, 84 Elitism, 4, 5, 17, 80–81, 90 Eschaton, see Messianism Exile, 73–74, 97 Friday Night Incident, 22, 111, 124 Halacha, 68–69, 71 Hasid (pl. Hasidim), 3, 5, 7, 17–19, 23, 64, 78, 81, 114, 119 Hasidei Ashkenaz, 33 Haskalah, 112–15, 121, 123–24

142

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Haskamot, 9, 10, 103 Ḥisaron (Defect), 41, 55, 56, 57, 75, 83, 96 Holy Goat, 17–18 Illusion, 73 Individualism, 4, 6–7, 40, 55, 64, 75, 82, 95–97, 107–8 Intuition, 39–40 Kvitel, 19, 23 Lurianic kabbalah, 38, 42, 53, 55, 58, 62, 96, 100, 103 Lust, 86–89, 91–92, 120 Material z9addiqism, 3, 82 Messianism, 4, 36, 45–46, 51, 56, 68, 71, 83, 86, 95, 105, 108–9 Miracles, 4 Pidyon, 3, 19, 23 Piquah Nefesh, 50 Prayer, 29, 72, 78 Prophets, 30 Rebbe, 5, 8, 17–19, 21, 98, 114

Shefa, 3, 29, 53 Shevirat ha-kelim, 53, 62, 75 Sin, 11, 34–35, 40–46, 51, 54, 62, 75, 97 Simḥat Torah, 21–23 Spiritual perfection, 48–49, 82, 107 Tekhelet, 47, 103, 104, 110 Tiqqun, 36, 41, 53–54, 62, 75, 107 Torah, 29–31, 59–62, 64, 71, 76, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 92, 99, 100, 102 Transgression of commandments, 49–51 Yez9er (inclination), 38, 61, 70 Yishuv ha-da’at, 87, 88, 92 Z9addiq, 1–2, 5, 7, 15, 21–22, 33, 37, 54–55, 69, 77, 84–85, 90–92, 95, 109–10 Z9iz9it, 47, 51, 103 Zorekh Gavoha, 29 Zohar, 20, 34–35, 85, 98–99, 101–3

SCRIPTURAL AND RABBINIC REFERENCES Genesis

Numbers

1:28, 32n21 2:16–17, 41 4:6, 40 8:7–89 9:21–25, 48 35:25–31, 84n3 37:5–15, 70n58 37:13–26, 71 37:26, 70 38:1, 32 38:7, 67n47 45:28, 60 48:19, 34

5:2, 91 6:5, 86n9 8:7, 86n8 12, 35 15:32-36, 42 15:37–41, 47n76 15:38, 51 25:6–15, 43 25:14, 43 36:5, 30

Exodus 20:2, 29, 73 21:14–89 33:26–23

Leviticus 18:5, 50n92 21:1, 33 21:16,24, 73n69

Deuteronomy 6:4, 59 6:5, 59 6:10, 59 6:11, 59 6:13, 59 6:16, 59 7:12, 37 8:3, 30 16:20, 88 16:21, 81 20:1, 78, 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY 22:12, 51 32:5, 64, 80

Judges 13:25, 20

1 Samuel 3:3–8, 25n41 22:1, 20, 103

2 Samuel 11, 71

1 Kings 18:19–40, 49n87 19:10, 91

Esther 3:2–5, 58

Daniel 6:5–18, 58

1 Chronicles 29:14, 74

TARGUM JONATHAN Genesis 4:8, 111n1 Genesis 37:1, 66n45

MISHNAH Rosh Hashana

Isaiah

2:8-9, 81n20

11:13, 68 29:13, 40n47, 69

Soṭah

Jeremiah 3:14, 101 29:11, 32

Hosea 11:1, 44

Zechariah 14:9, 38

Psalms 4:5, 60 27:30, 79 71:17–18, 58 119:126, 49–50, 69

Proverbs 11:17, 64, 80 24:6, 86

9:15, 102

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Berakhot 5a, 61n27 6b, 65n39 8b, 114n12 27b, 81 33b, 27n3 54a, 49n86, 50n88 63a, 49n86

Shabbat 33b, 103n39 105b, 85n1 138b, 35n30

Eruvin 65a, 85n1

143

144

ALL IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN

Pesaḥim

MIDRASHIM

113b, 87

Ta‘anit

Mekhilta Beshallah 2, 39n43

4a, 92n29

Megilla

Genesis Rabbah 85:1, 32

25a, 27n3

Mo’ed Qaṭan

Exodus Rabbah 29:9, 29n10

3n10

Nedarim

Leviticus Rabbah 20:9, 65n41

32b, 61n29, 70n59

Soṭah

Midrash Tanhuma Korah 2, 47

49b, 101n30

Qiddushin 40a, 86

Sanhedrin 74a, 58n20

‘Arakhin 15b, 91n28

Niddah 61b, 27n3, 35n33, 46n69, 69n3

JERUSALEM TALMUD Sanhedrin 6:3, 45n65

ZOHAR 1:45b, 82n25 1:96a, 56n13 1:116b–17a, 20n21 1:119a, 20n21, 21n27, 99n18, 101n29 1:137b, 56n13 1:184a, 44 1:251a, 44 2:152b, 47n76 2:236a, 56n13 2:263b, 86n10 3:48b, 86n10 3:135a, 47n76 3:151b, 86n10 3:257a, 47n76