The Invention of a Tradition: The Messianic Zionism of the Gaon of Vilna 9781503637092

Citation preview

THE I N V E N TION OF A TR A DITION

STANFORD STUDIE S IN JE WISH HISTORY AND C ULTURE

Edited by David Biale and Sarah Abrevaya Stein

The

I n v ention of a

Tr a dition THE MESSIANIC ZIONISM OF THE GAON OF VILNA

IMMANUEL ETKES Translated by Saadya Sternberg With a foreword by David Biale

STANFORD UNIVE RSIT Y PRE SS

Stanford, California

Stanford University Press Stanford, California Foreword and English translation © 2024 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. The Invention of a Tradition: The Messianic Zionism of the Gaon of Vilna was originally published in Hebrew in 2019 under the title Ha-­tsiyonut ha-­meshichit shel ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna: Hamtza’atah shel masoret © 2019, Carmel Publishing House, PO Box 43092, Jerusalem, 91430, Israel, https:​/​​/​w ww​.carmelph​.co​.il. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Stanford University Press. Printed in the United States of America on acid-­free, archival-­quality paper Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Etkes, I., author. | Biale, David, 1949– writer of foreword. Title: The invention of a tradition : the Messianic Zionism of the Gaon of Vilna / Immanuel Etkes ; translated by Saadya Sternberg ; with a foreword by David Biale. Other titles: Tsiyonut ha-meshi ḥit shel ha-Gaʼon mi-Ṿilnah. English | Stanford studies in Jewish history and culture. Description: Stanford, California : Stanford University Press, 2024. | Series: Stanford Studies in Jewish history and culture | “Originally published in Hebrew in 2019 under the title Ha-tsiyonut ha-meshichit shel ha-gaon mi-Vilna: Hamtzaʼatah shel masoret.” | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023017357 (print) | LCCN 2023017358 (ebook) | ISBN 9781503634534 (cloth) | ISBN 9781503637092 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Elijah ben Solomon, 1720-1797. | Elijah ben Solomon, 1720–1797— Disciples. | Rivlin, Shelomo Zalman, 1884–1962. | Jewish messianic movements— History. | Zionism and Judaism—History. | Zionism—Israel—History. Classification: LCC BM755.E6 .E84813 2024 (print) | LCC BM755.E6 (ebook) | DDC 296.3/8209—dc23/eng/20230421 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023017357 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023017358 Cover design: Gia Giasullo Cover painting: Unknown artist, Painting of the Vilna Gaon, 1915. Photograph of an oil painting, Yesodei Hatorah School corridor wall, Stamford Hill, London.

Contents

Foreword by David Biale vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1

PART I

The books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor and the Rivlinian myth 1 Hazon Zion, a Messianic Zionist movement

11

2 The main ideas of Kol ha-­Tor 18 3 Does Kol ha-­Tor express a Messianic Zionist doctrine

21

held by the Vilna Gaon?

PART II

The Vilna Gaon and his disciples as the first Zionists: The evolution of a myth 4 Why did the disciples of the Vilna Gaon immigrate

29

to the Land of Israel? 5 How did the Rivlinian myth take form?

38

6 Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher’s Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah 47

Contents

vi

7 The academic version of the Rivlinian myth

50

8 Did Shlomo Zalman Rivlin receive the text of

68

Kol ha-­Tor from Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin? PART III

Additional writings by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin 9 Mossad ha-­Yesod: The Old Yishuv recast as

75

10 Midrash Shlomo and the Department for

96

the beginnings of Zionism

Training Young Orators

11 Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion: Rabbi Moshe Rivlin

106

12 Sefer ha-­Pizmonim: Yosef Yosha Rivlin as

121

as a “Zionist” leader

a “Messianic Zionist visionary” PART IV

The creation of Kol ha-­Tor 13 Who was the author of Kol ha-­Tor? 143 14 Shlomo Zalman Rivlin: The man and his literary motives

154

15 The embrace of the Rivlinian myth and

164

Kol ha-­Tor in Religious Zionist circles Conclusion 179

Appendix: Rivlin family members 183 Notes 187 Bibliography 209 Index of Names 217

Foreword

The Israeli elections of November 2022 brought the party of Religious Zionism to a position of power and prominence as the third largest political party in that country. This party, although nominally the heir of the Religious Zionists of the twentieth century, is, in fact, a radical offshoot of that historically moderate movement. Led by settlers from the West Bank, it is imbued with messianic and nationalist fervor. Seen in this light, Immanuel Etkes’s book on the invented tradition of Messianic Zionism, far from a mere historical footnote, has great contemporary urgency. Etkes is arguably the leading scholar of Orthodox Jewish thought in Eastern Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. His books on Israel Salanter, Israel Ba’al Shem Tov, Shneur Zalman of Liady, and the Gaon of Vilna are all landmark studies of some of the most important figures in the development of the various streams of Eastern European Orthodoxy (all have appeared in English translation). The last of these books, on Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, who was known as the Gaon (“luminary”) of Vilna and was the greatest Orthodox, non-­Hasidic authority in late-­eighteenth-­century Eastern Europe, is immediately relevant to the present work. To understand the importance of Etkes’s book, it is necessary to tell his story counter-­chronologically. After the 1967 war in Israel, a messianic movement developed among Religious Zionists, some of whom led the settlement movement in the newly conquered territories. A number of writers, most notably Menachem Mendel Kasher, tried to give a historical and ideological pedigree to this new messianism. Kasher published a book called Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah (The great era), to which he appended the text Kol ha-­Tor (Voice of the turtledove), that purported to show that the Gaon of Vilna had instigated a messianic movement vii

viii

Foreword

of his followers to settle in the Land of Israel. The implication, which Etkes shows was taken up in school curricula and other popular sources, was that Zionism had its roots in the teachings of this foundational eighteenth-­century religious authority. This was a direct challenge to the secular Zionist narrative according to which the Zionists, starting in the 1880s, created a new settlement (New Yishuv) in opposition to the old settlement (Old Yishuv), which was made up of passive ultra-­Orthodox Jews. The secular Zionist narrative has been revised by a number of historians, most recently by Liora Halperin in her book The Oldest Guard. Halperin shows that the so-­called first secular Zionist immigration (aliyah) was a myth constructed in the 1920s. Others, such as Israel Bartal, have shown that the Old Yishuv was anything but static and passive. But the attempt to create a religious myth of origins has its roots not so much in historical criticism as in contemporary Orthodox Zionist ideology. Etkes’s book is therefore an important intervention in Zionist memory. With exquisite care, he demonstrates that Kol ha-­Tor, which many took in the 1970s and 1980s to be a genuine document originating in the circles around the Gaon of Vilna, was written in the 1940s by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, a descendent of a venerable rabbinic family whose founder, Binyamin Rivlin, was in fact a disciple of the Gaon. Rivlin’s other writings, starting in 1935, demonstrate that the anonymous Kol ha-­Tor was his own invention. Rivlin thus created what Etkes calls the “Rivlinian myth,” according to which Binyamin Rivlin’s son, Hillel Rivlin, received messianic instruction from the Gaon of Vilna to immigrate to the Land of Israel. The Rivlinian myth is hardly of esoteric consequence. On the contrary, one of the members of the Rivlin family, Reuven Rivlin, served as president of Israel, and in the 1990s a special session of the Knesset celebrated two hundred years of the Rivlin family as the ostensible founders of Zionism. Etkes takes this myth apart piece by piece. The Gaon of Vilna had no special messianic teaching, Kabbalistic or otherwise. He never gave instructions to his disciples to immigrate to the Land of Israel, especially not for messianic reasons. The whole argument is fabricated. Etkes is clearly motivated by the desire to show that the cooptation of Zionism by the religious is based on a historical fallacy that seeks to erase the secular modernist origins of Zionism. What is at stake here is not only historical truth but also the very identity of Zionism as a nationalist movement. David Biale Berkeley, California, November 2022

Acknowledgments

The Hebrew version of this book was published by Carmel-­Jerusalem Press in 2019. I would like to thank Yoseph Avivi, David Assaf, Israel Yuval, Benjamin Brown, and Ada Rapoport-­A lbert, who read the original manuscript and made helpful comments. David Assaf ’s good advice also accompanied me during the research work, and Israel Yuval encouraged me to publish this book. I am grateful to David Biale and Allan Nadler, the publisher’s readers who supported the production of an English version. Special thanks go to Margo Irvin, acquisitions editor for Stanford University Press, who accompanied the preparation of the English edition from its inception through all stages, and to Athena Lakri, copyeditor of the English translation, for her diligent and dedicated editing work. Finally, I wish to express my deep appreciation to Saadya Sternberg who toiled over the English translation with great intelligence and grace. Immanuel Etkes Jerusalem, March 2023

ix

This page intentionally left blank

THE I N V E N TION OF A TR A DITION

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

At a conference held at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center on October 15, 2009, on the bicentennial of the immigration of the Gaon of Vilna’s students to the Land of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, who was then speaker of the Knesset and later would become president of the State of Israel, said, among other things: Our family [the Rivlin family] can take pride in the steadfastness and the deep roots we have struck in the Land of Israel over the past two centuries, being among the first immigrants to come here, a century before the Zionist movement. Some of the family was blessed to serve as trailblazers of the immigration movement commanded by the Gaon of Vilna and his students. Herzl and his associates in the Zionist enterprise can take credit for many things, but the credit for primacy is reserved for our great grandparents, who changed the situation in the Land of Israel and laid the foundations for Zionism. This was the first true aliyah.1 Is this really true? Would it be right to regard the Gaon of Vilna and his students, those who immigrated to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century, as the first Zionists? Is there a historical basis for the assertion that the immigration of the Gaon’s disciples was the “first true aliyah”? Between 1808 and 1810, a group of Jewish rabbinic scholars from White Russia and Lithuania immigrated to the Land of Israel. Leading the immigrants of over forty households were some of the closest students of Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, the Gaon of Vilna.2 This group of immigrants laid the foundations of the settlement in the Land of Israel of the community known as the Prushim.3 In 1

2

Immanuel Etkes

their outlook, these people were Mitnagdim, opponents of Hasidism, and they regarded themselves as bearers of the legacy of the Vilna Gaon.4 The immigration of the Prushim in the early nineteenth century is the historical nucleus around which grew the myth according to which the Gaon and his disciples were the first true Zionists.5 As we shall see, this myth was crafted largely through the broad literary efforts of one man, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, in the 1930s and 1940s and has been enthusiastically adopted in certain quarters of Israeli society since the Six-­Day War. This book is devoted to the task of critically examining that myth in its various incarnations, discussing its reception, and clarifying the motives for its emergence and growth. Yet before turning to discuss the myth, some words are in order about the historical context of the immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel. Zionism—­with its ideals of national revival and independence of the Jewish people through immigration, settlement, and reclamation of the Land of Israel, and productive labor in agriculture and industry there—­is a movement that emerged in late nineteenth century, mainly in Eastern and Central Europe. Yet older, traditional Jewish communities did already exist in the Land of Israel. These were bolstered by immigrants who came with different ideals and lived on a different economic basis. The immigration by the Prushim in the early nineteenth century was in fact the second stage in the development of the Old Yishuv (that is, the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv, or “old settlement”) in the Land of Israel. The Prushim’s immigration was preceded by an immigration of Hasidim from Eastern Europe. Individual Hasidim came to the Land of Israel in the 1740s, 1750s, and 1760s. A convoy of about three hundred Jews, about half of them Hasidim, led by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk, and Rabbi Israel of Polotsk, immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1777. These immigrants settled in the two “holy cities” in the Galilee—­Safed and Tiberias. Shortly after the immigrants reached the Land of Israel, R. Israel of Polotsk was sent back to Eastern Europe to organize the raising of funds for their community. The underlying assumption for this mission was that the Hasidim residing in the Land of Israel were not expected to work for a living but rather to pray and study Torah, while their Hasidic brethren in Eastern Europe were expected to support them. This arrangement was based on three justifications. For one, the Hasidim residing in the Land of Israel are public emissaries who are fulfilling the mitzvah of settlement in the Land of Israel; although this mitzvah applies to every Jew, since it is inconceivable that all or most Jews will settle in the Land of Israel, the immigrant Hasidim serve to represent all of their brethren in the Diaspora. For another, the Hasidim who live in the Land of Israel pray for their

The Invention of a tradition

F IG U RE 1.

circa 1875.

3

A rabbi from the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. Photograph by Felix Bonafils,

brethren in the Diaspora; since the Land of Israel is the “gate of heaven,” prayers recited there are incomparably more beneficial than those recited in the Diaspora. Finally, the Hasidim who live in the Land of Israel are poor, and it is a mitzvah to support them. The head of the donation enterprise for the Hasidim in the Land of Israel in the last decades of the eighteenth century was R. Shneur Zalman of Liady, the founder and leader of Chabad Hasidism. At a later stage, additional Hasidic

4

Immanuel Etkes

l­eaders joined to manage the fundraising enterprise. The organizational framework entrusted with the distribution of donations among the Hasidim residing in the Land of Israel was the kolel, but over the years, the kolel of the Hasidim split into several kolels, each associated with the regions of Eastern Europe from which the immigrants had come. Thus, a situation arose in which the donations collected in a certain region of Eastern Europe were distributed among the Hasidim who originated from that region. As said, between 1808 and 1810, several dozen families from Lithuania and White Russia immigrated to the Land of Israel under the leadership of a few students of the Vilna Gaon. These Prushim first settled in Safed, and in 1816 some of them moved to Jerusalem and renewed the Ashkenazi settlement there. About a year after their arrival in the Land of Israel, R. Israel of Shklov, one of the leaders of this community, was sent back to Eastern Europe to organize fundraising there. Indeed, similar to the Hasidim, the Prushim who settled in the Land of Israel were likewise not expected to work for a living but rather to earn a living from the donations of their brothers in the Diaspora. The raising of funds for the Prushim was headed by R. Hayyim of Volozhin, the most senior of the students of the Vilna Gaon and the one who took over his role as the leader of the Mitnagdim camp. Like the Hasidim, the Prushim too established a kolel that was responsible for distributing the donations, through an arrangement known as the haluka. It is important to note that such reliance on donations from Diaspora Jews was typical of Ashkenazi immigrants (i.e., those of Eastern and Central European origin). For their part, the Sephardim, who until the middle of the nineteenth century constituted the vast majority of the Jews in the Land of Israel, made a living from commerce and small trade, while only the hachamim (i.e., the rabbis) benefited from donations from Jews of the Diaspora. Unlike the Ashkenazim, the Sephardim were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and knew the language and customs of the region, and their economic base was no different from that of Sephardic Jews who lived in other realms of the empire. The immigrations of both the Hasidim and Prushim to the Land of Israel can be characterized as traditional. These were aliyot of people belonging to the spiritual-­religious elite, whose purpose in immigrating to the Land of Israel was a quest to elevate their spirituality and quality of worship. For both the Hasidim and the Prushim, settling in the Land of Israel had special meaning, in addition to the value of fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling there and the possibility of fulfilling the additional mitzvoth that apply to the Land. The Hasidim, who prioritized fervent prayer as a means of mystical communication with the divinity, greatly prized the opportunity to pray at the tombs of celebrated Mishnaic and

The Invention of a tradition

5

Kabbalist figures. The Prushim, by contrast, greatly prized the opportunity to study Torah in the sanctified atmosphere of the Land of Israel. Over the course of the nineteenth century, a sharp gap developed between the religious ideals of the early members of the Old Yishuv and the reality that was emerging in the four “holy cities”: Safed, Tiberias, Hebron, and Jerusalem. The improvement in conditions of personal safety in the Land of Israel and the improvement in the means of maritime transportation led to an increase in Jewish immigration from Eastern and Central Europe. Many of the new immigrants were not among the class of rabbinic scholars for whom the contributions of the Jews of the Diaspora had been intended. Not all the descendants of the first immigrants were leading scholars either. This created a situation in which donations were distributed also to those who were not engaged in Torah study. Moreover, the increase in the number of recipients of the haluka funds was not matched by an increase in the amount of donations. As a result, many members of the Old Yishuv faced increasing economic hardship. What exacerbated the distress was the unequal nature of the distribution of funds. In the 1840s, Jews from Central and Western Europe began to initiate programs to modernize the system of education in the Old Yishuv. The purpose of these initiatives was to provide students with knowledge and skills that would let them make a living from their own labors. The most important initiative was that of the Lemel family of Vienna, and the envoy sent on its behalf to promote this initiative was Dr. Ludwig August Frenkel, secretary of the Jewish community in Vienna. Frenkel arrived in Jerusalem in 1856 and presented the leaders of the various communities his plan to establish a modern school. The Sephardic rabbis were persuaded by his arguments and tended to support the establishment of the school, while the heads of the Ashkenazi kolels strongly rejected it and even declared a boycott of anyone who sent their children to the new school. This reaction to the initiative of modernization in education reflected the conservative position of the heads of the Ashkenazi kolels, a position that was also reflected in regard to additional initiatives to modernize the Old Yishuv and shift its economic basis to productive labor. The defensive, isolationist position of the heads of the Ashkenazi kolels can be explained as an Orthodox response to the processes of secularization taking place among European Jews. In any case, the insistence of the heads of the Ashkenazi kolels on the idea that Jews residing in the Land of Israel are meant to be engaged in prayer and Torah study while their livelihoods rely on donations of Diaspora Jews ran sharply against the demographic and cultural changes that were taking place in the structure of the Old Yishuv in the nineteenth century. It is no wonder, therefore, that Jews from Central and Western Europe who visited the Land of Israel strongly criticized the leaders of

6

Immanuel Etkes

the Ashkenazi kolels and contributed to the creation of the negative image of the Old Yishuv. The negative image would only intensify when the Hibat Zion movement arose in the early 1880s.

The first appearance of the myth of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples as “the first Zionists” may be found in two books published in the late 1940s by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. The first, Hazon Zion (Vision of Zion), describes a Messianic Zionist movement supposedly launched in Shklov in the late eighteenth century at the initiative of R. Binyamin Rivlin and R. Hillel Rivlin, the patriarchs of the Rivlin family, with the blessings of the Gaon of Vilna. The core idea of this movement was that the first step toward Messianic Redemption must take the form of mass immigration to the Land of Israel, the greening of its wastelands, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The purpose of the aliyah of the Vilna Gaon’s students to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century, according to the myth, was to implement this ideal. The second book penned by Shlomo Zalman, Kol ha-­Tor (Voice of the turtledove), purports to present the Messianic Zionist teachings of the Vilna Gaon as conveyed to his disciple R. Hillel Rivlin. The book is full of Kabbalistic terminology, and the arguments presented in it often rely on hints from biblical verses and gematriot.6 The first two parts of the present study describe the Rivlinian myth in detail, examine it critically in light of sources from the period, trace its evolution, and discuss its adoption by authors who have sought to lend it the veneer of academic scholarship. The question in the background of the third and fourth parts of this book is that of the origin of Kol ha-­Tor. Put otherwise: Is there a basis to the claim of rabbinic authors and academic scholars that this book reflects an ancient tradition dating back to the students of the Vilna Gaon? To answer this question, I chose to set off on a voyage into the other writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. An examination of these writings permits us to acquaint ourselves with further aspects of the Rivlinian myth. Moreover, familiarity with the entirety of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s literary oeuvre serves as a fertile foundation for drawing conclusions about the origins of Kol ha-­Tor. The importance of a critical assessment of the Rivlinian myth goes beyond historical scholarship for its own sake, since for several decades this myth has been adopted by rabbis and educators of the Religious Zionist movement who seek to spread it among the broad public. Following the Six-­Day War, many of the Religious Zionists in Israel were caught up in Messianic modes of thought. The striking victory of the Israeli army in this war was interpreted by them as the fruit of divine intervention and a clear sign of Messianic Redemption. This point

The Invention of a tradition

7

of view also developed into the perspective that the entire Zionist enterprise was part of the process of Redemption and that the roots of Zionism had already been planted in the soil of a Messianic vision. In light of these currents of thought, it is easy to understand why authors belonging to the Religious Zionist camp adopted the Rivlinian myth and made efforts to wrap it in the mantle of academic respectability. At the same time, rabbis and educators from Religious Zionism have increasingly come to rely on Kol ha-­Tor as a book that reflects, supposedly, the Messianic Zionist doctrine of the Gaon of Vilna. The passionate adoption among some Religious Zionists of the myth about the Gaon of Vilna and his students as being the first Zionists is a denial of the fact that Zionism was a modern national movement, with all that this implies.

This page intentionally left blank

PART I

The books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor and the Rivlinian myth

This page intentionally left blank

1

Hazon Zion, a Messianic Zionist movement

In the beginning were the Rivlins. Certain members of the Rivlin family played key roles in the leadership of the Old Yishuv in the nineteenth century, and several were prominent during the twentieth century as well. As far as I know, there is no family in Israel whose literary documentation has been as extensive as that of the Rivlins, and the authors signing their names to this literature are often members of the Rivlin family themselves.1 One author from the Rivlin family also played a crucial role in the invention and crafting of the myth of the Gaon and his disciples as the first Zionists. The two books in which this myth reached its most developed form are Hazon Zion, Shklov ve-­Yerushalayim (Vision of Zion, Shklov and Jerusalem) and Kol ha-­Tor (Voice of the turtledove), both penned by Shlomo Zalman.2 Shlomo Zalman was born in Jerusalem in 1884 and died there in 1962. He was known as a cantor who conducted a choir named Song of Israel, and he ran a cantorial training institute with the same name. He also was a preacher and the author of several books. Hazon Zion, Shklov ve-­Yerushalayim, first published in 1947,3 presents an account of the emergence and activities of a movement of a Messianic Zionist character centered on the city of Shklov in White Russia.4 The movement, which like the book is called Hazon Zion, supposedly began operating in the late eighteenth century, and its founder and first leader was R. Binyamin Rivlin, considered the patriarch of the Rivlin family down through the generations. As Hazon Zion tells it, in 1780, when R. Binyamin was fifty-­two years of age, he and his partner, Yehoshua Zeitlin,5 came into a large sum of money following the sale of a forest to the Russian government. R. Binyamin wondered why the Holy One had conferred such gifts upon him and took it as a sign that he had 11

12

Immanuel Etkes

been selected for a mission from heaven. The essence of this mission was hinted at to R. Binyamin in a dream he had at the time. In seeking an interpretation of his dream, R. Binyamin turned to his relative and acquaintance the Gaon of Vilna. The author of Hazon Zion then describes the dream and the solution proposed by the Gaon: [According to a story] passed down from fathers to sons and preserved by the generation’s elders, at that time he [R. Binyamin] beheld in his dream a wonderful vision—­linked to a dictum of the sages—­regarding “all who reside in the Land of Israel and speak in the holy tongue” and relating to the verse “to witness the grace of the Creator and visit His palace.” R. Binyamin hastened to his rabbi, acquaintance, and cousin the Gaon R. Eliyahu of Vilna. . . . The Gaon solved [the puzzle of] R. Binyamin’s dream and informed him that his wealth had been given to him from heaven so that he would work for the settlement of the Holy Land. In the verse that R. Binyamin had seen in his dream, “to witness the grace of the Creator and visit His palace,” the Gaon found a gematria: the word benoam [in the grace of] indicates [has letter values numerically equivalent to] Binyamin; the word heichal [palace] indicates Hillel.  .  .  . And he found hints and heavenly instruction for him and his son R. Hillel to immigrate, behold, and reside in the Land of Israel and do all in their power for the Return to Zion. . . . R. Binyamin was amazed by this solution and promised the Gaon of Vilna that he would realize his dream and destiny, and when he returned to Shklov he set off to work.6 On his return to Shklov, R. Binyamin began to spread the word that the first stage of Redemption depended on the efforts of the nation. Indeed, the author of Hazon Zion is able to relate that “on the second day of Rosh Hashanah of 1781 . . . R. Binyamin mounted the platform of the Great Synagogue in Shklov and with passion and enthusiasm delivered a sermon on the commandment of the ‘Return to Zion.’ This sermon . . . would later be considered foundational for the influence of Zionism on the people of that time.”7 The sermon supposedly delivered by R. Binyamin is characterized by an interpretation of biblical verses in the drash manner. An example is the interpretation of the verse “I shall bring them from the land of the north and gather them from the corners of the earth” (Jeremiah 31:7): Not only the promise of Redemption but also the sequence and plan of preparation for Redemption’s path . . . are clearly implied in the prophet’s words.  .  .  . For it is precisely from here, from this very country [White

The Invention of a tradition

13

Russia], and especially from our town of Shklov, that the Redemption is to be launched. And who is to launch it?—­We are! It is upon us that the prophet has, in the name of God, conferred the vaunted task.8 A further example of the nature and content of the sermon is the following paragraph: And in Jeremiah chapter 32, on the same subject of Ephraim and the Land of the North, he concludes, “Fields shall be purchased with silver in the land of Binyamin and in the environs of Jerusalem and in the towns of Judea and in the lowland towns and in towns of the Negev, for I will reverse their captivity, thus sayeth the Lord,” which teaches us very well that as long as we have not by our many transgressions earned the right to a miraculous Redemption and to be carried “by means of clouds of the sky” (Daniel 7:13), it is our duty to fulfill the commandment “awaken, north!” by an awakening from below and the simplest means. . . . By hard work and by purchase of fields in the Land of Israel, God will reverse our captivity. And we are certain of the holy prophecy, for with us stands a great and mighty general—­Messiah ben Ephraim ben Yosef; he is with us in all our ways and in all we do. And happy the man who joins the pioneers in the community of immigrants ascending the mount of the Lord; and all those who tarry, it is their duty, at the least, to be among the participants aiding those who return with great financial support, as it is said “and those who return, by zedaka” [righteousness, but also charity], to permit Redemption by labor, by deeds, and speedily.9 In his remarks on Messiah ben (son of) Yosef the preacher hinted at the Vilna Gaon, for the idea that the Gaon is the embodiment of Messiah ben Yosef plays a central role in the Rivlinian myth. The author of Hazon Zion adds that R. Binyamin and his son R. Hillel set off on campaign trips and that as a result their efforts, a movement called Hazon Zion came into being. Preachers were sent to spread word of the Return to Zion in the communities, and synagogue officials were appointed to gather donations to fund immigration to the Holy Land. And if that were not enough, the members of the new movement also called for the transformation of the language of Hebrew into a new spoken language and even composed melodies for songs about Zion.10 Following the death of the Gaon in 1797, R. Binyamin took it upon himself to fill the void created in the movement’s leadership and continued to work for immigration to the Land of Israel. In his eulogy for the Gaon, he even spec-

14

Immanuel Etkes

ified the year 1840 as the date for the event of the Redemption, based on the Zohar.11 When R. Binyamin grew elderly, the movement’s leadership passed to his son, R. Hillel. He too toured the congregations preaching “passionate, fiery sermons” and launched fundraising campaigns. R. Hillel’s activities reached their peak when he initiated and ran a nationwide convention for the Return to Zion. This convention, supposedly held in Shklov in 1806, was attended by community rabbis, philanthropists, and businessmen from across the Russian Empire.12 What was the aim of this movement? About this, the author of Hazon Zion writes, “The main purpose of the Vilna Gaon and his disciples and of the Hazon Zion movement [was] to hasten the Redemption via action. . . . They took upon themselves the role of preparing the ground for the Redemption, which was to come in 1840, based on the Zohar.”13 Underlying the Messianic Zionist enterprise of the Gaon and his disciples was thus the assumption that Redemption was to begin by the actions of human beings and by natural means, and only subsequently would the complete Redemption take place via heavenly intervention. The first step to take was to bring multitudes of Jews to the Land of Israel. A concentration of six hundred thousand Jews in the Holy Land would bring about the return of the Divine Presence, the Shechinah, from its exile.14 Among the additional actions required to promote Redemption, the author of Hazon Zion lists the transfer of the center of Torah study to Jerusalem and the building of Jerusalem—­that is, the construction of new neighborhoods in the city. This action too would be of metaphysical significance, since the building of Jerusalem would count as a “war of God against Amalek.”15 Among the “modes of realization” of the Messianic Zionist enterprise, the author of Hazon Zion emphasizes the role of the poor. As he viewed it, it was precisely the poor who would build the Land of Israel. He also lists among “modes of realization” the requirement of maintaining secrecy “so as to not be interfered with by the Gentiles.” It was the need to maintain secrecy that led to the choice of the title Hazon Zion (Vision of Zion), although the title “Return to Zion” would have better suited the movement’s aspirations and enterprises.16 So much for the main points of the narrative about the Hazon Zion movement, which supposedly underpinned the immigration of the Prushim. And here, anyone versed in the history of Eastern European Jews in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and in the history of nineteenth century Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel and the history of Zionism, does not require special scrutiny to discern that the story of the Hazon Zion movement has no basis in reality. This tale is no more than an anachronistic projection of the Hibat Zion movement from the 1880s onto the late eighteenth century. The characteristics attributed here to the Hazon Zion movement are well

The Invention of a tradition

15

known from the history of Hibat Zion: propaganda by preachers who traveled around the Jewish communities, the establishment of local committees, the raising of funds to finance aliyah to the Land of Israel, and advocacy for speaking Hebrew and composing poetry that expresses yearnings for the Land of Israel. As if these were not enough, we even have here a national convention, probably an echo of the conventions of the Hibat Zion movement in Katowice or perhaps also of the first Zionist Congress in Basel. The claim that the new movement was required to operate in secret out of fear of the Gentile response reflects concerns about the Turkish government’s response during the “First Aliyah.”17 Further, the idea that it is the poor who will build the Land is an echo of what Theodor Herzl wrote in Der Judenstaat. However, if Hibat Zion rose into action following waves of pogroms in Russia and was inspired by modern European nationalism, then the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna who founded the Hazon Zion movement were inspired by clues from biblical verses and sayings of the Sages that came to R. Binyamin Rivlin in a dream and were resolved by an interpretation of the Gaon of Vilna. The refutations of the Rivlinian tale about a Hazon Zion movement are sufficiently numerous. First of all, decisive weight must be accorded to the fact that in all the sources known to us from the period in question, there is no sign of an immigration movement of a Messianic Zionist complexion. It is inconceivable that such a movement, had it existed, would have left no trace in the writings of contemporaries. What, nevertheless, do we know about the real R. Binyamin Rivlin, who was described as the founder of the Hazon Zion movement and as its first leader? The most detailed testimony that we have about R. Binyamin is the work of Mordechai Natanshon, son-­in-­law of the wealthy personage Yehoshua Zeitlin of Shklov. Zeitlin was famous for hosting on his estate in Ustye,18 White Russia, some of the leading lights of the generation, including R. Binyamin Rivlin. Natanshon’s testimony refers to the period when he was a close associate of R. Binyamin and is based on the intimate acquaintance established between them. Natanshon describes R. Binyamin’s physical appearance, style of prayer and of Torah study, interest in the natural sciences, knowledge of herbs, and personal virtues. The entire description is marked by the deep respect and affection he holds for R. Binyamin’s personality.19 As a marginal part of his account, Natanshon turns to a description of R. Binyamin in his later years. When the French forces invaded Russia in the summer of 1812 all members of the household and friends of Yehoshua Zeitlin fled to the nearby city of Cherikov (Cherykaw). Among the refugees was R. Binyamin. When he learned that Napoleon’s army had been defeated, R. Binyamin was overjoyed:

16

Immanuel Etkes

He made a feast for all his friends, myself included; and then the Hasid [R. Binyamin] announced to us that he planned to go to the Land of Israel. He came to the court of the gaon [R. Yehoshua Zeitlin] and blessed each member of the gaon’s family, one after the other, bidding adieu to the great man with a kiss of farewell. We then traveled several versts to send him off, as instructed by the Gaon. Yet he was unable to succeed in the Lord’s wishes for on his return to Cherikov he traveled to Mohilev [Mogilev] on the Dnieper . . . ; there he did not last long but grew ill and weak and was taken from us, in the fulness of his years.20 It thus emerges that R. Binyamin’s desire to immigrate to the Land of Israel had nothing to do with any Messianic Zionist movement and did not deviate at all from the pattern that prevailed at the time among pious individuals who hoped in their final years to absorb some of the sanctity of the Land of Israel. And if the testimony of Mordechai Natanshon does not suffice, let us permit R. Binyamin to testify on his own behalf. In 1804, R. Binyamin published his book Gvi’ei Gavia Kesef (Goblets of silver).21 The book contains an exegesis of difficult biblical verses and topics from Talmudic disquisitions. The author finds an apparent problem in the comprehension of a verse and resolves it interpretively by the aid of midrashic explanations. As to the Talmudic components, the author dwells on passages that pose some difficulty in the midrash or in the halacha and then resolves the difficulty often via reference to the Jerusalem Talmud. What distinguishes the book and gives it importance are the topics on which the author cites his teacher and rabbi, the Gaon of Vilna. Yet anyone who searches this book from beginning to end will not find even a shred of the Messianic Zionist ideas that Shlomo Zalman has R. Binyamin say in the sermons he attributes to him in the book Hazon Zion. The author of Hazon Zion seeks to account for the fact that R. Binyamin was not among the first of the Prushim to immigrate to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1810, by the assertion that he was busy with the conflict between Hasidim and Mitnagdim, trying to mitigate the strife between them.22 However, the considerable documentation we have on the Hasidim-­Mitnagdim conflict contains no evidence of any such involvement by R. Binyamin.23 Regardless, the explanation that R. Binyamin could not join the immigrants because he was preoccupied with this conflict is puzzling because this conflict had been terminated a few years earlier by the forcible intervention of the Russian government.24 We might also add that the tale of R. Binyamin being the business partner of the wealthy dignitary Yehoshua Zeitlin likewise had its origins in the prolific imagination of the author of Hazon Zion.

The Invention of a tradition

17

What about R. Hillel Rivlin, who, according to Hazon Zion, took his father’s place in the movement’s leadership and headed the first group of Prushim that immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1808? It turns out that even in this regard, the Rivlinian story floats on clouds of imagination. In a 1992 article examining the Rivlinian tradition about the role played by R. Binyamin and R. Hillel in the immigration of the Prushim, Arie Morgenstern argues that R. Hillel did not come to the Land of Israel with the first group of immigrants.25 Morgenstern draws on a series of letters and documents relating to the beginning of the settlement of the Prushim in the Land of Israel: R. Hillel is not mentioned in them. On the other hand, after the aliyah of R. Hillel to the Land of Israel in 1832 at the earliest, there is a record of his involvement in public affairs. Conclusive proof of this assertion arrived a few years later, when archival documents were found indicating that R. Hillel received his passport for a pilgrimage to the Land of Israel in 1832.26

2

The main ideas of Kol ha-­Tor

The second book that presents the myth of the Gaon and his students as the first Zionists is the book Kol ha-­Tor. The subject of this work, also written by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, is indicated by the author on its opening page—­The Prelude to the Messiah: A Precis of the Seven Chapters on Redemption by the Kabbalistic Gaon R. Hillel Shklover, Relative and Disciple of the GRA [Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna] of Blessed Memory.1 The book thus purports to present the Messianic doctrine of the Gaon of Vilna as formulated in the writings of his disciple R. Hillel Rivlin. Initially printed by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin serially between 1946 and 1947, for lack of funds only some 150 copies were printed, and these were distributed among family and friends. Moreover, the first edition did not include the entire composition, just five of its seven chapters.2 At the core of the book is an account of the process of the athalta de-­geula, the “beginnings of Redemption”; the role that the Gaon was said to play in this process; and the responsibility for realizing his vision, which the Gaon delegated to his students. The leading figure in the athalta de-­geula is Messiah ben Yosef. Accordingly it is the Gaon of Vilna, said to be a “spark of the soul” of Messiah ben Yosef, who bears the main responsibility for actuating Redemption. The Gaon’s mission is to work for the ingathering of the exiles and the rebuilding of Jerusalem via his disciples. All secrets related to the process of Redemption were revealed to the Gaon, from the ikveta de-­meshiha (the period preceding and heralding the Messiah’s coming)3 to the “final and ultimate ketz (end).” The Gaon disclosed these to his disciples, and they “faithfully promised him that they would immigrate to Zion and begin the work of ingathering the exiles.”4 Like the events in the times of Cyrus, Redemption would begin by natural 18

The Invention of a tradition

19

rather than supernatural means and involves obtaining permission from the kings of the nations. The first stage of Redemption is to come “from the Left Side” and have the “quality of judgment” (i.e., of hardship). Later “from the Right Side” will come the complete Redemption: this will have “the quality of grace.”5 One of the characteristics of the early stage of Redemption is the slow and gradual pace of its progress, kim’a kim’a,6 bit by bit. The necessary conclusion is that small-­scale activities also advance the process of Redemption. Another important feature of the early stage of Redemption is the principle of secrecy. This idea, which we have already found in Hazon Zion, in Kol ha-­Tor7 is attributed to the Gaon himself and is based on gematria. One of the Gaon’s functions as Messiah ben Yosef is to discover the Torah’s hidden essences. The preoccupation with Torah secrets is supposed to hasten the arrival of Redemption and to be one of its manifestations.8 Although Redemption in its initial phase is supposed to follow a natural path, the author of Kol ha-­Tor also seeks to invest it with a metaphysical dimension, since “the building of the Land of Israel has the purpose of banishing the SM [Samael, Satan] from the gates of Jerusalem.”9 Moreover, the realization of the vision of ingathering of the exiles has a crucial effect on the flux of divine abundance: The ingathering of exiles clears the way for the flow of Upper Abundance to Israel, the abundance of all the supreme virtues that come via Zion and Jerusalem. . . . So long as Zion is desolate, a spirit of impurity controls it, which blocks the passage of the Supreme Abundance; only the building of Jerusalem can enhance this channel, as the scriptures say: “Jerusalem, built as a city that is joined together.”10 The idea that the flow of divine abundance from the upper worlds depends on the building of Zion and Jerusalem is a Rivlinian novelty with no basis in Kabbalist literature in general or in the Vilna Gaon’s writings in particular. It is scarcely surprising that in the absence of a source in Kabbalistic literature the author of Kol ha-­Tor bases this theosophical innovation on hints from biblical verses. Another important task that the Gaon assigned to his disciples for the initial period of Redemption was study of the sciences. The Gaon himself often engaged in “investigations into the qualities of nature,” and he did so “to advance the wisdom of the Torah and to sanctify the Creator as viewed by the nations and for hastening the arrival of Redemption.”11 The requirement that his disciples engage in study of the sciences was justified by the Gaon on the basis of the need to demonstrate the spiritual superiority of the Jewish people compared to other nations. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the Gaon spoke to his followers in praise of the great Jewish figures from past generations, who sanctified heaven

20

Immanuel Etkes

by being conversant with the natural sciences. At the same time he criticized the Torah scholars of his own generation who were not such.12 The metaphysical dimension of the athalta de-­geula is accentuated where the author of Kol ha-­Tor broaches the subject of “the Two Messiahs,” Messiah ben Yosef and Messiah ben David. “The Two Messiahs are the miraculous forces keeping the Jewish people alive and sustaining them throughout the entire period of exile, and the miraculous forces that assist during the period preceding the Messiah. Messiah ben Yosef is the miraculous force for material existence and strengthening, and Messiah ben David is the miraculous force for the spiritual existence of the Jewish people.”13 Evidently the Two Messiahs exist and operate in each and every generation and are even mutually dependent. However, the Two Messiahs cannot fulfill their destiny as long as the people of Israel and the Shechinah (divine presence) are stuck in exile. Therefore, one of the objectives of the ingathering of exiles to the Land of Israel is to bring about the “conjunction of the Two Messiahs within the gates of Jerusalem.”14 These are a few of the main ideas set forth in Kol ha-­Tor. What we have, then, is a Messianic Zionist doctrine dressed in Kabbalistic attire and presented as a product of the Gaon’s mind, as formulated by his “disciple” R. Hillel Rivlin. It thus emerges that the books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor are two sides of the same coin. The first of the two books describes the Messianic Zionist movement founded, purportedly, by the disciples of the Gaon in Shklov, while the second book presents the conceptual apparatus that served as the ideological substrate for this movement. Indeed, many of the ideas about Redemption that appear in Hazon Zion are identical to those presented in a more developed way in Kol ha-­Tor. This conceptual identity can serve as an indication that both books were indeed penned by a single author, to wit Shlomo Zalman Rivlin.15

3

Does Kol ha-­Tor express a Messianic Zionist doctrine held by the Vilna Gaon?

Is there any truth to the “cover story” of Kol ha-­Tor? Was this book indeed authored by Rabbi Hillel Rivlin as a direct reflection of the Gaon’s statements? The first doubt to arise here concerns whether R. Hillel was even one of the disciples of the Gaon. Certain lists have come down to us of the personages who were considered disciples of the Vilna Gaon. The earliest is the one compiled by R. Avraham and R. Yehuda Leib, sons of the Gaon, and is included in their preface to the Gaon of Vilna’s commentary to the Shulkhan Aruch, Orach Hayyim. The list begins with R. Hayyim of Volozhin, the most senior of the students. It then continues with the names of R. Shlomo of Vilkomir; R. Shlomo Zalman, younger brother of R. Hayyim of Volozhin; and R. Saadia, a brother-­in-­law of Shlomo Zalman of Volozhin and someone who served the Gaon for many years. The sons of the Gaon mention three other disciples, and then they come to R. Binyamin Rivlin of Shklov. About him they write, “He had the privilege of hearing from his holy and pure mouth during the studies. And the light of his Torah and yira [awe] has been upon him ever since, in his manners and his behavior.” The sons of the Gaon also write that R. Binyamin worked to instill their father’s ways of learning Torah among the scholars of Shklov. After listing R. Binyamin’s qualities, the sons of the Gaon go on to mention two brothers from the Shklov community whose Torah knowledge derived from their father in person—­R . Simcha Bunim and R. Menachem Mendel. Yet the name of R. Hillel Rivlin, son of R. Binyamin, is not mentioned at all as a disciple of the Gaon.1 A later list of the Gaon’s disciples was included in Aliyot Eliyahu (Eliyahu’s ascensions),2 the first biography of the Gaon, published in Vilna in 1856. The book’s 21

22

Immanuel Etkes

author, R. Yehoshua Heschel Levin, based his text on the testimonies and traditions preserved within the circle of the Gaon’s disciples and admirers.3 When naming the Gaon’s disciples, the author of Aliyot Eliyahu added one name to the list given by the sons of the Gaon: R. Israel of Shklov, “who was privileged to gaze on the face of our rabbi for six months before he was asked to join the yeshiva of the heavens and was privileged to act as a servant to his master.”4 This list too does not contain the name of R. Hillel Rivlin. Indeed, R. Hillel is mentioned in Aliyot Eliyahu in connection with the Gaon, but only for a story that he himself related to R. David Luria of Bichov: Our rabbi and teacher Hillel of Shklov told me . . . that he was once in Vilna and came and stood before our rabbi of blessed memory in his room. [The latter] was pacing and going over his Talmudic subject with such great concentration that he did not notice [R. Hillel’s] presence. Several times when our late rabbi was pacing back and forth, he even bumped into him until it became necessary for him to step aside. After a while (presumably when he had concluded the subject [of his ruminations]) he noticed him suddenly and asked him how he was doing and how was his student Rabbi Binyamin, our teacher.5 What we find is that R. Hillel was among those who visited the Gaon’s home. This is reasonable given the close relationship between the Gaon and his father, R. Binyamin. Indeed, to be counted as one of the regulars at the home of the Gaon is no small matter! For all that, a disciple of the Gaon he was not. The question therefore arises: Is it conceivable that the Gaon would have revealed his Messianic doctrine, a doctrine on which the fate of Israel depends, to a son of his disciple and not to one of his most senior disciples? And why did he not reveal the secrets of Redemption to the most senior of his disciples, R. Hayyim of Volozhin, who was to take his place as leader of the Mitnagdim camp and who, in his own book Nefesh ha-­Hayyim (The soul of life), revealed himself to be a profound and original Kabbalist? Alternatively, would it not have been more appropriate for the Gaon to bequeath his Messianic doctrine to R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, who served him in his twilight years, recorded the Gaon’s interpretation of the Song of Songs directly from him, and a few years later became the leader of the first group of Prushim in the Land of Israel? The testimony most significant to our case is the statement written by R. Hillel Rivlin himself about his immigration to the Land of Israel, in a letter that he sent while residing in Jerusalem to his son-­in-­law, R. Shmarya Luria. This letter from the month of Tevet 1835 is apparently the only letter by R. Hillel that has

The Invention of a tradition

23

survived and was passed down within the Rivlin family. The letter primarily deals with financial matters: R. Hillel asks his son-­in-­law and his sons to sell his stores in Shklov and deposit the money with community notables whom he counts as his friends, as the basis of a loan. These notables are to send him “with a complete hechsher,” that is, at the interest rate that the halacha permits for businesses, a small percentage of the loan amount that he can use for a living. Following this request, he writes:6 There is no shame in this in my opinion, for it seems clear that it is from He Who Ordains All Things that this was done, to bring me to a condition I did not want; as everyone knows, it was only in the throes of love that I was drawn to this place in our old age, leaving us here forlorn and exhausted. Of course, I accept everything with great love because it must be that His intentions were for the greatest good, or that I was meant to atone for my many sins or to make here the repairs that by the grace of God I have been able to repair. For without a shred of a doubt by our many sins the people here were eating all sorts of treif foods and other abominations, and when what is disclosed here is seen by the eminent rabbis from here they will know what they must repair. And I hope that my words will bear fruit, by the aid of God. And if my only reason for coming here was for this matter, that would be sufficient.7 Why was it only when he was in Jerusalem that R. Hillel ordered his family to sell his assets in Shklov so that he could make a living from them? Perhaps he traveled to the Land of Israel for a visit and only once he was in Jerusalem decided to settle there? One way or the other, what he wrote about the significance of his residence in Jerusalem is as clear as day: The Holy One so ordained matters that he would come to Jerusalem in his old age, in order that he would atone for his sins or so that he would act to fix flaws in the shoddy local practice of ritual slaughter for kosher food. His immigration to the Land of Israel had nothing to do with any Messianic initiative or plan originating with the Vilna Gaon. Let’s leave R. Hillel and return to Kol ha-­Tor. Is there any basis for Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s claim that this book is a “precis” of a far older work inspired by the Gaon? A doubt about the truth of this assertion arises first of all in light of the fact that we have no knowledge of any manuscript of such a book. Moreover, in his book, Shlomo Zalman does not cite a single sentence from the original work that he supposedly held in front of him. In fact, there is no evidence that Kol ha-­ Tor was known to anyone prior to its first publication in 1946–­47 since we have not encountered even a single author who cited a book by this name, relied on

F IG U RE 2 .

Hillel Rivlin’s letter from the year 1835 to his family in Shklov.

The Invention of a tradition

25

it, or even mentioned it prior to its first publication. Furthermore, as we will see, even the authors of the Rivlin family did not know of the existence of a book by this name before it was printed by Shlomo Zalman. Let us now turn to the main assertion that the book advances: Did the Gaon of Vilna have a Messianic Zionist doctrine that he instilled in his disciples and that served as the ideological platform for their immigration to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century? This question must be answered negatively in light of the resounding silence of all the competent sources from which we indeed learn about the spiritual world of the Gaon. I will list some of them: the preface by R. Hayyim of Volozhin to the Gaon’s commentary on Sifra Detsniuta; R. Hayyim’s preface to the Gaon’s commentary on Shulkhan Aruch, Orach Hayyim; R. Hayyim’s preface to the Gaon’s commentaries on the Zohar; R. Hayyim’s epistle about the founding of the yeshiva in Volozhin; the preface by the sons of the Gaon to his commentary on Shulkhan Aruch, Orach Hayyim; the preface by R. Avraham, son of the Gaon, to Shnot Eliyahu on Talmud tractate Zera’im; the preface by the sons of the Gaon to Aderet Eliyahu; the foreword by R. Israel ben Shmuel mi-­Shklov to Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan. These prefaces, and a few others like them, contain the most detailed and trustworthy information about the figure of the Gaon, his way of life, and his spiritual world, as these were known to and made impressions on the people closest to him.8 The sons of the Gaon and his disciples were able to tell of his extraordinary powers as a Torah scholar for both nigleh and nistar (“revealed” and “hidden” or esoteric matters), of his pathbreaking methods of Talmud study, of his extreme asceticism, and of his exceptional moral virtues. They also tell about the ascensions of the soul that he sometimes experienced and about the maggidim, that is, supernatural entities that revealed themselves to him seeking to disclose to him Torah mysteries. And yet, in all of these testimonies, there isn’t the slightest hint of the existence of a Messianic Zionist doctrine that he instilled in his disciples, a doctrine that motivated their immigration to the Land of Israel.9 As is well known, the Gaon did try to immigrate to the Land of Israel but never was able to get there. One of his sons wrote about this issue as follows: “In his old age, I asked him many times why he had not traveled to the Holy Land, and he did not answer me. One time I implored him to tell me, and he replied “I don’t have permission from heaven.”10 This opaque answer can be interpreted in several different ways. However, it does not particularly support the claim that the Gaon’s attempt to immigrate to the Land of Israel was related to a Messianic hope. Such an assertion takes an even firmer shape when one considers the farewell letter that the Gaon sent to his family when he set off on his attempted voyage to the Land of Israel.11

26

Immanuel Etkes

Although it is a personal letter intended for his mother, wife, and children, it can also be seen as a spiritual will. Among other things, the Gaon wrote about the vanity of the life of this world, advised abstention from social life, warned against the “sins of the tongue,” praised the study of books of morals, and expanded on the education of boys and girls. Three times, the Gaon mentions the Land of Israel in his letter. At the beginning of the letter he writes, “I have come to ask you not to grieve at all . . . nor to worry. . . . Look, people go on trips for a few years to earn money; they leave their wives and even wander about destitute. And I thank God I am traveling to the Holy Land, which everyone hopes to see, as the darling of all the Jewish people.” Later in the letter, speaking about the education of children, he cautions, “And a request to all of you . . . : Guide your sons and daughters, mainly using soft words and moral counsels that are a comfort to them, especially if we are privileged to come to the Land of Israel, for there the need is great to walk in Godly ways.” Toward the end of the letter, he addresses his mother, in these words: My beloved mother, I know you don’t need moral counsel from me, as I know how modest you are. . . . I very much ask of you this humble request, that you not grieve over me as you promised me. And if God wishes it, if I get to be in Jerusalem the Holy City by the Gate of Heaven, I will pray for you as I promised. And if it is granted us we shall all see each other again, if the All-­Merciful wills it. We thus find that the Gaon was drawn to the Land of Israel because of its holiness. He believes that those who are privileged to reside in the Land of Israel must take extra care to lead a lifestyle that would be considered “Godly.” He likewise promises to pray for his family in Jerusalem, as it is the “Gate of Heaven,” and he twice mentions the possibility of his family joining him and coming themselves to the Land of Israel. Anyone reading this letter will not find in it the slightest hint of a Messianic expectation, let alone a Messianic doctrine.

PART II

The Vilna Gaon and his disciples as the first Zionists: The evolution of a myth

This page intentionally left blank

4

Why did the disciples of the Vilna Gaon immigrate to the Land of Israel?

Did the Prushim who immigrated to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1810 do so at the command of the Gaon? Was their immigration fundamentally driven by a Messianic doctrine or at the least by a Messianic expectation? The most compelling answer to these questions derives from what the immigrants themselves wrote. We have the testimonies of two of the Gaon’s students who immigrated to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1810, namely R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov and R. Israel of Shklov. R. Menachem Mendel is cited in the foreword to his Sha’ar ha-­Tzimtzum, a book that came in manuscript form into the hands of Aryeh Leib Frumkin, author of Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim (A history of the sages of Jerusalem). Here are the passages as Frumkin copied them from the manuscript: Know that “surely I am the most ignorant of men,”1 and “what is man that you should know him,”2 yet my lowliness and poverty were seen by God, and I was brought to the house of the great master, the gaon and rabbi of all the Jews in exile, of Vilna: the Lord granted me his favor, and I served him with all my might, and during all of these two years minus a third that I was with him, I did not move from him. I held him and did not let go, his tent I left neither day nor night, where he went I did follow, where he slept I did sleep, my hand left not his for one instant. He opened me with the key to wisdom and told me some precious things that expanded [me]. Also, what he said to others, my ears too heard and comprehended, and I built on these great and deep structures. . . . And by virtue of him 29

30

Immanuel Etkes

and by virtue of my righteous and honest forefathers, and by virtue of the people of Israel, I have been brought to the Holy Land, to establish my residence in the holy town of Safed, may it be built and established speedily in our days, and by the aid of God I founded there halls for Torah study and prayer, filled with books. This was small in His eyes, so He brought me to Jerusalem the Holy City of our Lord. There too was the Holy One and His worshippers, that is, the notables who helped me; and with the aid of God I founded a study hall and synagogue for Torah and prayer, and now the Lord has helped me to extract the ancient ruins in Jerusalem that had belonged to our Ashkenazi brothers a hundred years ago, with a synagogue inside that had been taken over by foreigners and Gentiles and had gone to ruin and desolation, and now by His great mercy and grace I got it out of their hands, and I said: this is what our Sages meant by the dictum “Anyone who takes pleasure from the feast of a groom, etc., if he gladdens him he earns the right to Torah; and Rav Nahman ben Yitzhak said: it is as if he built one of the ruins of Jerusalem. . . .” And He granted me the privilege of building a synagogue, which is a bit of a temple in the city of our Holy Lord.3 What we have here is an autobiographical testimony in which R. Menachem Mendel recounts events that seemed of great significance to him. Describing his time with the Gaon of Vilna, he emphasizes the intimate nature of their relationship. What he learned from his rabbi at the time served as the foundation for the “great and deep structures” that he was destined to build himself. His success in immigrating to the Land of Israel he attributes to the virtue of the Gaon, as well as to the virtue of his righteous ancestors and that of all the Jewish people. At the center of his enterprises in Safed was the effort to establish a beit midrash (study hall) and a synagogue for Torah study and prayer. Finally, R. Menachem Mendel believes that a great privilege has fallen to him in that he was able to redeem the ruin of the synagogue of R. Yehuda he-­Hasid from the Muslim creditors. The special quality of this act he sees as its fulfilment of a dictum of the Sages, that he who gladdens a groom, it is “as if he had built one of the ruins of Jerusalem.”4 We have therefore found that a close disciple of the Gaon, the one who headed the first wave of immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel, does not in a single word imply that his immigration to the Holy Land involved a Messianic expectation. Moreover, he does not even claim to have immigrated to the Land of Israel on the orders of the Gaon. While the Gaon of Vilna’s virtue stood him in good stead for this success, so did the virtue of his ancestors and the virtue of the

The Invention of a tradition

F IG U RE 3.

31

The Jewish quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem.

whole of the Jewish people. And there can be no doubt that if his immigration to Israel had indeed been a fulfilment of the Gaon’s command, R. Menachem Mendel would have shouted this from the rooftops. The second testimony we have comes, as said, from R. Israel of Shklov.5 This testimony was copied by the author of Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim (A history of the sages of Jerusalem) from the pinkas (record book) of the yeshiva in Safed.6 R. Israel of Shklov begins by describing the three waves of immigration of the students of the Vilna Gaon: in 1808 R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov immigrated; in 1809 another group of immigrants, led by the Gaon’s student R. Saadia, set out for the Land of Israel; and the third and final group in the first wave of immigration of the Prushim left for the Land of Israel in 1810, headed by two disciples of the Gaon, R. Hayyim Katz of Pakrai, and R. Israel of Shklov himself. When R.

32

Immanuel Etkes

Israel of Shklov arrived in Safed in the month of Tishrei 1810, he described what he found there: About 40 householders, 150 dear souls. And there were exceptional scholars and worshippers of the Lord, elderly, pious, and pure; it was quite crowded. Our teacher and rabbi Menachem Mendel was their leader and breadwinner, providing a living by obtaining kosher loans just to keep alive souls able to engage in Torah and worship.7 R. Israel of Shklov also tells in detail about the mission that he himself was called on to undertake. When less than a year had passed since he had taken up residence in Safed, the leaders of the community of Prushim approached him and urged him to return and travel to Lithuania and White Russia on a campaign to raise funds. Of the doubts that tormented him regarding this summons, R. Israel of Shklov writes: It was as heavy on me as the weight of stone and the burden of sand, this weighty burden, to leave the Holy Land to which I had bonded with great anguish and longing like one who thirsts for water; dear is she to me and sweeter than all. . . . And to leave my household entirely and my home that I had then here, and the studies in the yeshiva that we had founded in the house of the high priest [Menachem Mendel]: Talmud closely studied with the Shulkhan Aruch and the Vilna Gaon’s commentary, which I had labored to arrange, me leading the lesson along with several great scholars. Yet they so pressed their request on me and insisted so mightily, for numerous were the benches in our kolel, filled with those coming to the Land of Israel without means of sustenance and livelihood.8 Later, R. Israel of Shklov describes his trip to Russia; his efforts to run the fundraising campaign in the provinces of Lithuania, White Russia, and Poland; and the hardships on the trip back to the Land of Israel, a voyage prolonged by the invasion of Russia by the armies of France.9 Thus, like R. Menachem Mendel, R. Israel of Shklov does not link the immigration to the Land of Israel by students of the Gaon to any initiative or instruction of their rabbi. Likewise, his words give no support to the claim that this immigration involved a Messianic expectation. When these two personalities speak of the religious significance of their residence in Israel, which they do in complete candor, what they note is the centrality of Torah study. This assertion applies also to a further testimony from R. Israel of Shklov, namely the account of his time in the Land of Israel, which he included in the foreword to his book Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan.10

The Invention of a tradition

33

More explicit evidence of the goals and significance of the immigration of Vilna Gaon’s students to the Land of Israel may be found in two letters that R. Israel of Shklov carried with him as he made his way to Russia to manage the fundraising campaign on behalf of the community of Prushim in Safed. One is a personal letter sent by R. Hayyim Katz to his acquaintances in Lithuania; the other is an official letter signed by ten of the leaders of the Prushim in Safed.11 R. Israel of Shklov made sure to have these letters printed and sent to the communities from which he hoped to win financial support.12 Hence, he considered these letters as representing the wishes of the Prushim community in the Land of Israel. The letter by R. Hayyim Katz is a personal one in which he answers questions from his acquaintances in Lithuania. Nevertheless, this letter is of general significance because it addresses concerns anyone would have if considering immigrating to the Land of Israel to join the Prushim community in Safed. Two main issues worried the recipients, the question of personal safety and the question of livelihood. R. Hayyim reassures his acquaintances on the first point: “Thank God, peace and quiet reign here and there are no attacks from the Gentiles.”13 On the second point, R. Hayyim reports that the Sephardim who live in the Holy Land make a decent living from trade but the Ashkenazim cannot engage in trade “because of the language obstacle,” and also because “here the custom is that women do not sit in stores.”14 To these two practical reasons, R. Hayyim adds an explanation that is the main one from the point of view of our discussion: “And our people who come to the Holy Land for the most part come to attain purity and to be occupants of the beit midrash, toiling over Torah and worship.”15 In his description of the Prushim who dwell in Safed as those who seek to attain a moral-­religious purity by devoting the bulk of their time to Torah study, the writer of this letter reveals the significance of the immigration as he sees it and as it was regarded by the group of which he was one of the leaders. That the main occupation of the Prushim residents of Safed was Torah study, we learn also several paragraphs later in the letter. Here is how R. Hayyim describes the daily study routine that the members of the group assigned themselves: On the issue of study: we founded a beit midrash in a residence that we had rented for this purpose, which we named after the great rabbi, leader of all the exilic communities, our Rabbi Eliyahu Hasid [the pious] who rests in Eden. And there in constant study is the famous pious rabbi our teacher Saadia, may the All-­Merciful keep and sustain him; he gives the lesson in Talmud, and commentaries. . . . And due to the great number of books and the limited space of the beit midrash, we set up regular study sessions

34

Immanuel Etkes

in my home. Every day the exceptional Torah scholars come to my home, lovers of the essence of study; we learn Talmud with Rishonim and the Shulkhan Aruch with the commentary of our rabbi the Gaon, who rests in Eden. And the great pious Kabbalist our teacher and rabbi Menachem Mendel, may his candle shine, recites the lesson, and God be blessed there is no study session without an interpretive innovation. And we are privileged to taste of the essential, as the Sages said: “The air of the Land of Israel makes one wiser,” etc. And thank God the Holy Land has a greater capacity for Torah study than foreign lands do, as daytime and nighttime are equal and available for Torah acquisition, and the truth gets clearer.16 It thus appears that members of the community of Prushim in Safed were divided into two study groups: one consisted of the majority while the other was made of “exceptional Torah scholars.” The difference between the groups was expressed both in the quality and content of the study. If the members of the first group concentrated on studying Talmud and its commentaries, then the “exceptionals” also broached the books of the Rishonim and the Shulkhan Aruch with the Gaon’s commentary. Those who led the sessions in both groups were the personal students of the Gaon of Vilna, and the beit midrash they founded even carried his name. We also found that R. Hayyim Katz lauds the special quality of the Land of Israel as a site for Torah study: due to its geographical location, there are no large differences in length between day and night. Moreover, the Land’s sanctity hovers over the scholars residing there and aids them in their Torah study and their discoveries of truth. Later in the letter, the writer reiterates this special quality of the Land of Israel: “And I declare that anyone who can make a good living here via financing from his labors abroad can reside here in the tranquility and quiet and acquire both worlds for himself. . . . For whoever wishes to devote himself to Torah and worship will have a greater ability to do so here in the Holy Land than in the foreign lands, owing to its sanctity.”17 In sum, at the center of the world of the community of Prushim that arose in Safed was the experience of Torah study in the Land of Israel. The virtues of this land as a place of Torah study is also the main message of this letter aimed at those considering immigration to the Land of Israel. In contrast to the direct and purposeful nature of the letter by R. Hayyim Katz, the second letter, the one signed by ten of the leaders of the Prushim in Safed, is striking for its festive and rhetorical style. The authors of the letter speak as if in the voice the Land of Israel:

The Invention of a tradition

35

The Land heralds, the Land awakens, the Land its tongue declares: I remember bygone days when I was a lady, when the hand of God crowned me in glory; in me, today too, no quality is lacking; in me Torah clarifies, in me piety intensifies, in me the spirit frees itself, from sins etched with pen of steel and lead; why then am I so blackened, stripped of my dignity, desolate of my inhabitants, myself so bereft and alone?18 The Land’s complaint about being abandoned and lonely does not refer to the fact of exile itself but rather to the disregard of those qualities that continue to exist there despite the exile. That is, insufficiently regarded are the special qualities that the Land of Israel holds for those who aspire to climb the rungs of Torah and piety. This message is sharpened in the subsequent paragraph: Now, blessed is the Lord who has mercy on the Land, who remembered me through the ingathering of sons, always ready for acts of holiness. . . . They who gather to increase the shine of Torah—­for the Jews had a light when they came to worship and preserve her—­they who toil at sacred worship and who preserve her via the guard-­watches of Torah, who conjoin the four cubits of clear halacha with four cubits of the Land holy and pure. . . . These men are soldiers in the army of Torah, are constant laborers in Torah.19 It thus emerges that the shift in the fate of the Land of Israel, which the epistle indeed heralds, has nothing to do with Redemption in the national or political sense, nor does it carry any Messianic overtones. The hoped-­for change of affairs is to be entirely manifested in the restoration of the Land of Israel as a center of Torah study. The importance that the authors of the epistle assign to this development and its connection with the figure of the Gaon of Vilna are indicated in the following: In our yeshiva—­named after the rabbi of the Jews of the Diaspora, our rabbi the true gaon, Eliyahu the Hasid of Vilna, who rests in Eden—­study takes place in one group, Talmud is examined and debated with intricacy and sharpness, the halachic truth is established through careful reasoning, and the laws of the Shulkhan Aruch with the commentaries of the Gaon, who rests in Eden, are clarified like linen. Whenever they gather, everyone wraps themselves in prayer shawls and phylacteries the whole day long, happy is the eye that has seen all this. The Torah has returned to her rightful sanctuary; such a great and important yeshiva has not existed in the Land of Israel for many a day.20

36

Immanuel Etkes

The fancy and festive language of the epistle, it is reasonable to conclude, expresses its authors’ heartfelt experience. This is an experience of involvement in a great act, one of importance to the entirety of the Jewish people. The beit midrash that they founded in Safed is regarded by the authors of the epistle as a beachhead for the renewal of the Land of Israel as a center of Torah study. And similarly to what we found in R. Hayyim Katz’s letter, this epistle too emphasizes the authors’ deep affinity with the Gaon of Vilna. The beit midrash that they founded in Safed is named after him, and in it they study his commentary to the Shulkhan Aruch. Moreover, the entire enterprise of the Prushim itself carries the stamp of the personal example of the Gaon. The Gaon of Vilna, as is known, was called by his disciples and admirers the Gaon he-­Hasid. The title Gaon expresses the recognition of his extraordinary achievements as a Torah scholar, while the title Hasid refers to his personal virtues and pious way of life.21 The “Hasidism” of the Gaon of Vilna was anchored in the spiritual-­religious legacy of the Kabbalistic Hasidism that preceded the Hasidic movement launched by the Ba’al Shem Tov, a legacy whose most distinct quality was its asceticism. For the Gaon of Vilna, this asceticism was expressed in an avoidance of social involvements and in an extreme withdrawal from social contact. He perceived his withdrawal from society as a means of protection against the “transgressions man makes against man,” on the one hand, and as a way of maximally utilizing his time and powers for Torah study, on the other. This ideal of Torah study from a position of asceticism he bequeathed to his students both by the personal example he set for them and by the individual guidance he gave to those of them who sought to follow this path.22 In sum, in their immigration to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1810, the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna and those drawn to his path sought to collectively realize the ideal of Torah study while withdrawing from all worldly occupations. This also is the basis of the appellation Prushim, “those who withdraw,” by which these immigrants came to be known.23 As a corollary to this conclusion, it may be further asserted that the immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century was a link in a chain of traditional aliyot. The first of these waves of immigration took place in the thirteenth century,24 and they all shared three main characteristics: the immigrants to the Land of Israel, usually individuals or small groups, were members of the spiritual-­religious elite; underpinning their aliyah was an aspiration for moral-­religious transcendence; and the immigrants saw themselves as acting on behalf of the public, hence expected their co-­religionists in exile to support them.

The Invention of a tradition

37

Beyond these features, which characterized the traditional aliyot in general, each aliyah also had its own particular complexion. Some of the immigrants came with ideologies that were bound up with a Messianic expectation, as was the case for the aliyah of R. Yehuda he-­Hasid and his group in the early eighteenth century. For some, the chief quality of the Land of Israel was its special status for prayer, since Jerusalem is the “gate of heaven” and in the Land of Israel one may pray at the tombs of famed Mishnaic rabbis and Kabbalists. This attitude characterized the immigrations of Hasidim during the second half of the eighteenth century. The unique aspect that characterized the immigrants who were followers of the Gaon was their deep affinity for the ideal of studying Torah while leading an ascetic life, an ideal expressed to its fullest in the figure of the Gaon of Vilna.

5

How did the Rivlinian myth take form?

The author who gave written expression to the first link in the chain of the development of the Rivlinian myth is Yosef Rivlin, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s father, who was known in his lifetime as R. Yosef Yosha.1 Yosef Yosha Rivlin (1837–­96) was one of the most prominent leaders of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem in the second half of the nineteenth century. He played a central role in the leadership of the kolels and was involved in the construction of new neighborhoods and the agricultural settlement efforts of the Old Yishuv. Among other things, he was an articulate and passionate spokesman for this community and defended it against its critics. On the whole he had moderate views and looked favorably on the introduction of certain reforms in the life of the Old Yishuv. He likewise held a positive view of the Hibat Zion movement. Yosef Rivlin expressed himself in writing often, and articles penned by him were printed in the periodicals of the time. These articles for the most part deal with the affairs of the Jewish community in Jerusalem. Some of them discuss the internal problems of this community, and some of them clarify his attitudes toward external entities such as the Kol Israel Haverim society and the Hibat Zion movement. The reader of these texts will not find in them any echo of the assertion that the Gaon and his disciples founded a movement of a Messianic Zionist nature. The sole reference I was able to find in the writings of Yosef Rivlin about the immigration of the students of the Gaon appears obliquely in an obituary he composed for R. Avraham Eisenstein, which was published in the periodical Ha-­Tzvi in the month of Elul 1885. He writes: 38

The Invention of a tradition

39

And so it was, when the settlement of the Land of Israel had been launched at the command of the Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna of blessed memory by his gaonic students, may their virtue defend us, amen, who mortified their souls to approach [the place of] sanctity. Then it was that Rabbi Hayyim Cohen was among the immigrants, “and Abraham went with him”; he is the Avraham whose burial we have attended to today. . . . They traveled by mast ship in stormy seas among the pirates and ship chasers. For not like those first days are the present days for travel by sea. . . . In those early days, when a man traveled a long distance such as this by sea, he took his life in his hands and from the outset exposed himself to immense danger, apart from the trials and tribulations that he would encounter on the road, which the pen refrains from describing. Some three moons was the length of their voyage before reaching Safed, for that was the site of the first settlement for the Ashkenazim who followed the Gaon of Vilna of blessed memory. . . . And they became a respectable community, which was called the Prushim [those who withdraw]. For those days all the Prushim from abroad came to dwell in the Holy Land, at a time when all her gates were desolate and her roads forlorn, when there was neither settlement nor an economy; they withdrew also from the pleasures of this world. Therefore they have been called Prushim to this very day.2 These are the things that Yosef Yosha Rivlin knew to tell about the migration of the students of the Vilna Gaon. And indeed, one component of the Rivlinian myth is already present: the claim that the immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel occurred at the command of the Gaon. Yet that is as far as it goes. There is no hint of an assertion that this immigration was associated with a Messianic expectation, let alone that it was the spearhead of a Messianic Zionist movement. Yosef Yosha emphasizes the trials and tribulations that were the lot of the immigrants in the early nineteenth century, and he commends them for their courage and determination. Likewise he explains that owing to the bleak state of the Land of Israel at the time, it was a desirable destination for those individuals who sought to withdraw from worldly affairs and devote themselves to a life of piety. As far as I know, the first source that mentions Hillel Rivlin as one of the “founding figures of the Ashkenazi settlement in Jerusalem” is an article by Hayyim Michal Michlin published in Ha-­Tsfira on May 12, 1889, titled “Hazon Zion.”3 The article mainly describes the efforts of the General Committee of the kolels to address the economic troubles of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusa-

40

Immanuel Etkes

lem. The author incidentally describes the activities of two members of the Rivlinian family: Moshe Maggid Rivlin of Shklov, son of R. Hillel, who immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1841 and collected donations to pay off the loans that were burdening the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem, and Yosef Yosha Rivlin, who played a central role in the leadership of the General Committee of the kolels. Apparently, in listing R. Hillel as one the founders of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem, Michlin was inspired by the traditions of the Rivlin family, with whom he had close ties. Special attention should be paid to the title of Michlin’s article, “Hazon Zion” (Vision of Zion). This title was apparently the source of inspiration for Shlomo Zalman Rivlin when he chose to call both his book and the Messianic Zionist movement that he concocted by the name Hazon Zion.4 Another link in the initial development of the Rivlinian myth may be found in some writings by Eliezer Rivlin (1889–­1942).5 Eliezer Rivlin dedicated himself to a study of the history of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, and in the course of so doing he also paid attention to the history of the Rivlin family. His most significant literary effort was the editing and bringing to print of Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim (A history of the sages of Jerusalem) by Aryeh Leib Frumkin.6 In one of the footnotes that he added to this book, Eliezer Rivlin includes remarks about the figure of R. Hillel.7 Among other things, he mentions R. Hillel’s distinguished family pedigree and notes that he was a wealthy man who used his own funds to run a beit midrash and synagogue for scholars in Jerusalem. About R. Hillel’s reputation, he writes, “The elders of Jerusalem tell that he was the great halachic adjudicator in the Jerusalem of his day.” At this stage, Eliezer Rivlin does not note the year in which R. Hillel immigrated to the Land of Israel and also does not attribute his aliyah to a command of the Gaon. However, in an article he published some seven years later, Eliezer Rivlin writes: Rabbi Hillel Rivlin immigrated to our country 130 years ago with the aliyah of the Ashkenazim of Lithuania and Russia who were called Prushim, who immigrated at the command of the Gaon of Vilna and were led by his great disciples. This was the aliyah that reestablished the Ashkenazi settlement in Jerusalem after its termination in the days of R. Yehuda he-­Hasid. And it became the cornerstone for the existing and sustained settlement that has lasted to this day.8 The article that this paragraph is cited in was published in the newspaper Ha-­ Boker on 20 Elul 1938, that is, late in the summer of 1938.9 Thus it was Eliezer Rivlin who linked R. Hillel to the first wave of students of the Vilna Gaon who immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1808. Moreover, this aliyah, according to

The Invention of a tradition

41

Eliezer Rivlin, was “at the command of the Gaon,” and it laid the foundation for the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel “to this day,” that is, until the 1930s. We thus have a slightly more developed version of the Rivlinian myth, yet one that does not include the assertion that R. Hillel was the personage who led the immigrants. Eliezer Rivlin recognized the primary status of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov as the leader of the immigrants, and he was content to claim that after his death R. Hillel took his place as the moreh tzedek, the halachic adjudicator of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem.10 Eliezer Rivlin also did not associate the immigration of the Gaon’s students with a Messianic expectation. However, he did attribute a primacy to them in that he drew a continuous line between their settlement and the Jewish community in Jerusalem of the 1930s. Finally, it is worth noting that when he wrote this article in 1938, Eliezer Rivlin had not yet heard of the book Kol ha-­Tor, supposedly written by R. Hillel. A person who played an important role in the development of the Rivlinian myth, even without intending to do so, was R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin.11 Yitzhak Zvi was born in 1857 in the town of Tulchin, where his father served as a rabbi. Already in his youth Yitzhak Zvi stood out for his scholarly talents and even spent two years at the yeshiva of Volozhin. In the early 1880s he was caught up in the ideas of Hibat Zion, and in 1884 he immigrated to the Land of Israel and settled in Jerusalem. Upon arrival Yitzhak Zvi began his public activity, which mainly involved founding societies for the construction of new neighborhoods in Jerusalem or with the aim of agricultural settlement. In early 1886 Yitzhak Zvi was involved in the establishment of the Beit Israel association, through which the Beit Israel neighborhood came to be built. Starting in 1887, he was active in the founding and management of an association called Shlom Yerushalayim, which aspired to establish an agricultural settlement for members of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. In 1887–­88 Yitzhak Zvi was involved in the founding of the association Nahalat Israel Ramah, which set itself the goal of establishing an agricultural settlement near the tomb of Prophet Samuel, north of Jerusalem. This brief account does not do justice to the wide-­ranging activity of Yitzhak Zvi over many years to establish new neighborhoods and to foster agricultural communities, but it will suffice to demonstrate his deep commitment to the idea of national revival. That commitment continued also when political Zionism came into the world, for Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin was one of the founders of the first branch of the Mizrahi movement in Jerusalem in 1903. Responding to a sermon delivered by Yitzhak Zvi at the founding assembly of the Mizrahi, one of the attendees said:

42

Immanuel Etkes

Rabbi Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin delivers a fine sermon and assembles evidence from the written Torah and from the Talmud that we are obligated to actively work toward the goal of settlement of the Land of Israel and that Redemption must be little by little, with the miracles coming later; and anyone who casts doubt on this does so without any basis in the Torah, and it is only an evil impulse dressed up as a good one so as to mislead the God-­fearing, as has happened to great and good individuals.12 This sermon was not unusual. Various testimonies indicate that Yitzhak Zvi would often in his sermons declare that the Zionist enterprise was an essential stage in the process of Messianic Redemption. A vivid description of Yitzhak Zvi speaking in praise of Zionism is included in an article that appeared in the periodical Ha-­Tsfira in 1899: He is as conversant in Talmud and poskim as one of the greats. . . . And to think that such a man is expected to be a “zealot” whose statements are those of [the anti-­Zionist] Kol me-­Heichal!13 How astonished was I to hear from such a man harsh words about the sages and rabbis of the previous generation who banned the study of foreign languages, as part of their opposition to the new Yishuv movement. . . . And how enthusiastic and admiring he is when he speaks about Jewish settlement; how he arouses his listeners to increase their efforts in the various branches of settlement enterprise, whether the building of houses or the purchase of land tracts; how full and loaded he is with quotations from the sages that instill a living spirit, a rousing inspiration for the Yishuv; how his mouth froths, how with all his passion he arouses all his listeners to such a great and sacred enterprise; how much scorn and contempt he pours on those who decry the enlightenment—­without forgetting at any moment to specify that it is only the Jewish enlightenment he is speaking of; and how much this man is a veritable transcendence of physicality while he speaks about these topics—­I have no way to describe to you, my friend.14 This testimony clarifies why Yitzhak Zvi was nicknamed “the preacher of Redemption.” Of special interest is the fact that, hand in hand with his support of the enterprise of national revival, he chose to criticize the rabbis who forbade study of foreign languages and science. In doing so he aligned himself with the circle of rabbis in Eastern Europe whose support for the Hibat Zion movement and for Zionism was conjoined with a certain openness toward modernity.15 In sum, Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin is the link that connects the Rivlin family in the Land of Israel to the Zionist enterprise. His deep inner conviction that Zionism is

The Invention of a tradition

43

a movement of Redemption with roots in Jewish tradition, and his tireless efforts to anchor this view in biblical verses and sayings of the sages, would come to feed the emerging myth that attributed a Zionist perspective to the ancestors of the Rivlin family in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, even though he himself was not party to this myth. A crucial stage in the development of the Rivlinian myth may be seen in a four-­page pamphlet published in Jerusalem in 1935 under the title The Gaonic Rabbi Hillel Rivlin of Shklov, of Blessed Memory. The only copy of the pamphlet preserved in the National Library of Jerusalem is missing its front page, and the library’s catalog incorrectly lists the author as Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin. Examination of this pamphlet reveals that it is an encapsulated version of the Rivlinian myth as it would appear in expanded form twelve years later in the book Hazon Zion. The pamphlet’s author begins by extolling the personal virtues of R. Hillel. He describes R. Hillel as a “regular member of the GRA’s household” and as someone who used funds from his father, R. Binyamin Rivlin, to support the students in the yeshiva of Shklov who went to study with the Gaon of Vilna. The pamphlet continues: Rabbi Hillel was well known and celebrated throughout the Jewish Diaspora communities of White Russia and Lithuania; he was known as Rabbi Hillel the Great, both because of his greatness as a Torah scholar and his great deeds for the benefit of the public and the individual—­also because of his grand stature, noble visage, and high spirit. . . . The high officials of the states likewise greatly respected him as someone knowledgeable in the language and manners of the state, with much knowledge in the sciences of medicine, agriculture, and botany.16 As mentioned, R. Hillel himself recounts that he had visited the house of the Gaon, and this may well have happened more than once. However, all the other qualities attributed by the author of the pamphlet to R. Hillel have no basis in the contemporaneous sources. After noting the personal qualities of R. Hillel, the author of the pamphlet turns to a description of his Messianic Zionist work. The main points are these. In 1780, R. Hillel founded, together with his father R. Binyamin, a “committee” called Hazon Zion, and they both began to campaign for a return to Zion. All of their activity was grounded in statements by the prophets and the sages, as interpreted by the Gaon of Vilna. Moreover, the Gaon revealed to R. Binyamin several verses that hint at the need to act for the return to Zion. The efforts of R. Binyamin and R. Hillel to carry out the commandment of the Gaon intensified in 1806, a year that, according to hints from verses, was meant for “hastening the

44

Immanuel Etkes

Redemption.” Consequently, that year they convened a “mass assembly” that had the participation of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and many rabbis and dignitaries from throughout White Russia and Lithuania. In this assembly, decisions were reached about immigration and settlement in the Land of Israel. Likewise, during the assembly a fundraising mechanism was set up to support the immigrants. The pamphlet goes on to describe R. Hillel as the one who led the convoy of immigrants who arrived in the Land of Israel in the month of Elul 1808. Upon his arrival R. Hillel worked, together with R. Menachem Mendel and R. Israel of Shklov, to lead the Prushim community in Safed. R. Hillel chose to relocate from Safed to Jerusalem, contrary to the wishes of R. Israel of Shklov, and in 1811 he became one of the founders of the Ashkenazi community in this city. In Jerusalem R. Hillel became prominent as a highly active leader. Among other things, he was involved in the public relations campaigns meant to increase the support among the Jewish communities in the Diaspora for the community in Jerusalem. Likewise he was an active partner in the efforts of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov to redeem the ruins of the R. Yehuda he-­Hasid synagogue from the Muslim creditors. And if all this was not enough, R. Hillel also initiated an agricultural settlement north of Jerusalem near the village of Rama. To this end, he persuaded the wealthy Jews of Shklov and Moscow to purchase large tracts of land in this area. Another heroic tale attributed by the author of the pamphlet to R. Hillel relates to Moses Montefiore. When Montefiore arrived for the first time in the Land of Israel, certain Jews suspected him of being a missionary. R. Hillel conducted investigations in London and Amsterdam, and on the basis of these investigations he announced publicly that “Sir Moses Montefiore is a kosher and loyal Jew, and his intentions are pure, [and he acts only] for the benefit of his brethren in the Holy Land.” Thus was R. Hillel able to rescue Sir Montefiore from the wrath of the Jews of Jerusalem. To remove all doubt, it is worth reiterating that none of the exploits attributed by the author of the pamphlet to R. Hillel Rivlin have any basis in reality. As we have shown, the story of the Messianic Zionist movement founded by R. Binyamin Rivlin and his son R. Hillel with the blessing of the Gaon is baseless. Moreover, R. Hillel immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1832 at the earliest. Thus he did not lead the convoy of immigrants that reached the Land of Israel in 1809, he was not one of the founders of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem in 1811, and he was not party to the efforts of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov to redeem the Hurva synagogue from the Muslims. As to the initiative of founding the agricultural settlement north of Jerusalem, the author of the pamphlet transfers the initiative of Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin in the 1880s onto R. Hillel, who was active several

The Invention of a tradition

45

decades earlier. For its part, the tale about R. Hillel’s rescue of Moses Montefiore speaks for itself and can serve to indicate the audacity of the imagination of the pamphlet’s author. Who, then, is the author of the pamphlet? As said, the catalog of the National Library attributes it to Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin. Yet this attribution is erroneous: Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin’s name appears in the pamphlet in the blessings for the dead.17 Moreover, the writings actually authored by Yitzhak Zvi that have come into our hands, as well as the testimonies about the content of his sermons, contain no hint that the ancestors of the Rivlin family ever founded a Messianic Zionist movement.18 And thus, the conclusion we are led to by examination of both the contents of the pamphlet and its style is that its author was none other than Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. If so, then as early as 1935, a dozen years before he published his book Hazon Zion, Shlomo Zalman had already drawn the outlines of a tale of a Messianic Zionist movement supposedly launched by the Rivlin family in the late eighteenth century. In the book Hazon Zion he develops and expands this story as far as his imagination could carry him. And even so, in 1935 when he composed this pamphlet with its exceptional praises of R. Hillel, Shlomo Zalman himself had not yet heard about the book Kol ha-­Tor attributed to that very same R. Hillel. To be more explicit, when he wrote the pamphlet, Shlomo Zalman had not yet concocted the fiction of Kol ha-­Tor. We are gradually nearing closure of the circle with regard to the emergence of the Rivlinian myth. As said, the two books that present this myth in its most developed form, Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor, were first published in the late 1940s and were both written by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. Likewise the pamphlet that tells of the exploits of R. Hillel Rivlin, published in 1935, was a product of the same author. On what information did Shlomo Zalman base himself when concocting the more developed version of the myth? One statement written in 1886 by his father, Yosef Yosha Rivlin, let Shlomo Zalman infer that the students of the Gaon had immigrated to the Land of Israel at the command of their teacher. That R. Hillel Rivlin was one of the founders of the Ashkenazi settlement in Jerusalem, he read in an article authored by Hayyim Michal Michlin published in 1889. From this same article he also drew the name Hazon Zion, which he used as the title both of his book and of the Messianic Zionist movement it describes. An article that his relative Eliezer Rivlin wrote in 1938 told Shlomo Zalman not only that Hillel Rivlin was one of the first of the Prushim immigrants but also that he even served as leader of this community after the death of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov. Also from this article he learned that the settlement of the Prushim in Jerusalem

46

Immanuel Etkes

in the early nineteenth century laid the cornerstone for the Jewish community in Jerusalem that has lasted to this day, that is, to the 1930s. From the sermons of another relative, Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, Shlomo Zalman learned that Zionism was a movement for Redemption, and that this assertion could be supported by many biblical verses and statements of the sages. Inspired by these sources, and presumably also by oral traditions that were current among the Rivlin family, Shlomo Zalman concocted the myth attributing a Messianic Zionist doctrine to the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples, and describing the immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century as an aliyah that was fundamentally motivated by a Messianic Zionism. All of these statements have, as said, no support in the contemporaneous sources, and moreover even the ancestors of the Rivlin family who preceded him never had the audacity to make claims of this kind.19

6

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher’s Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah

The publication ofHazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor did not provoke much of a reaction. The only printed response to these books was reflected in the appearance of a 1951 pamphlet called Mosdei Eretz (Founders of the land). The pamphlet contains some eight short articles, most by rabbis who were descendants of the Old Yishuv community in Jerusalem. Each of the authors in his own way repeats the basic Rivlinian myth, to wit: the main motivation of the aliyah of the Vilna Gaon’s disciples was their Messianic Zionism; this immigration became the cornerstone of the renewal of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel. It thus appears that there were a few rabbis who adopted the Rivlinian myth, apparently because it meshed with their own inclination to glorify their ancestors who came to the Land of Israel during the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, these rabbis expressed a current of thought of only a very narrow circle of rabbis, and the Rivlinian myth had to wait until after the Six-­Day War before it was able to draw broad public attention. In 1968, a book called Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah (The great era) was published by R. Menachem Mendel Kasher,1 a Torah scholar associated with Gur Hasidism who gained a reputation as the author of rabbinic books. R. Kasher had no doubt that the events of the Six-­Day War were explicit miracles attesting to the beginnings of the heavenly Redemption. For this reason he felt a powerful urge to interpret the events in light of traditional sources and to give a “Torah perspective” on their significance. Moreover, R. Kasher acted from an intense sense of mission, and his book was meant to spread his view among the broad public of religiously observant Jews. To this end, he cited in support of his approach many hundreds 47

48

Immanuel Etkes

of sources from the Bible, Talmudic literature, the Zohar, and writings of rabbinic scholars of the Middle Ages and those of modern times: the chain of events that began with the War of Independence in 1948 and reached their climax in the liberation of Jerusalem in the Six-­Day War are clear and present manifestations of the Messianic Redemption long promised to the Jewish people. The arguments and evidence that R. Kasher assembles in his book to prove his view go beyond our scope in this inquiry. Nevertheless, his book is related to our subject because R. Kasher decided to attach Kol ha-­Tor to his book as an appendix.2 In his introduction to this appendix, R. Kasher writes that when the galleys of Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah had already been set to type, he came across Kol ha-­Tor and realized that this was a “wonderful treasure . . . , a great light from the teachings of our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna of blessed memory, who widens our eyes on the subject that is foremost in the world of Judaism in our times.”3 R. Kasher fully believed that Kol ha-­Tor expresses the Messianic view that was held by the Gaon of Vilna. This conclusion was based on the presumption that the work was indeed a text of considerable antiquity composed by R. Hillel Rivlin, a student of the Gaon. R. Kasher even went to the trouble of explaining in detail how he had come to this conclusion.4 Evidently, R. Kasher fell into the trap set for his readers by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. The latter had scattered statements in his other writings to lend credence to the authenticity of Kol ha-­Tor. Thus, for example, in a sermon that he attributed to R. Moshe Maggid, son of R. Hillel Rivlin, he “planted” a reference to Kol ha-­Tor. R. Kasher viewed this as evidence of the book’s authenticity without imagining that the “sermon” of R. Moshe Maggid was likewise composed by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin.5 If this were not enough, R. Kasher was also glad to inform his readers that the ideas presented in Kol ha-­Tor were already found in a sermon given by R. Binyamin Rivlin, a close disciple of the Vilna Gaon and the father of R. Hillel. This information was based on a “sermon” cited in Hazon Zion, supposedly delivered by R. Binyamin. Yet that sermon too was conceived of and composed by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. In sum, Rabbi Kasher was convinced that the manuscript of Kol ha-­Tor had been kept by the descendants of R. Hillel Rivlin for about 150 years, until it was finally printed by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, and that the Rivlin family down through the ages “had always used it in their sermons, and that this book served as their basis [of knowledge] of the Gaon of Vilna’s approach with respect to Zion.”6 While Rabbi Kasher did worry over the question of which of the ideas in Kol ha-­Tor reflect what R. Hillel heard directly from the Gaon of Vilna and which were additions of his own, he nevertheless was inclined to conclude that “most of the book comes from the teaching of the Vilna Gaon.”7

The Invention of a tradition

49

The reprinting of Kol ha-­Tor as an appendix to Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah, some two years after the Six-­Day War, caused a strong commotion in Religious Zionist circles, especially among those drawn to the forms of Messianic spirituality that had developed under the influence of R. Zvi Yehuda Kook and his followers. I will expand on this subject later. For the present, I turn to what may be described as the “academic incarnation” of the Rivlinian myth.

7

The academic version of the Rivlinian myth

The Rivlinian myth in a book by Mordechai Eliav In 1978 a book by Mordechai Eliav was published that surveys the history of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel in the nineteenth century.1 Eliav, at the time a professor in the Department of Jewish History at Bar-­Ilan University, had among other works published several studies on the Land of Israel in the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. The book in question is aimed at a wide audience, and it evidently was meant to address the great interest in the history of the Land of Israel that had been sparked by the Six-­Day War. When Eliav came to deal with the immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century, he adopted the Rivlinian myth lock, stock, and barrel. He writes: In the teachings of the Vilna Gaon, a special place is reserved for reflections about the impending Redemption and calculations of the ketz [end], which draw upon the doctrines of the Kabbalah, in which the Gaon often engaged. The Gaon of Vilna viewed it as his task to prepare for the Redemption: before the coming of the Messiah there would be a period similar to that of the days of Cyrus, a sort of itaruta diletata—­an awakening from below—­during which an ingathering of the exiles would take place and there would be a release from the bondage of kingdoms. . . . Only then would the spiritual Redemption come by miraculous means. Only after the death of the Vilna Gaon were the first practical steps taken and did a genuine movement for immigration come about. Shklov, which is close to Vilna, was the center of the awakening and agitation for the “Vision of 50

The Invention of a tradition

51

Zion.” The agents of this movement were the Gaon’s direct disciples, who in 1806 held a sort of preparatory assembly for the aliyah. . . . The driving force of the awakening for immigration was R. Binyamin Rivlin, the patriarch of the Rivlin family, a student of the Vilna Gaon and a relative of his who was a great Torah scholar with a broad general education, and his son R. Hillel, who composed a manuscript called Kol ha-­Tor, which deals with methods to bring the Redemption closer in the spirit of the doctrine of the Vilna Gaon and which in the course of time became the ideological platform of the Prushim.2 Eliav thus recapitulates the main points of the story that appears in Hazon Zion, though omitting the verse hints and the gematriot. Moreover, he incorporates the Rivlinian myth into an actual historical context, thus granting it a semblance of credibility. The readiness of a historian of the stature of Eliav to adopt the Rivlinian myth without so much as questioning the authenticity of the books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor, and without giving an opinion as to whether this myth has any support in the contemporaneous sources, is baffling. A book by Arie Morgenstern A new chapter in the acceptance of the Rivlinian myth began in 1985 when Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi in Jerusalem published Arie Morgenstern’s Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel (Messianism and the settlement of the Land of Israel). If Mordechai Eliav had adopted the Rivlinian myth incidentally and dedicated a page or two to him, Morgenstern devoted entire chapters of his book to its establishment and elaboration. Which components of the Rivlinian myth did Morgenstern adopt? It turns out that he adopted its essentials: the Prushim, led by the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna, immigrated to the Land of Israel out of Messianic motives; this was a new kind of Messianism which regards “Redemption by natural methods” as the first stage, leading to heavenly Redemption in the second stage; the two actions required in the first stage of Redemption are the settlement of the Land of Israel and the building of Jerusalem, actions that the Prushim regarded as paramount; the Messianic doctrine that underpinned the aliyah of the Prushim originated with the Gaon of Vilna, who was thought by his disciples to have had a Messianic destiny. Morgenstern even considered the story of a national assembly of the Hazon Zion movement, supposedly held in Shklov in 1806, as having “a basis in reality.”3 What was Morgenstern’s contribution? He clothed the Rivlinian story in the cap and gown of academic historical research. Thus, for example, he devotes an entire chapter to what he calls “the background to the Messianic awakening in

52

Immanuel Etkes

the nineteenth century.”4 In this chapter he reviews a series of historical events, such as the French Revolution and the emancipation of the Jews of France, the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of the Reform Movement in Germany, and the compulsory draft of the army in Russia. According to Morgenstern, each of these events increased the fervor of Messianic expectations. On how forceful this phenomenon was, Morgenstern writes, “The dramatic shift that took place in unison in the status of Jews in Christian European countries, and the reawakening of the ancient Jew-­hatred, in a new, different garb, rekindled Messianic hopes unknown since the failure of the messianism of Shabbetai Zvi.”5 To establish this assertion, Morgenstern cites several sources, most of them books of sermons written in various countries—­including Germany, England, Hungary, and Russia; and at various times, from the late eighteenth to the mid-­ nineteenth century—­which he believed gave expression to Messianic hopes. Thus, for example, in a book of sermons published in 1820, R. Wolf Hamburg of the Fürth congregation in Germany warns of various manifestations of disrespect for the religious commandments and offers the explanation that this is the ikveta de-­ meshiha, the period preceding and heralding the Messiah’s coming.6 An author named Elyakim Sinai, likewise from Germany, in 1822 published an essay titled Hilchot Yemot Hamashiach (The laws of the days of the Messiah), yet the connection with the hopes for Redemption was for him of a very different sort, to wit: the rumors that the United States would allow the establishment of a Jewish state on its territory if thirty-­five thousand Jewish immigrants arrived there. Another expression of Messianic hope was found by Morgenstern in a letter sent by R. Zvi Hirsch Kalisher to Asher Anshel Rothschild, which stated, among other things, that “the dawn light has already begun in that God has given us great Jewish dignitaries such as the House of Rothschild and their like.”7 As mentioned, among the historical events that according to Morgenstern gave rise to Messianic fervor were the Napoleonic Wars. Thus, for example, he cites a passage from R. Moshe Sofer’s sermon describing the great suffering of the Jews in the course of this war. R. Sofer adds, “If we pray for the Redemption of our souls and our Salvation, we may regard this war as the beginnings of the Redemption.” Morgenstern further cites the Hasidic legend that R. Menachem Mendel of Rimnov tended to view the Napoleonic Wars as the manifestation of the War of Gog and Magog.8 How are we to interpret the evidence Morgenstern assembles? Are we to conclude that the Jews of Europe, in its West, Center, and East, were caught up in a Messianic fervor from the late eighteenth century until the mid-­nineteenth century? Perhaps the cited sources can be interpreted another way: that authors and preachers searched for clues on which they could pin their hopes for Redemption. That would be a phenomenon that has continued down through the ages

The Invention of a tradition

53

and may be defined as a “boilerplate” for sermon making. To decide which of these two interpretations is more accurate, it suffices to note that historians of modern Jewish history have not noted a phenomenon of intense Messianic fervor in the geographical regions during the period mentioned. Hence, the assertion that there were “Messianic hopes unknown since the failure of Shabbetai Zvi’s messianism” is based on an imagined reality. A topic that Morgenstern specially remarks on is the military draft of the Jews into the Russian army beginning in 1827. Morgenstern had no doubt that this draft decree, as well as several others that preceded it, were interpreted by Russian Jews as the trials and tribulations that preceded the arrival of the Messiah. However, he was unable to find any source that would attest to this. The silence of the sources, he explains as follows: “Of course, out of caution, this is not often put in writing, and anyone who dares and does write would not state such things explicitly.” And then, as if by a magic wand, a source seemingly supporting the desired conclusion is suddenly adduced:9 R. Hillel of Kovno in his book Hillel Ben Shahar refers to the 1798 draft decree by the Austrian army, which, as mentioned above, was less severe than the draft decree for the Russian army. We are entitled, of course, to draw the inference from the minor to the major case, to conclude how matters stood with the Russian army: “This is a new predicament the likes of which has not arisen, existed, or been seen since we became a holy nation, the decree of the emperor to take people off to the military . . . to imprison soul with flesh and [cause transgression of commandments] for which one must be killed rather than transgress.”10 The quote from R. Hillel of Kovno refers to the draft of the Austrian army in the late eighteenth century. According to Morgenstern, we are “entitled, of course” to draw an inference from this draft decree to the draft decree issued by the Russian army in 1827. We thus have before us a methodological breakthrough that grants new tools to the historian with insufficient sources. Henceforth the historian is to be allowed use of the methods of reasoning by which the Torah is interpreted: kal vahomer (inference from the minor to the major case), gzerah shava (equivalent cases), klal uprat (general and particular cases), and all the other principles too. Another chapter in Morgenstern’s book studies various manifestations of the belief that 1840 was the “year of the ketz,” the end of exile and beginning of Redemption.11 Morgenstern cites the writings of several authors from Persia, Morocco, Eastern Europe, and the Land of Israel, all of whom believed that 1840 would be the year of the ketz. In light of these and other testimonies, it seems

54

Immanuel Etkes

that during the 1830s, Messianic hopes did indeed grow among members of certain communities, including among some of the Prushim in Jerusalem. However, the conclusion that the thousands of Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel from the early nineteenth century up to the 1840s did so because they expected Redemption in 1840 is a sweeping generalization that is not substantiated by any of the source materials of the period. As for the aliyah of the Prushim, which is our main concern, it does not stand to reason that the first Prushim who immigrated to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1810 did so because they expected Redemption to happen thirty years later. Moreover, in none of the writings of the Prushim who immigrated to the Land of Israel at the time is 1840 even mentioned. A key argument in Morgenstern’s book involves “the annulment of the three oaths.” This has to do with the interpretation given by the Talmudic sages to the triple repetition of the phrase from the Song of Songs (2:7, 3:5, 8:4) “I have sworn you to an oath, O daughters of Jerusalem.” The Talmud says, “Why are these three oaths . . . needed? One, so that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Israel as a wall [i.e., not as a multitude but rather little by little]. And another one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the Jews that they should not rebel against the rule of the nations of the world. And the last one is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively” (Talmud Tractate Ketubot 111a, translation Sefaria.org). The first two oaths compel the Jewish nation to reconcile itself with the condition of exile and to await a heavenly Redemption. Conversely, the third oath demands of the nations of the world to not excessively oppress the Jewish people so that they may be able to bear the burdens of exile. According to Morgenstern, “in the early nineteenth century, a shift occurred in the traditional stance among circles identified with the Gaon of Vilna.”12 The shift was based on the fact that the Gentiles were not fulfilling the oath to which they had been sworn by the Holy One (i.e., to not exaggerate in the oppression of the Jews). What is all this about? The reference here is to the draft decree by the Russian army in the days of Tsar Nikolai I that had as its aim, according to Morgenstern, the termination of the very existence of the Jewish people. From this, the Gaon’s disciples concluded that the oaths binding the Jewish people had likewise been annulled. The argument about the annulment of the oaths plays a central role in the assembly of evidence that Morgenstern constructs so as to corroborate the Rivlinian myth. If indeed the oaths had been annulled, then the road was paved to a new stance, one may even say a revolutionary one, on the question of the nature of Messianic Redemption.13 Before asking if there is a basis for the assertion that the Gaon’s disciples viewed the oaths as having been annulled, a perplexing aspect concerns the sequence of

The Invention of a tradition

55

the events here. The Russian government’s decision to draft Jews into the army, which Morgenstern says was the grounds for the annulment of the oaths, was issued in 1827. The immigration of the Gaon’s disciples to the Land of Israel took place between 1808 and 1810. Perhaps Morgenstern is applying another principle used at times by Torah interpreters: “In the Torah, earlier and later do not apply.” Suppose we ask, Did the Gaon’s students indeed believe that the three oaths had been annulled? Morgenstern bases his assertion in this regard on the letter sent by R. Israel of Shklov to the Ten Tribes. He cites a passage from it in which the author calls on the Ten Tribes to increase their prayers and supplications for Redemption of the Jewish people. This is a peculiar form of evidence, since the daily prayerbooks and the high-­holiday liturgy are full of prayers beseeching the Almighty to deliver the people of Israel; these are scarcely novelties. What’s more, closer scrutiny of the letter by R. Israel to the Ten Tribes will not reveal in it even a hint of the thought that “the three oaths have been annulled since the other nations have grown excessive in their oppression of the Jews.” Quite the contrary, R. Israel of Shklov incidentally mentions the prohibition of mass aliyah to the Land of Israel and affirms that while “permission is not granted for all or most to immigrate as one wall to the Land of Israel, that was not said for individuals.”14 In other words: the prohibition of mass aliyah of Jews to the Land of Israel remains in force, whereas the aliyah of the Prushim, which is an immigration of “individuals,” does not constitute a violation of the oath not to come “as a wall.” This is a typical instance of how Morgenstern reads into the historical sources what was not written in them. Most significant from the point of view of our inquiry is the fourth chapter of Morgenstern’s book Geula be-­Derech ha-­Teva be-­Kitvei ha-­GRA ve-­Talmidav (Redemption by natural means in the writings of the GRA and his students).15 In this chapter, he tries to provide evidence for his assertion that the immigration of the Gaon’s disciples was grounded in an activist Messianic ideology that had originated in the Gaon himself. None of the relevant sources offer support for this assertion. So what is it based on? The answer has to do with the unique method that Morgenstern develops for his interpretation of sources. The next passage may serve to illustrate it. Those close to the Gaon, as well as later generations, thus viewed his figure as a supernatural phenomenon associated with a Messianic destiny, in all that concerns the discovery and dissemination of the truth of the Torah and its secrets and in outlining a practical path with regard to the Redemption of the Land of Israel and the Jewish people. This attitude toward the figure of the Gaon was shared by all his students, from Rabbi Menashe

56

Immanuel Etkes

of Ilya the rationalist, to Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, the Gaon’s great disciple in matters of the Kabbalah. Rabbi Menashe writes: “Apparently the Creator has sent us an angel and saint from the heavens, the famous Gaon, our teacher and rabbi, Eliyahu of Vilna, who began somewhat to return the crown of Torah to its ancient status . . . until things reach the essence of the remedy, until we are fit to have the divine light and abundance of God bestowed upon us by our righteous Messiah.” Rabbi Menachem Mendel attributes his aliyah to the Land of Israel and his work for its settlement to the fact that he was a disciple of the Gaon: “He has brought me to the house of the ADMOR, the Gaon he-­Hasid, rabbi of all the exiles, of Vilna; and God made me favorable to him, and I served him with all my might . . . and by virtue of him and by virtue of my righteous and honest forefathers . . . I have been brought to the Holy Land.16 What may we learn from the statements by the Gaon’s disciples? R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov wrote that he owed his privilege to immigrate to the Land of Israel to the virtue of his ancestors and to the virtue of the Gaon whom he served. He did not ascribe a Messianic destiny to the Gaon, just as he did not associate his own aliyah with a Messianic motive. As for R. Menashe of Ilya, his statements do mention hope for Redemption, but Morgenstern cites him out of context and fragmentarily. R. Menashe of Ilya was influenced by the spirit of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century and had adopted a rationalist worldview.17 What most bothered him was the method of Torah study in which the simple meaning of the text was permuted. Hence, he regarded the Gaon as someone who had been sent from heaven to instruct the people of Israel about the correct way to study Torah. Here is what he says more fully: And when many enlightened people awaken, there is hope to distinguish truth from falsehood and to assign to each person the proper way of study, according to the degree of his mind. . . . And we shall approach the remedy of things that, given what we see, given the long extent of our exile, is that we are nearing the prelude to the coming of our Messiah; it is necessary to clear for him a path of truth, as I have written, for our main effort must be for us to serve as a vessel of preparation to receive light and bounty. . . . And apparently the Creator has sent us an angel and saint from the heavens, the famous Gaon, our teacher and rabbi, Eliyahu of Vilna, who began somewhat to return the crown of Torah to its ancient status by his method, the method of the simple truth. And we shall follow him, adding this much and that much, till things reach the essence of the remedy, until we are fit to have the divine light and abundance of God bestowed upon us by

The Invention of a tradition

57

our righteous Messiah. For we are steadfast in this, and if he tarries [we will] await him, for there is hope for a good end and for the essence of the remedy.18 The Messianic role of the Gaon of Vilna is thus expressed in his preparing the foundation for Redemption by correcting how Torah is studied. Spreading the truth of the Torah is a prerequisite for Redemption’s coming, which may yet be delayed. There is no reference here to aliyah to the Land of Israel and certainly not to “Redemption by natural means.” We thus have two separate statements by the Gaon’s disciples: R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov speaks of his immigration to the Land of Israel, which he credits to the Gaon but without attributing any Messianic destiny to him. R. Menashe does attribute a Messianic destiny to the Gaon, but not in connection with aliyah to the Land of Israel. Morgenstern entwines the phrases of both into a single thread, to draw a conclusion which neither of them alone ever implied. In this way, he “proves” that the Gaon of Vilna was regarded by his disciples both as having a Messianic destiny and as setting a framework for “a practical approach in all that concerns the Redemption of the Land of Israel and the People of Israel.” Other examples might be adduced of Morgenstern’s distinctive method of interpreting historical sources. However, there is enough here to understand that we are looking at tendentious writing that does not shrink from any means to lend scholarly validation to the myth that originated in writings of the Rivlin family. Certain scholars came out in forceful criticism of Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel (Messianism and the settlement of the Land of Israel). Yaakov Barnai,19 who among other things specialized in study of the history of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, rejected the claim that the aliyah of the Prushim to the Land of Israel was rooted in the belief that 1840 was the year of the ketz. He writes, “It is hard to suppose that thirty-­two years before the year of the ketz—­of which there have been many in Jewish history—­people were already getting up and moving to the Land of Israel,” when furthermore there is no evidence of any sort that this aliyah was associated with Messianic expectations. Barnai also casts doubt on the claim of the centrality of Messianic expectation as a factor in the immigration to the Land of Israel. As he sees it, Morgenstern ignored a host of other factors that influenced the aliyah and “by this means distorted the overall picture: the marginal he makes central, and what is central he ignores almost completely.” Barnai further argues that if the immigrations in the first half of the nineteenth century were bound up with belief in 1840 as the year of Redemption, and the disappointment that the

58

Immanuel Etkes

Messiah did not come, and produced a sharp crisis, as per Morgenstern, how are we to account for the fact that the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel grew and developed precisely after 1840?20 A scholar who responded at greatest length to Morgenstern’s book was Israel Bartal,21 a historian well versed in both the history of Eastern European Jews and the history of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. Initially, Bartal addressed the historical picture that Morgenstern presented as the background to his claim of a Messianic awakening. This picture, he said, suffers from oversimplicity and one-­dimensionality. For example, Morgenstern contrasts revolutionary France, which was good to the Jews, with Russia, where the Jews were “oppressed to the neck.” Regarding this artificial dichotomy, “there is no mention of the enlightened absolutism of Catherine II and the fact that in many ways Russia was the first European country to grant Jews certain civil rights during the reforms of 1775–­85.”22 This anachronistic assertion, as if the oppression of Jews in Russia had continued ever since the partition of Poland, was necessary for Morgenstern so as to account for the Messianic fervor, of the sort he found in the book by R. Hillel of Kovno. Yet that book was composed in 1804 while the persecutions of Jews in Russia occurred mainly a few decades later.23 This example and others led Bartal to the following conclusion: “The simplistic and inclusive formulations are typical of many pages of the book and sometimes involve erasing entire historical subjects that are inconsistent with the ‘correct direction’ of history, as well as twisting other subjects so as to make them fit into this direction.”24 Bartal also maintained that Morgenstern ignores research relating to his field when its findings are inconsistent with his views. Thus, for instance, Morgenstern drew on research by Michael Gelber demonstrating, on the basis of imperial Austrian sources, that in the 1830s there was an increase in the immigration to the Land of Israel. Yet Gelber’s discussion of the question of messianism Morgenstern elects to ignore, since the conclusion of that inquiry is that “the level of Messianic hope in traditional society in the late 1830s was extremely minimal.” This conclusion obviously contradicts Morgenstern’s claim that Messianic fervor had been increasing as the year 1840 approached.25 Bartal also cites several examples of Morgenstern’s manipulative use of sources. And so he concludes, “The author’s attitude to his sources can be described as highly liberal. Sometimes he changes the center of gravity of things, sometimes he skips words or parts of sentences and creates a new chimera, and sometimes he does not even understand the meaning of the words and gives them an illegitimate interpretation.”26 Bartal cites one example after another to illustrate the tendentious and distorted reading of the sources on which Morgenstern relies.

The Invention of a tradition

59

Bartal concludes his review of Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel as follows: “Unfortunately, it is difficult to trust the book under discussion with respect to the sources it cites and their interpretation. Therefore the contribution of this book to the study of the history of Jewish communities in Eastern Europe and in the Land of Israel in the nineteenth century seems to me highly dubious.”27 Characteristically, Morgenstern dismissed the charges of the critics, and continued to publish books and articles in which he repeats the themes at the center of Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel.28 Moreover, he considered his “scholarship” as being of current political significance. In an article in Ha-­Tzofeh on July 26, 1985, he is cited as saying, “Secular Zionism is in shock because I proved to it that it has nothing to preen over and be so high and mighty about. . . . Since the act of aliyah to the Land of Israel preceded Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, there is nothing to crow about with the ‘Second Aliyah,’ when the aliyah of the students of the Vilna Gaon was more impressive than it.”29 It is perhaps unsurprising that Morgenstern’s publications were supportively received in those circles that viewed them as supplying a “scholarly” basis to a picture that accorded their inclinations.

The Vilna Gaon’s Redemption doctrine in a book by Raphael Shuchat Another attempt to lend academic credibility to the myth of the Gaon and his disciples as the first Zionists was a book by Raphael Shuchat about the Vilna Gaon’s “doctrine of Redemption.”30 While the Gaon’s Redemption doctrine is the book’s main topic, Shuchat chose to devote a special chapter to the immigration by the Gaon’s students to the Land of Israel.31 Early in this chapter he discusses the question “Did the Gaon’s students immigrate at his command?” While he admits that “there is no unequivocal evidence to help us decide this issue,”32 he does not resist searching for evidence that would supposedly confirm the claim that the Gaon’s students had indeed immigrated at his orders. Anyone examining the evidence he assembles will readily notice the level of judgment that Shuchat brings to the reconstruction of historical facts. Thus for instance, he relies on a statement from the Sefer ha-­Takanot le-­Beit Midrash Eliyahu (Rulebook for the Eliyahu Beit Midrash) of 1897, published a hundred years (!) after the death of the Gaon: “And [the Gaon of Vilna] was first [in the movement] for Zion and Jerusalem and for founding the settlement in the Holy Land; after him came the flood of students.”33 The tendency of later generations to seek a high pedigree for the immigration of the Gaon’s disciples is understandable. However, even this latter-­day text did not assert that the disciples immigrated at the Gaon’s orders, only that they followed in his footsteps. Shuchat did not give

60

Immanuel Etkes

up and found writings that explicitly state that the Gaon’s disciples immigrated to the Land of Israel on his instructions. This time it was in works composed around the middle of the twentieth century.34 For some reason, Shuchat did not see fit to examine what the Gaon’s students themselves said about their aliyah to the Land of Israel. Remember, we found that neither R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov nor R. Israel of Shklov explained that they had immigrated at the Gaon’s command. These were in fact the two most prominent leaders of the community of Prushim, leaders who worked vigorously to raise funds among their brethren in the Diaspora. Thus if their esteemed rabbi had given them orders to immigrate, they would be expected to be quite vocal about this. Since he did not find “unequivocal proof ” that the Gaon had ordered his disciples to immigrate to the Land of Israel, Shuchat was driven to explain, or more exactly to produce a justification for, why the Gaon did not “declare that anyone who could immigrate to the Land of Israel should do so.” And this is his explanation: the Gaon refrained from calling for “mass immigration” because he feared that the immigrants would find it difficult to “get by in the country from even just an economic point of view.” He also feared confrontation with the Turkish authorities.35 This explanation, which reflects the difficulties that settlers faced during the First Aliyah, reveals a misunderstanding of the historical context in which the aliyah of the Prushim took place. The Gaon did not call for mass immigration because in the consciousness and political circumstances of Eastern European Jews in the late eighteenth century, the idea that an immigration of “masses” to the Land of Israel might take place occurred to no one, not even to the Gaon. In order not to tire the reader, I will not continue with a review of the evidence that Shuchat assembles about the Messianic nature of the immigration of the Gaon’s disciples. Overall, Shuchat adopts the basics of the picture drawn by Morgenstern, although on certain issues he differs. For example, on the issue of 1840, Shuchat found that the Gaon “did not assign much importance to the year 1840, nor did any of his students discuss this date.”36 This assertion removes one of the cornerstones of the historiographic structure erected by Morgenstern. One way or the other, the conclusion relevant to us is that when Shuchat comes to examine the Gaon of Vilna’s writings with respect to his “doctrine of Redemption,” he takes it for granted that such a Redemption doctrine is what served as the source of inspiration for the Gaon’s disciples who immigrated to the Land of Israel. It appears that Shuchat regarded himself as charged with completing the historiographical enterprise of Arie Morgenstern. The latter had given a historical depiction of the immigration of the Prushim as being Messianic Zion-

The Invention of a tradition

61

ist in nature, whereas Shuchat sought to provide the Messianic doctrine from the Gaon’s school that served as its ideological platform. As said, the main part of Shuchat’s book is devoted to the Redemption doctrine of the Gaon, which he examined against the background of the Redemption doctrines of the ARI and RamHaL. Yet it is worth emphasizing that the Gaon of Vilna never bothered to formulate any systematic and methodical Redemption doctrine. Shuchat himself attests that the Redemption doctrine of the Gaon of Vilna, in its details, is assembled from quotations gathered from the books of the Gaon and his students on Torah matters, both “revealed” and “hidden.”37 We thus are faced with a foraging and reconstruction effort based on joining fragmentary quotations from the writings of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples. Indeed, Shuchat invests commendable efforts when he closely examines numerous writings, some of them quite opaque and murky, to retrieve from them ideas about various aspects of the subject of Redemption. His findings he arranges according to subheadings such as “The Duration of the Period of Exile,” “Conditions for Speeding Up Redemption,” and “Redemption as Independent of Repentance.” However, the decisive question is whether ideas of this kind indeed served as a conceptual platform that the disciples of the Gaon based themselves on when taking practical action. To the best of my understanding, the answer to this question is a decisive No, for the simple reason that no Redemption doctrine was present for them to consider. How could fragments of ideas, found scattered and piecemeal in commentaries on biblical verses, on statements by the rabbinic sages and Kabbalist texts, serve as an ideological platform for the aliyah of the Prushim, when neither the Gaon himself nor his disciples saw fit to gather them and present them as an organized body of thought? It should also be said that a large part of the ideas that Shuchat attributes to “the school of the Gaon” are drawn from works published many years after the immigration of the Prushim. From the point of view of our inquiry, there is particular importance to the chapter that Shuchat devotes to Kol ha-­Tor.38 After reviewing the various editions of the book and discussing the question of the manuscript Shlomo Zalman Rivlin had in front of him when he first published his work, Shuchat turns to this crucial question: Does Kol ha-­Tor originate from the school of the Gaon of Vilna? Since Shuchat admits that Shlomo Zalman did not hold in his hands the original manuscript of the book, he concluded that to answer this question, it is appropriate to “textually compare the main ideas mentioned in the book with the ideas found in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna.”39 To that end, Shohet made a table in which ideas appearing in the writings of the Gaon or the writings of his disciples are in one column and similar ideas that

62

Immanuel Etkes

appear in the Kol ha-­Tor are in another column.40 He lists, for example, “Redemption does not depend on repentance,” “Redemption will begin by natural means as it did in the time of Cyrus,” “The beginnings of Redemption will be characterized by troubles,” “The Gaon beheld in his own day the ikveta de-­meshiha” (the period preceding and heralding the Messiah’s coming), “Building of Jerusalem,” and “The Gaon of Vilna as a ‘spark’ of Messiah ben Yosef.”41 As a result of the comparison, Shuchat concluded that “the essentials of the book [Kol ha-­Tor] are drawn . . . from the teachings of the Gaon.”42 Nevertheless, he also found in this book certain “innovations  .  .  . that are not explicitly mentioned in the Gaon’s writings.” Accordingly, he took pains to locate possible sources of these ideas in the literature of the Midrash and Kabbalah, as well as in the writings of later authors.43 So then, are the essentials of Kol ha-­Tor indeed drawn from the teachings of the Gaon of Vilna? What may we learn from the comparison between the ideas found in the writings of the Gaon and his disciples and those found in Kol ha-­ Tor? It is worth noting that in order to arrive at some of these ideas, the author of Kol ha-­Tor did not need recourse to the Gaon’s writings in particular. For example, the idea that “Redemption does not depend on repentance” comes from a famous dispute of the Mishnaic sages, and the author of Kol ha-­Tor was likely familiar with this dispute as well as with the interpretations that arose around it.44 With the idea that the beginnings of Redemption is to come by natural means, the author of Kol ha-­Tor would have been able to find it in writings of the heralds of Zionism R. Zvi Hirsch Kalisher and R. Yehuda Hai Alkalai as well as in writings of other famous rabbis, such as R. Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and R. Mordechai Eliasberg, who called for support for the Hibat Zion movement in the late nineteenth century.45 Meanwhile the idea that the troubles befalling the Jewish people can be interpreted as the ikveta de-­meshiha is prevalent in so many writings that it is certainly not necessary to ascribe it to writings of the Gaon of Vilna specifically. Even with respect to an idea of a specific nature, such as that the Vilna Gaon was a spark of Messiah ben Yosef, the similarity indicated by Shuchat is problematic. Kol ha-­Tor repeatedly states that the Gaon of Vilna, as an instantiation of Messiah ben Yosef, had the divine mission of working for the ingathering of the exiles and for the building of Jerusalem. Yet the disciples of the Gaon, who Shuchat relies on, write instead that the Gaon’s purpose, insofar as he was a spark of Messiah ben Yosef, was to discover and resolve Torah mysteries. If Shuchat had sought to make a genuine comparison of ideas, he would have needed to point out this clear incongruity. Yet since his aim was to demonstrate a connection between Kol ha-­Tor and the writings of the Gaon and his disciples, he chose to ignore it.

The Invention of a tradition

63

Moreover, Shuchat’s inclination to view Kol ha-­Tor as a reliable expression of the Gaon’s Redemption doctrine led him to ignore elements of the book that clearly attest to its anachronistic nature as a composition involving literary fiction. Thus, for example, Shuchat does not address the perplexing idea that “Redemption depends on the study of science by Judaism’s leading rabbis,”46 an idea that is not found anywhere in the writings of the Gaon and his disciples. Likewise Shuchat does not refer to the passages in which the author of Kol ha-­Tor describes in detail meetings and conversations that supposedly took place with the Gaon.47 In sum, Shuchat was able to show that the writings of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples contain scattered ideas that a researcher such as Shuchat could combine and weave together to form a Redemption doctrine. Yet he was unable to demonstrate that the Gaon or any of his disciples formulated or set forth an organized body of thought on the topic of Redemption, let alone prove that a doctrine of this kind served as the basis of the immigration of some of the Gaon’s disciples to the Land of Israel.48

New directions in the study of Kol ­h a-Tor, by Yitzhak Hershkovitz A researcher who proposed “new directions” for studying Kol ha-­Tor is Yitzhak Hershkovitz.49 Hershkovitz embraced the assertions of Raphael Shuchat that “the basic ideas of Kol ha-­Tor are already present in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna” and also that there are ideas in the book that are not present in the writings of the Gaon and his disciples.50 Consequently, Hershkovitz chose to focus on the difference between the “model of Redemption from the school of the Vilna Gaon and his disciples and the one found in Kol ha-­Tor.”51 A comparison of these two concepts of Redemption led him to conclude that “the societal aspects of Kol ha-­Tor transform it from being a composition of a theoretical character to one in which a practical program may be found for a society in an existential crisis of identity.”52 These are the ideas of Kol ha-­Tor that Hershkovitz considers “the practical building blocks of the enterprise of Redemption”: • Recognizing the fickleness of Redemption, which will have successes and

failures. • Reducing pride: Redemption will not arrive with its builders coming in

great fanfare. • Recognizing Redemption’s slow nature: kim’a kim’a (bit by bit).

Immanuel Etkes

64

• Working toward Redemption via poverty, not via wealth and accomplish-

ment. • Finding “men of the covenant,” loyal, dedicated believers who can lead the

enterprise of Redemption. • Practicing egalitarianism. • Rebuilding Jerusalem on pillars of charity.53

After a detailed analysis of these ideas, Hershkovitz turns to the question “When was Kol ha-­Tor written, and what was its purpose?”: Based on our review of Kol ha-­Tor, we can affirm that the book was written in Jerusalem and that its author felt a need to provide spiritual and ideological support to those settling in the Land of Israel who were experiencing an existential crisis given their economic, family, and cognitive distresses. Alongside the severe material crises, it is important to note the crisis of faith of 1840, which turned out not to be, as we know, the year of the Messiah’s arrival. . . . In the aftermath of this crisis, some of the leaders of the Prushim community even converted to Christianity. In addition, in the first half of the nineteenth century, several adverse events took place in the history of the Yishuv (such as the great earthquake in the Galilee, the Druze revolt, and the wars of Ibrahim Pasha), which had a devastating impact . . . on the tender new shoot. . . . Moreover, it is clear that the book was originally intended to be the foundation for the establishment of an esoteric group of faithful followers who would take upon themselves the task of spreading modern messianism and guide the people dwelling in Zion in the spirit of the teachings of the Vilna Gaon and in light of modern models with socialist aspects.54 This is a new and original explanation of the aims of Kol ha-­Tor. However, the explanation is puzzling in that it is not at all clear how the ideas that Hershkovitz calls “a practical program for a society in crisis” address the list of plights that the residents of the Old Yishuv had to face. The Old Yishuv was indeed in great distress, manifested, among other things, by the terrible poverty of much of its population, the unequal distribution of the funds meant to support them, the housing shortage, the struggles and competition between the kolels, and the harsh criticism of the haluka (fund distribution) regime by various elements in European Jewry. Toward the end of the nineteenth century these troubles were compounded by the confrontation with the Hibat Zion movement. Yet Kol ha-­ Tor does not directly address any of these sources of distress.

The Invention of a tradition

65

Hershkovitz’s analysis suggests that the book offers practical guidance for those seeking to advance the process of Redemption. For this claim to be accepted, we would have to assume that the people in this community, or at least most of them, perceived themselves as being in the midst of the process of Redemption. And indeed this is the picture that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin paints in his writings; yet, as has already become clear, this picture has no connection with historical reality. It is true that toward 1840 Messianic hopes arose among some members of the Prushim community and the bitter disappointment when the

F IG U RE 4 . Three figures from the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem, circa 1890–­1900. Source: Detroit Photographic Company, 1905. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

66

Immanuel Etkes

year passed led to the conversion to Christianity of several of them. Yet this was a transient episode, and there is no evidence of a sharp rise in Messianic fervor among members of the Old Yishuv, neither in the first decades of the nineteenth century nor in the second half of that century. Moreover, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the author of Kol ha-­Tor sought to deal with the troubles of the Old Yishuv during the nineteenth century, how are we to explain the fact that he kept his prophecy hidden for decades, since this book was unknown to anyone until it was published in the late 1940s? Toward the end of his article, Hershkovitz discusses the identity of the author of Kol ha-­Tor. To his credit, he rejects the assertion of Arie Morgenstern, who attributes its composition to R. Moshe Maggid Rivlin. Morgenstern on this point accepts the concoction of Shlomo Zalman,55 whereas Hershkovitz takes into account the fact that the book Sefer Beit Midrash, penned by R. Moshe Maggid, contains no hint of a Messianic perspective.56 As to the identity of the author of Kol ha-­Tor, Hershkovitz writes: It is clear that R. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin was not the author, nor were any of his contemporaries. This, given the fact that there are many puzzles that could not be deciphered in the manuscripts and that their level of Torah scholarship, high as it might be, was not such as to allow them to form such a profound doctrine that interprets in a new light the Gaon’s doctrine of Redemption. Moreover the Sefer ha-­Pizmonim [Book of liturgical poems] by R. Yosha, as well as additional written evidence, supports the claim that the traditions that evolved and appear in the book are indeed ancient. Although the book by its full name was not known prior to R. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, the work explicitly states that it is merely “a precis of the seven chapters on Redemption by the Gaon and Kabbalist R. Hillel Shklover.” Even the haskamot [letters of approval] written on behalf of the book and the evaluations of it tell us that these and other traditions were familiar to members of the Yishuv in Jerusalem, and it seems to me that their trustworthiness is not to be doubted. The book indeed proves that its author was a great man, with an organized societal program and even an impressive ability in gematria and a fair knowledge of the teachings of the Vilna Gaon. The title of the book was given to it, apparently, by R. Shlomo Zalman.57 It thus seems that when he came to discuss the identity of the author of Kol ha-­ Tor, Hershkovitz followed Morgenstern and Shuchat, who assert that the book reflects ancient traditions that date back to the nineteenth century. As evidence of this, he points to Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, authored by R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin. How-

The Invention of a tradition

67

ever, as will be seen, this book was not composed by Yosef Yosha but by Shlomo Zalman.58 There is likewise no evidence of the existence of ancient “traditions” for the ideas in Kol ha-­Tor, neither in the Rivlin family down through its generations nor among other scholars of the Old Yishuv. Hershkovitz was led astray by the hoax of Shlomo Zalman, who had described his book as the “precis” of a much older work.59 As for the haskamot given to the book, these are letters from rabbis, most of them descendants of the Old Yishuv, who, following the publication of the books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor in the late 1940s, embraced the main points of the Rivlinian myth, as this myth coincided with their inclination to glorify their ancestors.60 These rabbis, however, did not base their approval on any historical source from the nineteenth century, and their supporting statements do not qualify as evidence. As said, Hershkovitz rules out the possibility that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, or someone else from his generation, could have composed Kol ha-­Tor and gives the following reasons: members of that generation were unable to decipher the puzzles and secrets in the book, and their level of Torah scholarship was not such that they could “create so profound a doctrine.” I disagree with these assertions. First, the “doctrine” presented in the book is expressed in rather simplistic concepts and does not amount to “such a profound ideological doctrine.” Moreover, these ideas do not rely on substantial Torah knowledge, that is, proficiency in halachic literature. The author of the book does indeed show proficiency in midrashic literature and has a general knowledge of the Kabbalah and some familiarity with the writings of the Vilna Gaon, and there is no reason to deny any of these qualities to Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. As to the “impressive ability in the field of gematria,” Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s skill in this field is manifest in all of his writings.61

8

Did Shlomo Zalman Rivlin receive the text of Kol ha-­Tor from Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin?

What role, if any, did Rabbi Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin play in composing the book Kol ha-­Tor? In the preface to Kol ha-­Tor, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin states that he had received the “remnant fraction of this sacred composition from the hands of Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin,”1 while in the foreword to the book, first printed in the 1969 edition,2 Shlomo Zalman repeats and expands on this statement: The bulk of the material of the Kol ha-­Tor writings was received from the Gaon and Kabbalist R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, known as the “preacher of Redemption” and “master of the Holy Yishuv,” who all his days would preach in all the synagogues in the Land of Israel and abroad “like a torrential stream” about the ideas of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples, who were the founders of the settlement in the Holy Land, using the writings of Kol ha-­Tor on the ways of Redemption, the ingathering of exiles, and the commandment to settle the Holy Land.3 In other works too, Shlomo Zalman reiterates the debt he owes to Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin.4 This also applies to sermons of a Messianic Zionist theme cited in the book Hazon Zion. An example is a lengthy sermon on the matters of Redemption which Shlomo Zalman attributes to R. Binyamin, the family patriarch.5 About the source of this sermon he writes, “This sermon and several others about the return to Zion and settlement of the Holy Land, by R. Binyamin, his son R. Hillel, and his grandson R. Moshe Maggid, we received from R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin of blessed memory . . . ; R. Yitzhak Zvi would deliver these [sermons] like a torrential stream in the synagogues of Jerusalem.”6 68

The Invention of a tradition

69

At an earlier phase of this research, I tended to trust these statements by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, even if only in part.7 Yet even then I had no doubt that Kol ha-­Tor had been edited and formulated by Shlomo Zalman. Nevertheless, I innocently accepted the idea that Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin was a Kabbalist and had cited writings by the Gaon of Vilna in his sermons so perhaps these sermons had somehow come down to Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, who had incorporated them in his book. Such a reconstruction at the time seemed to me to also suit the chronological framework of the development of the myth. Recall that in the pamphlet that describes the exploits of R. Hillel Rivlin that was published in 1935, Shlomo Zalman had not yet known of the existence of Kol ha-­Tor. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin passed away during the week of Passover of 1934. I presumed that Shlomo Zalman had been prohibited from making free use of the sermons of Yitzhak Zvi so long as the latter was still alive. He therefore needed a few years to pass before he could

F IG U RE 5.

Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin. Photographer unknown.

70

Immanuel Etkes

use his sermons as he saw fit. And indeed, Kol ha-­Tor was first published in the late 1940s. Such was the reconstruction that occurred to me at an earlier stage of this research. However, further examination of the sources concerning Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin convinced me to withdraw from this reconstruction.8 The change in my position stemmed from several testimonies about the public sermons delivered by Yitzhak Zvi.9 The two previously mentioned sermons indicate that Yitzhak Zvi would frequently draw on biblical verses and statements of the sages when preaching, but there is no hint of reliance on any sources from the Kabbalah or on writings of the Vilna Gaon. Further evidence is an article describing a sermon given by Yitzhak Zvi to youths who had gathered in the courtyard of The Society for the Settlement of the Holy Land in Jerusalem.10 In the course of the sermon, Yitzhak Zvi spoke in praise of working the soil and called on his audience to respect the settlers in the new agricultural settlements. He further called on them to not heed the criticism hurled at the settlers by zealots, for even if some of the settlers were not religiously observant they too were to be respected. The two precedents that the preacher drew on as sources for this perspective were the biblical Sin of the Spies, who had maligned the Land of Israel and caused a delay in the entry to it, and the refusal of some of the Jews of Babylon to join the immigrants in the times of the return to Zion. Those who refused to immigrate, in consequence of which the period of exile was extended, Yitzhak Zvi calls “the sect of the fearful,” and their preference to remain in Babylon he links to the fact that in the Land of Israel at that time there were Jews who were not strict in their observance of the Shabbat laws. It thus appears that in this sermon too, meant to attract youths of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem to the Zionist settlement enterprise, R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin did not rely on any Kabbalistic material nor did he try to find support from the most esteemed figure his family was associated with, the Gaon of Vilna. The conclusion that emerges from these testimonies is supported by the few interpretive commentaries of Yitzhak Zvi that have survived and were printed in the booklets of Hibat ha-­Aretz.11 These are short interpretive passages of about a paragraph, each of which draws on biblical verses or statements from the Talmudic sages or midrashic texts. The common denominator in all these drushim is that they serve as proof texts that support the Zionist enterprise by anchoring it in canonical sources. And in none these commentaries is there mention of a Kabbalistic connection or even of the writings of the Vilna Gaon. Likewise they do not contain any reliance on hints from verses or on gematriot.

The Invention of a tradition

71

Indeed, Yitzhak Zvi was not a Kabbalist, as can be seen also from the praises he received both during his life and posthumously. Time after time, his acquaintances and admirers praise him for his vast familiarity in Talmud, for the excellent memory he was blessed with, and for his engrossment in Torah study. Thus for example, his relative Yosef Yoel Rivlin writes in his memoirs: In my day, R. Yitzhak Zvi was known as thoroughly versed in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds down to their fine print, as well as in the philosophical works of the sages of Spain. Often I would hear him recite entire pages verbatim from the Book of the Kuzari by R. Yehuda Halevi, which was his special favorite, when he wanted to cite a confirming text on matters of Zionism and the love of the Land and the value of the holy tongue.12 The praises are telling for what they do and do not say: a thorough knowledge of both sets of the Talmud, and in the philosophical literature of the sages of Spain of the Middle Ages—­yes; proficiency in Kabbalist literature—­no. This too is the picture that emerges from the Haredi activist Menahem Parush: The power of his memory was extraordinary. He was well versed in Talmud and wonderfully thorough, and apart from his scholarliness, his ideas, thinking, and conversations were only about the love of the Land of Israel and the settlement of it. Like a constant flame his love for the settlement of the Holy Land burned within him; and when the subject merely touched on the Land of Israel, his mouth erupted as with fire hoses, all his veins filled with blood and his face reddened, his voice rose and grew louder, and with excitement and passion a torrent of ideas and evidence from verses by the Prophets and statements by the Sages that he had at the ready poured forth like an unstoppable current.13 In sum, Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin was thought by the inhabitants of Jerusalem who knew him well to be a masterful scholar of Talmudic literature,14 but he was not a Kabbalist nor did he involve himself with the writings of the Vilna Gaon. Accordingly, I retract the presumption that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin made use of sermons of Yitzhak Zvi when he composed the book Kol ha-­Tor. The question thus returns: when he composed Kol ha-­Tor, did Shlomo Zalman Rivlin have before him the manuscripts of any author or authors who preceded him, or was he the lone author of this text from beginning to end? So as to be able to answer this question with some reasonable measure of certainty, I saw fit to set out on a “voyage” into four additional books that were penned by

72

Immanuel Etkes

this same author. The discussion of these books, each of which sets forth a further layer of the Rivlinian myth, will permit approaching the question of the author of Kol ha-­Tor from a comprehensive view of the literary oeuvre of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. Moreover, familiarity with the ensemble of the writings of this author will allow an identification of his “fingerprint” and let us test whether—­and to what extent—­it is present also in Kol ha-­Tor.

PART III

Additional writings by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin

This page intentionally left blank

9

Mossad ha-­Yesod The Old Yishuv recast as the beginnings of Zionism

My journey into the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin will begin with the book Mossad ha-­Yesod (The foundational institution), published in Jerusalem in 1951.1 The identity of the mossad in question is disclosed in its subtitle: Toldot ha-­Vaad ha-­Klali Knesset Israel (The history of the General Committee of Knesset-­Israel). The reference here is to the umbrella organization of the kolels that operated in the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv in Jerusalem in the nineteenth century.2 On the page after the frontispiece, the following announcement appears: “This compilation is an abbreviated extract of the record of the General Committee . . . and can serve only as an index to a great book about the history and enterprises of this institution, which will appear at the earliest opportunity.” Indeed, in 1958 a second and extended edition of the book was printed in Jerusalem.3 Mossad ha-­Yesod seeks to describe the history of the General Committee, an organization founded in 1866 to bring about cooperation between the many kolels that then were active in the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. Indeed, the book contains much information about the activities of this committee during the years that it existed, but in truth the book was meant to serve as an apologia for the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv in the face of the criticism leveled against it in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. Moreover, the author works to glorify the Rivlin family, some members of which played prominent roles in the leadership of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv. Above all, the author seeks to draw attention to the activities of his father, Yosef Yosha Rivlin, who served as the secretary of the General Committee for decades. 75

76

Immanuel Etkes

To achieve these goals, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin created ex nihilo a fictional world. Although the book does cite real events and personalities, these are interwoven with and blended into fictions and exaggerations that derive entirely from the author’s fertile imagination. Hence the book informs us less about the history of the Old Yishuv than it does about the imagined world of its author. Three main trends characterize Mossad ha-­Yesod: the identification of the Old Yishuv with a Messianic Zionist ideology that the book attributes to the school of the Vilna Gaon; extreme exaggeration and distortion in the description of the activities of the General Committee, and accentuation of the role of the Rivlin family in the leadership of the Old Yishuv.

The Old Yishuv and the Messianic Zionist vision Here is what Shlomo Zalman Rivlin has to say about the Messianic Zionist character of the Old Yishuv: The aliyot of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and their enterprises in the foundation of the Yishuv were based on noble ideas meant for bringing Redemption closer via the settlement of the Land of Israel. . . . The students of the Vilna Gaon in Jerusalem, their students, all the heads of the community in Jerusalem, and all the people of the Land of Israel in those days were infused with a belief that with each step and turn in the building of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel they were bringing the Redeemer closer. . . . The main points on the agenda of the students of the Vilna Gaon were (a) the commandment to expand—­expansion of the settlement according to the prophecy “expand the space of thy tent” [Isaiah 54:2]; (b) building Jerusalem at a pace of “six hundred thousand in thy gate,” a number by force of which the SM [Samael, Satan] can be overwhelmed at the gates of Jerusalem, and the Shechinah returned into it; (c) regreening the desolate wastes of the Land by building and planting, following the concept of “the Revealed End,” as it is written “for the Lord had mercy on Zion, mercy on all its ruins, and turned its deserts into an Eden and its nakedness into the Garden of God” [Isaiah 51:3]. . . . On the basis of these principles the students of the Gaon of Vilna and their students acted and operated, along with the students of the Besht and of the Ba’al ha-­Tanya and all the heads of the community in Jerusalem, with dedication and enormous passion. . . . In all difficult things and all the more during hard times, they would solve any matter according to hints . . . and gematriot of biblical

The Invention of a tradition

77

verses and statements of the sages and sometimes also using the “lottery” of the Gaon of Vilna.4 In these paragraphs, Rivlin is repeating the central claim of his book Hazon Zion, to wit: the immigration of the Prushim to the Land of Israel was based on a Messianic Zionist doctrine originating with the school of the Vilna Gaon. Yet the claim here is more far-­reaching: for not only the Prushim but the entire Yishuv, including the Hasidim and the Sephardim, were infused with this same Messianic Zionist belief. This assertion presents a difficulty: If the Messianic Zionist vision originated with the Gaon and his disciples, how is it that this vision was also the foundation of the aliyot of the Hasidim, which happened decades before those of the Gaon’s disciples?5 Shlomo Zalman Rivlin avoids addressing this difficulty directly, but he resolves it by extending the Messianic Zionist ideology that he attributes to the Gaon to also encompass the Hasidic leader R. Shneor Zalman of Liady: According to tradition, the Ba’al ha-­Tanya [R. Shneor Zalman of Liady] believed that he was destined by heaven to undertake the mission of beginning the ingathering of exiles and saw by means of his holy spirit several hints in his name regarding this holy destiny.6 . . . Rabbi Ba’al ha-­Tanya wrote passionately in favor of the settlement of the Holy Land; some of his letters are reprinted in the book Mishnat Yoel [Teaching of Yoel]. The rabbi and gaon Shneor Slonim and R. Dov Efrat of blessed memory, both of Hebron, would often in their sermons tell of the enthusiastic awakening of the Ba’al ha-­Tanya for the ingathering of exiles and the settlement of the Holy Land and, among other things, mentioned several times the approach of the Ba’al ha-­Tanya, that every athalta de-­geula [beginnings of Redemption], by means of ingathering of exiles, is a mission of Messiah ben Yosef and that he, the Ba’al ha-­Tanya himself, was of the root of the soul of Yosef the Righteous. . . . From all the original information, it can clearly be seen that the fundamental approach of the Ba’al ha-­Tanya was exactly like that of our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna.7 The Gaon led the Vilna community to an all-­out war against Hasidim and Hasidism; R. Shneur Zalman, who headed the Hasidic camp, accused the Gaon of unjustly persecuting the Hasidim. R. Shneur Zalman also wrote to his followers that there was no chance of reconciliation with the Vilna Gaon because he is adamant that Hasidism is a form of heresy. So much for the historical facts.8 However, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin managed to reconcile the two opponents and bring their views into unanimity. Both were supposedly partners in the Messianic

78

Immanuel Etkes

Zionist vision, which sees aliyah to the Land of Israel as a first step toward Redemption. And if that was not enough, both also saw themselves as the bearers of a Messianic destiny associated with the image of Messiah ben Yosef. To remove all doubt, it must be said immediately that none of this is true. The fictional nature of the attribution of a Messianic Zionist vision to the Gaon and his disciples, I have already discussed in the first chapters of this book. Equally, however, one will find neither in the writings of R. Shneur Zalman of Liady nor in any of the other contemporary sources pertaining to him any basis whatsoever to the idea that the aliyah to the Land of Israel is a first stage in the process of Redemption or even a means of hastening Redemption. Over many years, R. Shneur Zalman led the efforts to raise funds for the Hasidim living in the Land of Israel. During those years, he wrote dozens of letters in which he encouraged and prodded the Hasidim to donate their own funds for this cause. These letters inform us about his deep affection for the Land of Israel owing to its sanctity and about his respect for those who in their own person were fulfilling the commandment of settlement there. However, the letters written by R. Shneur Zalman regarding the Land of Israel do not depart from the bounds of the traditional views about the sanctity of the Land and contain not a shred of Messianic Zionism.9 The author of Mossad ha-­Yesod relies on statements supposedly made by the leaders of Chabad Hasidim in Hebron. However, these individuals, who knew the writings of R. Shneur Zalman thoroughly, never would have considered attributing to him ideas that he did not hold. Shlomo Zalman also cites Mishnat Yoel. This book contains a concise summary of the life of R. Shneur Zalman, a discussion of the regulations he issued on matters of halacha and customs, and a selection of his letters.10 Among other letters are ones that call on Hasidim to donate their money for their brethren living in the Land of Israel. As said, these letters speak of his love of the Land and the mitzvah of supporting its inhabitants, but they do not call for immigration to the Land of Israel or contain a shred of Messianic Zionist ideas.

The activities of the General Committee In his quest to glorify the General Committee, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin chose to increase its lifespan. According to him, this institution began to operate as early as the beginning of the second decade of the nineteenth century, with the establishment of the kolel of the Prushim and the kolel of the Hasidim in Jerusalem.11 These two kolels, so he maintains, operated in a close cooperation that continued with the formation of the General Committee.12 He admits that in 1849 a schism broke out in the kolel of the Prushim resulting in its division into seven kolels

The Invention of a tradition

79

according to the countries of origin, but he reiterates that “in the organization of the Committee for all the kolels in 1865, nothing new was formed with respect to the main activities done by the Prushim and Hasidim prior to then.”13 Following this assertion comes a paragraph that anoints the General Committee as the central leadership institution that directs the management of all public affairs for Jews in the Land of Israel from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the beginning of the British Mandate period: During a period of 110 years, from the day it was founded till after World War I, this institution was the supreme and central institution for all affairs of the public and of the Yishuv both internally and externally, whether for individual affairs or for all political matters during the period of Turkish rule, except for the charity and support activities for thousands of poor families. . . . This institution was the practical point of origin for all the enterprises of building and expanding the Yishuv, in all respects.14 Thus far is Shlomo Zalman’s version. In actual fact, the establishment of the General Committee in 1866 was an important innovation in Ashkenazi public life in Jerusalem, since this institution was established to overcome the tensions and struggles between the various kolels and to enable cooperation between them. That being said, the General Committee was a federative body that did not override the operations of the individual kolels and did not expropriate from them the responsibilities that they formerly held. Accordingly, to describe this institution as a centralized leadership of great power is an exaggeration.15 This applies to the status of the General Committee among the Ashkenazi public; the Sephardi sector certainly did not consider this institution as any sort of authority. The author of Mossad ha-­Yesod lists no fewer than twenty-­six realms dealt with by the General Committee, including realms that actually were within its jurisdiction, realms it was involved in with other entities, and realms of activity that are pure products of the author’s imagination. Activities of the first kind include support for Torah and charitable institutions, the payment of the salaries of judges in the rabbinic courts, and tax payments to the government. Likewise, the Committee supported poor families that were not affiliated with any of the kolels. Activities that the Committee was involved in, although not as a sole entity, were representation of the Jewish public to the government authorities and to the consulates of European powers.16 Yet Shlomo Zalman also tells in detail about activities of the General Committee that never existed in any shape or form. For all those who may have innocently believed that the beginnings of the Hebrew defensive force in the Land of Israel were the Bar-­Giora and Ha-­Shomer

Immanuel Etkes

80

organizations, founded by members of the Second Aliyah in the early twentieth century, a surprise awaits: The Gevardia, the Jewish self-­defense organization in the Land of Israel, was founded by members of the Old Yishuv as soon as the early nineteenth century. Rivlin relates: During the first periods after the beginning of the foundation of the settlement . . . there existed in Jerusalem a guardian company and a rescue company, made up of Ashkenazi and Sephardic members . . . so as to protect against attacks and robberies and murders by Bedouin Arabs and wild Druze. . . . The Jewish company of guardians called Men of the Gevardia was ever vigilant and acted tirelessly for the defense and rescue of the Yishuv. . . . From 1867 onward, with the beginnings of the foundation and construction of the settlement outside the wall, the Jewish guardians worked night and day to defend and protect the neighborhoods. . . . The Men of the Jewish Gevardia, headed by the “ten heroes,” labored mightily and heroically to preserve and save the many isolated neighborhoods during the first period.17 The historiography dealing with the emergence of the Hebrew defensive force that led to the establishment of the Israel Defense Forces reserves a place of honor

F IG U RE 6 .

The Gevardia. Illustration by Noam Nadav.

The Invention of a tradition

81

for British officer Orde Wingate, a bold and original warrior who was the first to lead the members of the Haganah into offensive operations in enemy territory. Yet in this respect too the fighters of the Gevardia preceded those of the Haganah:18 In the month of Sivan 1873, the Jewish Gevardia decided and resolved to not only protect the Jewish homes in the city but also to go outside the city and eliminate the gangs in their camps between the mountains in all the environs of Jerusalem. One night the Gevardia gathered all its forces; it was the night of May 31, 1873, and in the middle of the night the armed Gevardia forces came out carrying their weapons and segulot [compounds of elements possessing occult properties] in three prongs around Jerusalem, surrounded the Bedouin camps, and with a great call “Deliverance belongs to God!” rained rifle and pistol fire on the Bedouins from all sides. . . . The whole campaign lasted about half an hour, and the result was that no survivor or escapee was left from the bandit gangs. According to the reports, some 150 robbers were killed in this campaign and a large haul of weapons fell to the Gevardians. The Gevardians themselves suffered only a few wounded.19 For anyone familiar with the history of the Jewish Yishuv in the Land of Israel in the nineteenth century, it is obvious that the heroic tales of the Gevardia are utter fantasies. Another example of an imagined activity of the General Committee is the “battle against missionary activity and employment of Jewish workers.” About these, the author of Mossad ha-­Yesod has this to say: In those days, the missionary institutions were most active in their efforts to capture Jewish souls in their nets by various means, especially by giving jobs in their buildings and fields. In the war against the missionaries, the heads of the community and the kolels and all the people of Jerusalem participated with the great help of the aforementioned guardian and rescue companies. This war was waged by various means, mainly by employing Jewish laborers in building the neighborhoods and working the land.20 In fact, the General Committee never fought against missionaries via the employment of Jewish laborers in construction and agriculture. Shlomo Zalman seeks to base this concoction on an article published by Yosef Yosha Rivlin, secretary of the General Committee, in the periodical Ha-­Levanon.21 However, this article, meant to defend the members of the Old Yishuv from the critique by Yechiel Michal Pines, makes no mention either of missionaries or of the employ-

82

Immanuel Etkes

ment of Jewish laborers in construction and agriculture. All it does say is that the residents of Jerusalem would be glad if they were given the opportunity to make a living from working the soil. Moreover, in a special article published by Yosef Yosha entitled “Yehudei Yerushalayim ve-­ha-­Mission” (The Jews of Jerusalem and the missionaries), he relates that the way in which the leadership of the Ashkenazi Yishuv chose to fight missionaries was to place “fences and bounds” between the Jews of Jerusalem and the “vile sect.” Fences and bounds—­and nothing more.22

Agricultural settlement The founding of the settlement of Petah Tikva by some of the members of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv in Jerusalem is the historical nucleus around which Shlomo Zalman Rivlin weaves his story about how building agricultural settlements was supposedly foremost in the minds of the residents of the Old Yishuv. Here is how he describes what he calls the “spiritual background of the foundation of the movement”: The great aspiration to establish an agricultural settlement, which in those days throbbed in the hearts of all the people of Jerusalem, . . . had its origins in a great and Messianic ideology . . . that was the vision of the spirit and desire of the Vilna Gaon and his disciples, the founders of the Yishuv in the Holy Land. Already from the very beginning of the foundation of the settlement by the Gaon’s disciples, from 1811 onward, a deep belief was harbored among most of the people of Jerusalem that its existence and security would be based on “staking a claim” by building and planting in the soil of the Holy Land.23 Thus, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin dismisses those who believe that underpinning the aliyot of Hasidim and Prushim to the Land of Israel was the aspiration to improve their spirituality, whether through prayer at the tombs of prophets and Mishnaic sages or through study of Torah in the sublime atmosphere of the Land of Israel: instead, he asserts that what was foremost in the immigrants’ aspirations was an ideal of agricultural settlement. He goes on to say that “from the very beginning of the Ashkenazi settlement from the year 1812 onward, many attempts were made by the students of the Gaon and the heads of the community to launch the founding of village communities, attempts that failed for various reasons.”24 To support the claim that the agricultural settlement initiative came from members of the Old Yishuv, Shlomo Zalman knew to tell that it was “rabbis of Jerusalem, the gaons R. Meir Auerbach and R. Shmuel Salant, [who] in 1874 ap-

The Invention of a tradition

83

proached Sir Montefiore with a letter of request, on behalf of all the heads of the community, in which they state that of all the requests of the people of Jerusalem, the first priority was aid in the building of Jerusalem and settlements for working the land.”25 As was his way in many other instances, here too Shlomo Zalman attributes to the rabbis of Jerusalem things they never said.26 Yet as Mossad ha-­Yesod tells it, the individual who publicized and made prominent the idea of agricultural settlement was, of course, Yosef Yosha Rivlin, secretary of the General Committee and father of Shlomo Zalman. Referencing an article published by Yosef Yosha in the periodical Ha-­Levanon in the 1870s, Shlomo Zalman affirms that his remarks served as “the first public statements by the chief leadership of Jerusalem on the necessity of and practical plan for the establishment of an agricultural settlement in the Land of Israel,” made a huge impression, and caused “a great awakening in all the Jewish communities in the Diaspora.”27 Among those affected by Yosef Yosha’s public advocacy was Moses Montefiore. After the latter’s visit to the Land of Israel in 1875, he decided to “help the people of the Land of Israel in all three things: constructing buildings in Jerusalem, working the land, and strengthening labor and commerce in the Land of Israel.”28 The author of Mossad ha-­Yesod further relates that Yosef Yosha was not merely a great preacher but likewise a great activist and that in the course of two decades he worked to acquire lands in the environs of Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron, and Jaffa.29 And indeed, these efforts of Yosef Yosha and the General Committee finally bore fruit when the settlement of Petah Tikva was founded, since “the initial foundation of the agricultural settlement and the settlement of Petah Tikva was done by the General Committee.”30 The statements by Shlomo Zalman regarding agricultural settlement can thus be summarized by the following points: • The aspiration for agricultural settlement was a priority for the Old Yishuv

since its inception. • This aspiration was anchored in the Messianic Zionist doctrine originating

with the school of the Vilna Gaon and his disciples. • Attempts at agricultural settlement accompanied the Old Yishuv through-

out the years of its existence. • The entity that led these efforts was the General Committee, headed by

Yosef Yosha Rivlin. • The founding of Petah Tikva was a direct result of these efforts.

84

Immanuel Etkes

Anyone familiar with the history of the Jewish Yishuv in the Land of Israel in the nineteenth century will have no difficulty affirming that all these points have no basis in historical reality. The Hasidim who immigrated to the Land of Israel in the late eighteenth century and the Prushim who immigrated in the early nineteenth century aspired to devote themselves to religious practices, and it never occurred to them to engage in working the soil. Both the Hasidim and the Prushim earned a living from the donations of their brethren in the Diaspora on the grounds that they were emissaries of the public who were fulfilling the mitzvah of dwelling in the Land of Israel and whose study and prayers were beneficial for all Jewish people.31 The very idea of strengthening the economy of the Yishuv in the Land of Israel by working the soil originates from the thinking of the Jewish enlightenment movement, which emphasized the value of productive labor.32 This idea came onto the agenda of the Jews of the Land of Israel in connection with Montefiore’s visit in 1839. The background to the discourse on this subject were these facts: in the 1830s, there was a demographic increase in the old Ashkenazi community, and as a result the gap grew between the amount of donations received by the kolels and the number of people in need. Moreover, many of the immigrants who joined the Old Yishuv in the 1830s were not the high-­ranking scholars for whom the donated funds were intended. The response of the residents of the Old Yishuv to the idea of agricultural settlement was examined in an article by Israel Bartal.33 Here is the crux of his findings: the diaries of Moses Montefiore and his wife, Yehudit, tend to describe the new initiative in the spirit of the ideas of productive labor that were then prevalent among certain Jewish thinkers in Europe. Some historians too have viewed Montefiore’s “settlement plan” as a sign of things to come, a kind of beginning of the agricultural settlement that would be established during the days of Hibat Zion. Yet careful examination of the letters sent to Montefiore by various individuals in the Old Yishuv leads to a more nuanced assessment. The appeals to Montefiore did not come from the heads of the kolels but from individuals such as Mordechai Tzoref and Aryeh Leib Neeman,34 who at the time were already acting as economic entrepreneurs. What these individuals sought was not to fundamentally change the structure of the Old Yishuv and its aims but to alleviate the economic distress and to liberate the kolels from dependence on the organization Ha-­Pkidim ve-­ha-­A markalim.35 Those engaged in Torah study were meant to continue doing so, while those who were not scholars needed another form of support. Moreover, from the letters to Montefiore it clearly emerges that “the objective was not Jewish settlement in villages but funding, supervision, and management of plots adjacent to the cities worked by Arab agricultural laborers.36

The Invention of a tradition

85

If, following Montefiore’s visit to the Land of Israel in 1839, there were individuals who responded positively to the initiative for “working the soil,” albeit in the restricted form just noted, then after Montefiore’s visit of 1849 there was a setback in this regard. Montefiore asked the heads of the Yishuv for their opinion on occupations from which they might make a living, including working the land. Here was their response: As to working the soil—­ploughing, sowing, and the like—­it is true that the people of Jerusalem desired this while the country was under the Pasha government of the State of Egypt,37 which took the weapons away from the Gentiles and removed their warriors, who greatly feared him. Not so now that his government has gone and the weapons have come back into their hands, for they are savages, robbers, and killers. And who is it who would ever even think of living among them in their villages to engage in working the soil? . . . Therefore, this is the advice as we see fit for the conduct of commerce in our city: the optimal work to benefit the poor of the Holy Land is the work of manufacturing, as in Europe, in particular the work of spinning and weaving yarn.38 Thus, a fear about the safety of Jews who might live in villages among a hostile Arab population motivated the leaders of the Old Yishuv to prefer industry over agriculture at this stage. The position of the rabbis of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv on working the land can also be discerned from their response to Montefiore’s initiative during his visit to Jerusalem in 1866. At a meeting with the leaders of all the factions of the Yishuv in Jerusalem, Montefiore asked how they thought he should act “for the greater public good.” R. Hayyim David Hazan, leader of the Sephardi community, replied, “As I see it, it would be good if the minister would purchase fields and estates and settle poor people there, who by their labor would be able to obtain bread from the land.” When Montefiore turned to the Ashkenazic rabbis and asked for their opinion, he was answered by R. Shmuel Salant, “I myself can’t reveal my opinion, as experience has taught me it is better to remain silent. . . . The minister should do as he sees best with the expanse of his wisdom, for the sake of Jerusalem.” Similar things were also said to Montefiore by R. Meir Auerbach.39 The initiative for agricultural settlement by the Old Yishuv was renewed in the early 1870s.40 In 1872, news was announced that the government was seeking to sell four thousand dunams of land in the Jordan Valley near Jericho. Certain members of the Prushim community, including Yehoshua Yellin, Yoel Moshe Salomon, Ben-­Zion Leon, and Benjamin Binoche Salant,41 came together and established a stock company to raise the amount required to buy the land. In the

86

Immanuel Etkes

meantime, the government reversed its intention to sell the land in the Jordan Valley. In 1876, an association was founded called Working the Soil and Redeeming the Land; the main figure in the association was David Gutman. The association won the support of R. Meir Auerbach, but a few of the heads of the kolels who feared harm to the scope of the donations they were receiving launched a battle against the association. Among those who disapproved of the association’s actions was R. Shmuel Salant, the spiritual leader of the General Committee.42 In the summer of 1878, David Gutman, Yoel Moshe Salomon, Yehoshua Stampfer, and Zerach Burnett went on tour of the lands of the Amalabes that were being offered for sale and decided to purchase them. The purchase contract was signed by Yoel Moshe Salomon and Nathan Grigert on behalf of the buyers, thus laying the foundation for the settlement of Petah Tikva.43 What we find therefore is that working the land was not a burning desire of the founders of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv; not only that but the idea did not occur to the founders at all. The discourse on this subject only began in connection with Montefiore’s visit to the Land of Israel in 1839 at the inspiration of the Diaspora Jewish intellectuals who had adopted the Jewish enlightenment movement’s vision of productive labor. The local response to Montefiore’s initiative came from individual entrepreneurs and not from the leadership of the kolels, and even that involved reservations. The cultivation of the land was meant to be carried out by Arab laborers under the supervision of Jews who were not members of the beit midrash. In the 1840s, the willingness to make a living from agriculture was retreated from, and the Yishuv leaders’ expressed preference was for Montefiore to support industry instead. Only in the 1870s was the agricultural settlement effort renewed, leading to the establishment of the settlement of Petah Tikva. Yet this was an initiative of individuals and did not come from the leadership of the General Committee: R. Shmuel Salant, who headed the General Committee, is even on record as opposing it. Moreover while Yosef Yosha Rivlin, secretary of the Committee, did support this initiative, he was not its leader.

Building Jerusalem The third part of Mossad ha-­Yesod is entirely dedicated to “building Jerusalem.” The main subject of this part of the book is the building of the new neighborhoods outside the Old City walls. However, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin also elects to speak about the activities to improve living conditions within Jerusalem’s walls. He says that it was the heads of the kolels who took care to renovate the dilapidated apartments, install drainage channels for the sewage, build synagogues and yeshivas, establish hospitals, and more. The heads of the kolels are therefore por-

The Invention of a tradition

87

trayed as resourceful leaders who dealt effectively with the harsh living conditions in ancient Jerusalem and took pains to provide its Jewish residents with all their needs.44 The author of Mossad ha-­Yesod does not base his statements on documentation of any kind, and there may well be a considerable degree of hyperbole to them. However, even if there is some truth to these statements, when he recounts how the leaders of the Ashkenazi community solved the water shortage that weighed on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, he sails off uninhibitedly into realms of the imagination: In the summer of 1829, the weather was very hot and the thirst increased from hour to hour. Parents with their children came before the rabbis, the disciples of the Gaon, sobbing bitterly: You want to bring Redemption by having our children die! . . . Immediately, R. Hillel stood up, followed by R. Mendel, and they said, Heavenly Father, enough! . . . We decree, and you shall fulfill. They communed with the soul of the Gaon of Vilna . . . ; they held a special prayer that, through application of a “Secret Name,” gained them a hint at the location of an underground spring in one of the fields in the environs of Jerusalem to the west. . . . Immediately, the disciples of the Gaon went to the exact place that had been indicated to them from heaven, and when they began the excavation, a stream of water erupted from the ground to a great height. . . . The flow of the stream lasted eight days.45 The two men who supposedly were at the center of the miraculous event described here were R. Hillel Rivlin and R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov. However, R. Menachem Mendel died in the autumn of 1827, two years before that event, while R. Hillel only immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1832, three years after it. The heads of the kolels, adds Shlomo Zalman, did not rely solely on miracles, and in the summer of 1829 they initiated the excavation of eleven large cisterns around Jerusalem and even installed canals to lead water into the city.46 Indeed this is an enterprise worthy of all praise—­except that for some reason there is no mention of this effort in the sources known to us and also no archaeological data to confirm it. And while we are dealing with fictions, we must not neglect the role of the Gevardia. Shlomo Zalman relates that when the Prushim engaged in the reconstruction of the Hurva, the synagogue of R. Yehuda he-­Hasid, gangs of Arabs attacked the leaders of the community and the laborers preparing the site. Yet “the men of the Gevardia fought back and caused a huge defeat to the Arab marauders and also drew casualties from among them.”47 As mentioned, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s main interest in this part of his book

88

Immanuel Etkes

is the building of the new neighborhoods outside the wall. The researchers who study this issue all agree that the main motive for the construction of the new neighborhoods was the housing shortage within the Old City walls. Yet the author of Mossad ha-­Yesod has his own explanation. “The great and passionate aspiration of the first builders from the beginning of the foundation of the Ashkenazi settlement in Jerusalem by the disciples of the Gaon and by the followers of the Besht and the Ba’al ha-­Tanya of blessed memory . . . was the commandment to expand, according to the prophecy ‘expand the space of thy tent’ ” (Isaiah 54:2).48 Subsequently, Rivlin claims that the “mitzvah to expand” was one of the main components of the Messianic Zionist vision that the Gaon instilled in his disciples. The different aspects of this mitzvah are clarified according to a midrashic interpretation of verses. Thus, for example, the verse “expand the space of thy tent” relates to expansion of the spatial territory, whereas the verse “for now the Lord has made expansion for us and we have flourished in the Land” (Genesis 26:22) refers to expansion of the settlement and the number of souls.49 We thus find that the enterprise of neighborhood building outside the walls of the Old City was entirely marked by the Messianic Zionist vision held by the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples and was based on a midrashic interpretation of verses. Therefore, it is not surprising that the leaders of the Ashkenazi Yishuv were quick to uphold this mitzvah in the early decades of the nineteenth century. Indeed, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin knew to recount that over fifty years before the first neighborhood outside the walls was established “bold attempts were made by the students of the Gaon of Vilna and by a committee of kolels of Prushim and Hasidim in Jerusalem to purchase large tracts of land around Jerusalem in order to establish a large Jewish settlement.” However, for some reason, these attempts bore no fruit. The initiative to purchase land resumed in the 1840s, when R. Moshe Maggid Rivlin served as the leader of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. “In this enterprise huge sums were invested to purchase . . . a giant tract, the perimeter of which is as much as 108,000 cubits.” Yet this effort too did not go well.50 Ultimately, Shlomo Zalman goes on to tell, the management of the General Committee purchased the territory west of the Old City wall, including the land on which the Russian Compound and the Musrara neighborhood would be built, as well as all the land on which the neighborhoods of Mea She’arim, Nahalat Shiv’a, Even Israel, and others were constructed. Indeed, “for a number of reasons and especially for lack of means,” this huge purchase too was not carried out, except for the specific areas on which the aforementioned Jewish neighborhoods were built.51 The General Committee did not content itself, of course, with purchasing land but also initiated and led the actual project of building the

The Invention of a tradition

89

new neighborhoods in all its aspects.52 From this, the conclusion follows “that the chief executive for all the work of founding and building the aforementioned neighborhoods was R. Yosef [Yosha] Rivlin, the secretary and director of the General Committee,” who is none other than the father of Shlomo Zalman.53 So much for Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s version of the motives that underpinned the initiatives for the construction of the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the role played by his father. However, as on other issues, he sets his imagination free on this issue, since the motive for building the new neighborhoods was neither the “mitzvah to expand” nor a Messianic Zionist vision of any kind; and it goes without saying that the builders of the new neighborhoods acted on the basis of practical considerations and not hints from verses. The building of neighborhoods was meant to solve the dire housing shortage within the Old City walls, which was exacerbated by the demographic growth of the Jewish community in Jerusalem. The gap between the limited supply of apartments and the increasing demand created a shortage of apartments and an increase in rental prices.54 It should also be stated that the General Committee was not involved at all in the purchase of lands, did not initiate the construction of the new neighborhoods, and did not manage these. Hence, even if there is truth to the claim that Yosef Yosha Rivlin played a prominent role in the construction of the new neighborhoods, he did not do so on behalf of the General Committee, and he was not the one who headed this enterprise from the outset. The initiative to build the new neighborhoods outside the walls came from individuals who formed “associations” for that purpose, aimed at building homes for their members; moreover the figures who were in charge of the kolels disapproved of this initiative.55 According to testimonies of contemporaries, Yosef Yosha Rivlin indeed played a very significant role in the initiation of several neighborhoods outside the walls, helped to get them built, and was highly regarded for this enterprise.56 However, the creators of the Rivlinian myth seem to have found it difficult to settle for these facts and sought to grant him the status of the pioneer of settlements outside the walls. This comes to the fore in relation to the dating of the neighborhood of Nahalat Shiv’a, affirmed by the author of Mossad ha-­Yesod as the first neighborhood built outside the walls,57 even though in fact the first such neighborhood was Mishkenot Sha’ananim.58 For members of the Rivlin family—­not limited to Shlomo Zalman—­the primacy of the Mishkenot Sha’ananim neighborhood was inconsistent with the family’s desire to crown Yosef Yosha as the first of the settlers outside the walls, so they made efforts to downgrade it.59 An example is an article composed by Yosef Yoel Rivlin.60 Montefiore, as Yosef Yoel tells it, initially lodged a weaving factory in the neighborhood, which operated for several years “but was unsuccess-

Immanuel Etkes

90

F IG U RE 7.

1869.

Front page of the Nahalat Shiv’a society’s record book,

ful.” The place “then became a hospital, but this institution too was unsuccessful, because patients were afraid to convalesce there.” Subsequently, Yosef Yoel goes on to say, Montefiore’s agents in the Land of Israel—­Yosef Yoel and Yosef Yosha Rivlin—­proposed to house poor people there and pay them in exchange for their willingness to live outside the city, but this arrangement likewise did not go well and the houses stood desolate for five years.61 Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, who built on what his relative Yosef Yoel Rivlin had written in this regard, added the following: “It was only many years later, after the settlement of the first neighborhoods outside the Wall developed, that several families began to live in the courtyard of Yehuda Tura.” Thus, Nahalat Shiv’a was the first neighborhood in which Jews settled outside the walls, and Yosef Yosha Rivlin was the first of them.62 However, the sequence of events as described by the two authors of the Rivlin family is inconsistent with what we know from reliable sources from those days.

The Invention of a tradition

91

First, it should be noted that the Rivlin family members never served as Montefiore’s representatives in Jerusalem: those who filled this function at the time were Eliyahu Navon and Yitzhak Rozenthal.63 Second, Montefiore did not lodge a weaving factory or even a hospital in the Mishkenot Sha’ananim structures;64 the new buildings were meant from the outset as housing for Jerusalem’s poor.65 Indeed some twenty families, half of them Sephardi and half of them Ashkenazi, occupied these structures at the beginning of 1860, meaning about nine years before the first construction in Nahalat Shiv’a was inaugurated in the summer of 1869.66 Moreover the Mahane Israel neighborhood, built by R. David Ben Shimon for the North African immigrants, also preceded Nahalat Shiv’a, since the houses of this neighborhood were built in 1868.67 Another author from the Rivlin family who broached this issue is Asher Rivlin, son of Shlomo Zalman. In a work dedicated to describing the founding of the Nahalat Shiv’a neighborhood,68 he repeats the claim that “Mishkenot Sha’ananim remained uninhabited for most of the initial years, until after the entrenchment of Nahalat Shiv’a.”69 He claimed to rely on “hard evidence” and cited writings by Avraham Moshe Luntz to the effect that the houses in the Mishkenot Sha’ananim neighborhood had remained uninhabited for five years.70 However, examination of Luntz’s remarks reveals that he was not referring to the houses built in the first stage of the founding of the neighborhood (i.e., the ones whose

F IG U RE 8 . Mishkenot Sha’ananim, the first Jewish neighborhood built outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, founded 1860.

92

Immanuel Etkes

construction was completed in the autumn of 1860) but to four other houses whose construction Montefiore initiated during his visit to Jerusalem in 1866. As for the twenty houses that were built first, Luntz clearly states that they housed ten Sephardic families and ten Ashkenazic families.71 Another source that Asher Rivlin relied on is the memoir of Ephraim Cohen-­Reis. According to Rivlin, Cohen-­Reis tells of “Montefiore’s sorrow at the failure of the settlement there.”72 However, this source too provides entirely different information. Cohen-­Reis says that during his visit to the Land of Israel, Shmuel Montague, representative of the Delegates Committee in London, expressed disappointment that some of Montefiore’s initiatives had not borne fruit. Among these, he listed the weaving factory and the windmill. Precisely against the background of the failure of these projects, Cohen-­Reis cites the Mishkenot Sha’ananim neighborhood as a success story.73 As said, the aspiration of the creators of the Rivlinian myth to describe Yosef Yosha Rivlin as the pioneer of the settlements outside the walls was based on his involvement in the construction of Nahalat Shiv’a. Indeed Yosef Yosha was one of the founders of Nahalat Shiv’a, but his involvement in the founding of this neighborhood was not due to his official role as director of the General Committee. As mentioned, the founding of Nahalat Shiv’a, as well as other neighborhoods, was an initiative of individuals who joined to form “societies” for this purpose; the heads of the kolels were opposed to construction outside the walls.74 It is worth adding that the Rivlin family version, which grants Yosef Yosha Rivlin first rights to Nahalat Shiv’a, runs up against the Salomon family version, which describes Yoel Moshe Salomon as the person who initiated and led the purchase of the land and construction of the neighborhood.75 To reject this version and establish first rights for Yosef Yosha, Yosef Yoel Rivlin claims, “Already in 1855, when everything was desolate outside the city . . . , when the gates of the city were locked up each night for fear of bandits and attackers . . . , even then, the idea of building outside the city excited R. Yosef.”76 It emerges that Yosef Yosha Rivlin began to conceive of settling outside the walls already as a youth of eighteen. Indeed, Yosef Yoel goes on to explain that one should not be puzzled that Yosef Yosha awoke to neighborhood construction at so tender an age, since “he had a tradition via his grandfather R. Moshe Maggid that the intention of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples . . . was not only to reside in the Holy Land but also to expand its construction.” Shlomo Zalman Rivlin followed the lead of Yosef Yoel Rivlin and added his own touch to the story:

The Invention of a tradition

93

Neither easily nor in a short time did Rabbi Yosef [Yosha] Rivlin manage to begin construction of the neighborhoods outside the Jerusalem walls. . . . For fifteen consecutive years . . . , already from his youth in the year 1854 and onward . . . , he intensely promoted this in his sermons and his pizmonim. In that period he twice set off abroad to arouse our brothers the Jews to the great cause of the “mitzvah of expansion,” the expansion of the settlement in the Land of Israel. . . . Risking his life in his first settlement in “a desolate wasteland” . . . stemmed from his deep faith, that he was called upon by heaven—­via hundreds of sacred hints—­to be the head of this mission . . . for the sake of bringing Redemption closer.77 These are all complete fabrications. Yosef Yosha Rivlin did not initiate construction outside the walls in the 1850s when he was eighteen years old; his involvement in building the neighborhoods was not based on a Messianic Zionist view or on hints from verses; and he did not see himself as fulfilling a mission from heaven. Like certain other entrepreneurs from the Old Yishuv who participated in the construction of the new neighborhoods, Yosef Yosha Rivlin acted on the basis of pragmatic considerations, namely the shortage of residences due to the demographic increase, the increase in rental prices, and the poor sanitation conditions within the walls.78 The Old Yishuv as the beginning of Zionism The picture that emerges from Mossad ha-­Yesod is that the old Ashkenazi settlement in the Land of Israel, which began with the aliyah of the Hasidim in the last third of the eighteenth century and the aliyah of the Prushim in the early nineteenth century, was entirely colored by a Messianic Zionist vision from the school of the Vilna Gaon. According to this vision, the very fact of immigrating to the Land of Israel is a first step in the process of Redemption. Moreover, in order to bring Redemption closer, one must engage in the building of the city of Jerusalem and the flowering of the wastelands of the Land of Israel through agricultural labor. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the heads of the Ashkenazi Yishuv have made constant efforts to achieve these goals, relying on verse hints and gematria. The pinnacle of these efforts was the establishment of the settlement of Petah Tikva and the building of the new neighborhoods outside the walls of Jerusalem. The entity that led all these enterprises was the General Committee, while under the direction of Yosef Yosha Rivlin. As mentioned, this image stands in polar contrast to the true nature of the Old Yishuv. Which prompts the question: What was the aim of the author of

94

Immanuel Etkes

Mossad ha-­Yesod in fabricating this picture and making such great efforts to present it as historical truth? It is reasonable to suppose that the main goal he set himself was to defend the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv against the harsh criticism that was being leveled against it during the second half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. Various activists and writers in European Jewry had sharply attacked the policy of the haluka, that is, the economic reliance of the Old Yishuv on donations by residents of the Diaspora, and called on the Old Yishuv to adopt a productive lifestyle. The negative image the Old Yishuv had acquired was accentuated by the emergence of the Hibat Zion movement and the first Zionist aliyot to the Land of Israel. From the point of view of the members of this movement, the Old Yishuv was seen as the embodiment of a form of Diaspora life which was in polar opposition to national revival. One can imagine several directions that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin might have chosen when seeking to defend the position of the Old Yishuv. He could have declared their adherence to the original values of the aliyot of the Hasidim and the Prushim and argued that those who dedicate their lives to Torah and prayer in the Holy Land indeed deserve the support of their brethren in the Diaspora. He could even have argued that, given the decline in the status of tradition in many Diaspora Jewish communities, it was appropriate that at least in the Land of Israel the tradition would be preserved in its purity, untinged by modernity. Conversely, he could have chosen the line of defense taken by R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, secretary of the General Committee. In the articles he published in the Hebrew periodicals, Yosef Yosha repeatedly insisted that members of the Old Yishuv would be willing to try any form of labor to earn a decent living and called for making the necessary means available for that purpose. Shlomo Zalman chose a different path—­identifying the Old Yishuv with a Messianic Zionist vision that supposedly originated from the school of the Gaon of Vilna. The significance of this identification was the blurring of the boundaries that divided the “old” Yishuv from the “new” Yishuv. This pair of concepts, which began to play an important role in the discourse on the Land of Israel in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, expressed the self-­image of the Zionist elite as the bearer of a new form of Jewish society, a society that stood in diametric contrast to the Old Yishuv. As someone who lived in Jerusalem during the period of the “state in formation” and who had internalized the Zionist ethos, but was also zealous to defend his ancestors who were among the leaders of the Old Yishuv, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin chose to ignore the gaps between these two entities and to describe the formation of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel as a single continuous movement, which began with the immigration of the Hasidim and the Prushim and culminated in the establishment of the State of

The Invention of a tradition

95

Israel. To this end, he ignored the spiritual-­religious vision that underpinned the aliyot of the Hasidim and Prushim, namely prayer and Torah study in the Holy Land, and replaced these by efforts to launch the construction of new neighborhoods near Jerusalem and by an agricultural settlement enterprise. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin therefore adopted the Zionist ethos expressed in the terms aliyah, settlement, and self-­defense and recast it onto the Old Yishuv. Supposedly, it was not the Zionist aliyot that began in the 1880s that paved the way to national revival in the Land of Israel, since aliyah to the Land of Israel, the building of the country, and agricultural settlement were already foremost in the minds of the people of the Old Yishuv. Moreover, it was supposedly the General Committee that headed this great activity and thus predated the Jewish Agency, which led the Yishuv during the British Mandate period.

10

Midrash Shlomo and the Department for Training Young Orators

Training young orators The book Midrash Shlomo (Sermons of Shlomo) was published in 1953.1 The title reflects two aspects of the book’s content: sermons (drashot) written by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin and material on the Department for Training Young Orators, an institution founded and managed by Shlomo Zalman, which was likewise called Midrash Shlomo. This latter project is the focus of the introductions and appreciative statements that preface the book. The introduction by the book publication committee indicates that the Department for Training Young Orators was a sort of subunit of the Institute for the Training of Cantors and of the Shirat Israel choir, which Shlomo Zalman also managed. About this enterprise, the authors of the introduction write: Hundreds of students in this field, the field of Torah preaching, were trained by him, most of them cantorial students. . . . Besides studying the sermons themselves, he trains each of them in expert oratory, refining the voice and eloquence of speech, pacing and sentiment, till the entire audience of listeners are impressed and excited to hear youths and boys standing in front of a large crowd in the synagogue and at public assemblies and speaking just like an elderly and accomplished lecturer, tastefully and wisely, while invigorating the broad public.2 An appreciation in a similar vein was given by the rabbi and the officials of the Shirat Israel synagogue, where the choir was under the direction of Shlomo Zalman and where his pupils also delivered sermons. The obvious question is 96

The Invention of a tradition

97

whether Shlomo Zalman taught the boys to compose sermons or merely guided them in how to pleasingly read sermons that he himself had composed. Examination of these introductions indicate that this was indeed a practice in reading texts that had been prepared in advance. This conclusion is also supported by the testimony of the rabbi of the synagogue: I had many opportunities to hear these sermons, voiced by the young students. . . . The boy is trained at the tenderest age to appear in front of the public. Prior to his performance, he receives appropriate guidance from the founder and director of the Institute, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, may God preserve and sustain him, on how to use his voice so that it will be pleasing to the ear, clear and distinct. . . . In addition to the pleasantness of the voice and the handsome posture, the boy is guided in the form of the expression, in how to emphasize the words and sentences that require special emphasis.3 It thus appears that in tandem with his activities in the management of the choir and in the training of cantors, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin chose to devote efforts to cultivate “young orators” among the choir boys. About the motive for this initiative, he writes: Back in my youth, the words of my great grandfather Rabbi Moshe Maggid were etched deep into my heart about the “duty of the maggids” [preachers]. . . . The work of my aforementioned ancestors in the teaching of sermon giving also aroused me to continue them. . . . “Acts of fathers are guideposts for sons”: my late ancestors, even while busy all their days in their public and settlement enterprise, devoted time and energy to educating boys and young students in the profession of sermon giving, especially sermons in the “Messianic ideology” of the beginnings of Redemption, the ingathering of exiles, and strengthening and expanding settlement in the Holy Land.4 One may, indeed, point to several members of the Rivlin family who were notable as preachers. The most prominent of these was R. Moshe Maggid (1782–­ 1846), the son of Hillel Rivlin and great grandfather of Shlomo Zalman. R. Moshe served as a maggid meisharim (the official preacher of a certain community) of Shklov before immigrating to the Land of Israel in 1840; upon immigrating to the Land of Israel he was appointed as the permanent preacher of the Prushim community in Jerusalem.5 As mentioned, Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin (1857–­1934) too was known as someone who frequently gave public sermons after immigrating to the Land of Israel and settling in Jerusalem in the late 1880s. We have testimony about

98

Immanuel Etkes

a sermon that Yosef Yosha Rivlin delivered before the leaders of Hibat Zion who visited Jerusalem in 1890.6 This was almost certainly not an isolated event, and R. Yosef Yosha most likely gave other public sermons from time to time. However, from all the sources we have about the Rivlin family members down through the generations, there is no basis to the claim that they ever engaged in the training of preachers. There is thus no escaping the conclusion that Shlomo Zalman is also in this regard assigning to his ancestors fictional attributes of his own making. As was his way elsewhere, here too Shlomo Zalman took the trouble to bolster his claims with “testimonies” that confirm his fictions. One such testimony is that of Israel Leib, one of the members of the Committee for the Publication of Midrash Shlomo who in his youth was one of the choir boys. According to him, the effort that Shlomo Zalman put in over many years to train young preachers was a continuation of “the tradition of his ancestors for five generations in the Land of Israel, starting with his great-­great-­grandfather R. Hillel Rivlin of Shklov, a disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, and his sons and grandsons, all of whom, as is known, were the main preachers of the community from the beginning of the foundation of the Ashkenazi Yishuv in Jerusalem, and who also devoted time and energy to educating young people in the profession of sermon giving, especially about the commandment of the settlement of Land of Israel following the method of the Gaon.”7 As said, the claim that Shlomo Zalman’s parents and grandparents had engaged in the training of preachers is without foundation, just as there is no grounds for the claim that the ancestors of the Rivlin family were “all . . . the main preachers” of the Ashkenazi Yishuv in Jerusalem. It therefore seems that this “testimony” was written on the basis of what Israel Leib had heard from his teacher Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. Incidentally, the emotional impulse of Shlomo Zalman, cantor and choirmaster, to regard himself as following in the footsteps of his ancestors is amusingly expressed in a tale he concocted about R. Hillel Rivlin: It happened that R. Hillel of Shklov . . . , the relative and disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, had a pleasing voice and an arousing “cantorial style.” When the Gaon was engaged in study of the Kabbalah and R. Hillel was assisting him, he would often ask him to sing prayer songs so as to lift his spirits in his work. Once, a few days before Rosh Hashanah, R. Hillel asked for a farewell blessing from the Gaon before returning to his home in Shklov, and on that occasion the Gaon implored him to remain at home and pray at his synagogue as a cantor during the High Holidays. The Gaon also gave the reason for his request: he needed to be aroused to

The Invention of a tradition

99

repentance, and certainly the prayer of R. Hillel leading the services would bring him to such.8 As was shown in chapter 3, Hillel Rivlin was not one of the disciples of the Gaon, much less did the Gaon need his help when engaging with the literature of the Kabbalah. Nor is there any evidence that R. Hillel was a cantor. We thus find that this story too is a figment of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s imagination. The sermons Midrash Shlomo contains fifty sermons. About the origin of the sermons, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin writes: Most sermons . . . mainly consist of summaries of the sermons of my father, the gaon R. Yosef Yehoshua Rivlin  .  .  . as well as summaries of the sermons of his ancestors, my gaonic elder ancestors: R. Binyamin Rivlin, the relative and disciple of the Vilna Gaon . . . ; his son R. Hillel of Shklov, a disciple of the Gaon and author of Kol ha-­Tor; and the sons of R. Hillel, R. Moshe Maggid, and R. Eliyahu, master of the Holy Tongue—­the leaders of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem—­and R. Avraham Binyamin, the son of R. Moshe Maggid; and father of my father, R. Yosef of blessed memory.9 True to his assertion, Shlomo Zalman made sure to point out in the prefaces to most sermons which of his ancestors was the author whose “summary” is supposedly being presented to the readers. Some twenty-­five of the sermons he attributes to his father, called by him “Yosef the author” or “the author of Kol Yeshua” (Voice of Salvation). In a few of these sermons, Shlomo Zalman notes that his father’s words were themselves a citation of one of his ancestors—­Moshe Maggid or Hillel Rivlin. Some five sermons Shlomo Zalman attributes to his great-­grandfather, R. Moshe Maggid himself, who also supposedly cited his own ancestors—­Binyamin and Hillel Rivlin. Should Shlomo Zalman Rivlin be trusted in stating that the sermons he printed in Midrash Shlomo are summaries of sermons delivered by his ancestors? It seems to me beyond any doubt that this claim has no foundation. The concept of a “summary” or “precis” expresses an assumption that Shlomo Zalman had in front of him the original manuscripts by his ancestors, based on which he created the summaries. It is difficult to accept this assumption because if he did have such manuscripts, why did he not cite them directly? And even if we were to accept the claim that he sought to simplify things to better adapt them to the “general

100

Immanuel Etkes

public,” he could have cited at least a few paragraphs or sentences from the original sermons. As we’ve said, Shlomo Zalman attributes some twenty sermons to his father, R. Yosef Yosha. However, there is no evidence that Yosef left behind any manuscripts of sermons. If any such manuscripts had existed, it stands to reason that his family and loved ones would have made efforts to have them collected and printed, as they did with the periodical articles he authored. Yet the crucial argument for denying Shlomo Zalman’s claim that these sermons are “summaries” of sermons by his ancestors is the simple fact that they are full of Messianic Zionist ideas that did not form any part of the heritage of his forefathers. Moreover, they contain dozens of quotes from Kol ha-­Tor, the existence of which was unknown to any of Shlomo Zalman’s ancestors. There is therefore no escaping the conclusion that Shlomo Zalman wrote all fifty of the sermons printed in Midrash Shlomo, while his attribution of these sermons to his ancestors is another expression of a pattern of behavior that repeats itself in his various writings. Most of the sermons in Midrash Shlomo deal with the Jewish holidays, and some of them develop subjects that arise from the weekly Torah portion. The most prominent feature of all these sermons is the attempt to link the holidays and the weekly Torah portions to the Messianic Zionist doctrine that Shlomo Zalman ascribed to the Gaon of Vilna. The sermons are usually constructed in the form of short lectures that span one to two pages; the main messages are presented directly and simply, without the twists and turns and ultimate resolution of difficulties that characterize the traditional synagogue sermon. Moreover, the author rarely cites passages from the Talmudic sages and at the same time relies heavily on biblical verses. Another notable feature of the sermons is the frequent citations from Kol ha-­Tor and a combination of ideas and concepts from the Kabbalah. Yet the author makes a point of presenting these ideas and concepts in the most general way without getting overly profound. Following are some examples that illustrate both the style of the sermons and their content. The main point of the sermon “Blowing the Shofar and Building Jerusalem”10 is to clarify the link between the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah and the building of Jerusalem. The author begins by stating that “these two are on a single line, the Line of Mercy which is the middle pillar of the Ten Sefirot.” For this reason there is a similarity between the blessing recited prior to blowing a shofar, “Blessed are you O Lord who hears the sound of fanfare from His people, Israel, mercifully” and the blessing “Blessed are you O Lord who in His mercies builds Jerusalem.” 11 Later in the sermon we learn what the building of Jerusalem has in common with the blowing of the shofar, also with respect to content:

The Invention of a tradition

101

The purpose of the building of the Jerusalem of below, is its connection with heavenly Jerusalem. . . . And by this means, unifying God with the Jewish people. Blowing a shofar . . . has the same goal, it performs two operations: tearing out Satan, whose main function is to divide the Creator from the Jewish people, and raising the prayers of the Jewish people from below to above so that the divine shefa [abundance] can flow from above to below, that is, bring near and unify the Jewish people with our Father who is in heaven.12 A further similarity between blowing a shofar and building Jerusalem is the idea that the purpose of building Jerusalem is to “fight Satan, make war on Amalek.”13 The idea that blowing the shofar is meant to confuse the Devil originates in the Talmud.14 However, as far as I know, the idea that the building of Jerusalem is a means of fighting Satan has no support from the sources and is a novelty of the author of the sermon. One way or the other, the author manages to associate the commandment of blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah with that of building Jerusalem—­a theme of central importance in his Messianic Zionist teachings.15 The sermon “Correcting the Sin of the Spies via the Redemption of Jerusalem and the Existence of Men of the Covenant”16 (a man of the covenant = one whose faith is strong, who is reliable, trustworthy) begins with an examination of the substance of the Sin of the Spies (Numbers 13–­14). It is seemingly difficult to understand how the Spies could have committed the sin of slandering the Land: weren’t they the leaders of the tribes of Israel? For the resolution of this puzzlement, the author draws on a statement in the Zohar to the effect that the Spies had acted in self-­interest. They feared that upon the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land, Moses would appoint new leaders and they would lose their status. From here, the author moves to today’s “spies”: those who were criticizing the residents of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem and accusing them of being “lazy and feeble.” In this context, the author draws attention to his father, R. Yosef Yosha, as the one who stood in the breach and refuted the accusations of the “spies.”17 Later in the sermon, the author points to “two practical measures” that have the power to overcome the sin of today’s spies: “men of the covenant” and the “building of Jerusalem.” The expression “men of the covenant” he associates with Calev ben Yefuna and Yehoshua bin Nun, as these two leaders of the tribes “kept faith with the requirements of the covenant.” In our own day it is necessary to likewise have “men of the covenant” who would work for the ingathering of the exiles and the building of Jerusalem. And although not stated explicitly, the overall implication is that Yosef Yosha Rivlin is a paragon “man of the covenant.” As

102

Immanuel Etkes

for the building of Jerusalem, Shlomo Zalman explains—­attributing the idea to the disciples of the Gaon—­great mercy is required for this outcome, since the Sitra Ahra (force of impurity) holds tight to the klipa (literally “shell”; a Kabbalistic concept referring to the forces of impurity) of the Sin of the Spies. For that reason, it is necessary to conclude the blessing of the “builder of Jerusalem” in the daily Shmoneh-­Esreh prayer with the additional phrase “by mercy.” Shlomo Zalman ends the sermon, “By these measures, and by combatting with all our strength and might the heirs of the Spies . . . it will be possible for us to remove the terrible obstacle of the Sin of Spies from all of the House of Israel, by the aid of heaven, and to bring near the full Redemption and the building of our Temple soon in our day, amen.”18 As said, most of the sermons in the book are devoted to the Jewish holidays or the weekly Torah portion and how these are related to the subject of Messianic Redemption. The exceptions to this rule are three sermons devoted to presenting certain aspects of the Messianic Zionist vision already set forth in Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s other writings. One of them is the sermon “Vision of Zion, a comprehensive lecture on our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna and the ingathering of exiles, and on the aliyah of his disciples and their activities in founding the yishuv.” The author begins the sermon by describing the aliyah of the disciples of the Gaon to the Land of Israel and then presents at length the main points of the Messianic Zionist doctrine, which he attributes to the Gaon. In the course of so doing, he often quotes from Kol ha-­Tor and Sefer ha-­Pizmonim.19 The author further claims that the Messianic Zionist ideal, with its origins in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna, was accepted by all the members of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem and that over the course of the nineteenth century they never ceased working for the “expansion of the Yishuv” with the aim of hastening the Redemption. It emerges that this sermon is a summary of three works by Shlomo Zalman: Hazon Zion, Kol ha-­Tor, and Mossad ha-­Yesod.20 In the last part of the sermon, Shlomo Zalman repeats the following claim: “This great and sacred history has not only been forgotten but deliberately erased . . . by systematic propaganda . . . the purpose of which is to eradicate and completely uproot the memory of the whole subject of the foundational aliyah, which is the first true aliyah, and all the mighty enterprises of the Old Yishuv in the old period.” Similar to the claim that is continually repeated in Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s previous writings, this sermon too was thus meant to present the Old Yishuv as the “true” beginning of the Zionist enterprise. Another sermon that is an exception to those that relate to the holidays and weekly Torah portion is “The Duty of Knowledge of the Seven Wisdoms According to the Method of the Gaon of Vilna and His Commandment to Achieve

The Invention of a tradition

103

Torah Wisdom and to Sanctify the Lord’s Name and Hasten the Redemption.”21 This is the longest sermon in the book, indicating how important the subject was to Shlomo Zalman. At the opening of the sermon, the author cites the known sources about the Gaon’s position in relation to the study of the sciences.22 According to these sources, the Gaon believes that the study of certain sciences is not only permissible but even essential to the understanding of certain halachic issues.23 Thus far the author’s statements are on firm ground, yet from this point onward he soars off on flights of fancy. Based on Kol ha-­Tor, he claims that the Gaon assigned Messianic import to the study of the seven wisdoms and viewed them as an important means of hastening Redemption.24 Shlomo Zalman also knew to report how the Gaon guided his disciples in this regard: “ ‘All Torah scholars, especially those skilled in the Kabbalah,’ said our rabbi, ‘have the great duty to study at least one of the seven wisdoms listed above and to teach it to other Torah scholars and God-­fearing individuals.’ ”25 Here Shlomo Zalman turns to a description of the response of the disciples of the Gaon to his call and notes that among the first of them “to actually engage in the study of the wisdom of nature” was R. Binyamin, the ancestral patriarch of the Rivlin family. Indeed, R. Binyamin did show an interest in science, but he did so on his own initiative, while the claim that the Gaon commanded his students to study science has no trace in any of the testimonies left by these disciples. Yet once Shlomo Zalman gave free rein to his imagination, his flights of fancy carried him into ever further provinces: At the beginning of the settlement of the disciples of the Gaon in Jerusalem in the year 1812 . . .—­which is when they laid the foundation of the Ashkenazi settlement in Jerusalem and established the beit midrash named for our rabbi, Midrash Eliyahu—­they also established a special department called Beit Beersheva, where they had set hours for the study of the seven wisdoms, as commanded by their rabbi the Gaon of Vilna. . . . For a long time, from the beginning of the foundation of the Ashkenazi Yishuv in Jerusalem by the disciples of the Gaon and for decades afterward, there was a great and strong tendency in the Land of Israel . . . to study the seven wisdoms. . . . Everyone would flock to the study house of Beit Beersheva to hear the lectures on this matter from the expert lecturers.26 This wonderful description of the fervent desire to study science by the residents of the Old Yishuv is of course baseless; what is more, we know that the leaders of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv strongly opposed attempts to integrate secular studies into their education system.27 Why did Shlomo Zalman see fit to attribute to the Gaon of Vilna the idea

104

Immanuel Etkes

that engaging in the seven wisdoms hastens Redemption? Why did he choose to affirm that the Gaon commanded his disciples to engage with science? What purpose was served by the tale that the residents of the Old Yishuv flocked to hear scientific lectures by experts? One can imagine several motives for this. The fact that Binyamin Rivlin did show an interest in science and at the same time was considered among the followers of the Gaon enabled Shlomo Zalman to present the patriarch of the Rivlin family as an exemplar of a student who obeyed the commandments of his rabbi. In this way, he sought to amplify the claim that the Rivlin family’s ancestors were the main bearers of the legacy of the Gaon. Another motive is the aspiration to embellish the image of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv, an aim for which Shlomo Zalman dedicated a central place in his writings. Finally, a motive that apparently played a major role in the development of this concept was the desire to legitimize those descendants of the Old Yishuv who strayed from the path marked out by its leaders and chose to compromise with modernity. These included Shlomo Zalman Rivlin and members of his family. The third sermon not related either to a holiday or the weekly Torah portion appears under the heading “The Mitzvah of Expansion and the Revealed End.”28 This is a historical survey in which the author emphasizes the contribution of the residents of the Old Yishuv to the building of Jerusalem as a means of hastening the Redemption. The author begins with this declaration: “The great and enthusiastic aspiration of the first builders, from the beginning of the foundation of the Ashkenazi settlement in Jerusalem by the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna and by the Hasidim of the Ba’al Shem Tov and the Ba’al ha-­Tanya, was the building of Jerusalem and the ‘planting of the Holy Land’ as a means of hastening the Redemption.”29 He goes on to describe, in some twenty pages or more, the efforts of the Old Yishuv to purchase land so as to expand the Jewish settlement and the enterprise of building new neighborhoods outside the Old City walls. The author, as expected, emphasizes the role of the General Committee as the entity that initiated and led the neighborhood building project, and he incidentally points out the central role played by his father as the director of the General Committee.30 In sum, this “sermon” is nothing more than an abbreviated form of what was set forth extensively in Mossad ha-­Yesod. On the margins of this “historical” report, Shlomo Zalman explains that he seeks to right the terrible injustice caused to the residents of the Old Yishuv and to its leaders, because their great contribution to the building of Jerusalem was not only forgotten but also deliberately erased from memory: This vast movement and all its many activists along with the main institution of the old days . . . the General Committee of all the kolels, Prushim

The Invention of a tradition

105

and Hasidim, who worked night and day in all the above enterprises—­ have been completely forgotten. . . . And the pain is seven times as great, since this forgetting came about not only by negligence on the part of the Old Yishuv but also mainly by well-­known propaganda to erase their memory. . . . The purveyors of this propaganda . . . are also engaged in the elimination of important documents relating to the achievements of the Old Yishuv and in creating other “documents” to replace them.31 These claims, repeated often in several of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s writings, reveal one of the main motivations underlying his literary efforts.32 A look at the contents of the sermons collected in the book Midrash Shlomo makes it quite clear that this is a text in which Shlomo Zalman repeats many of the ideas and arguments that fill his other works. The novelty presented by this book is therefore not expressed in its content but in its form—­sermons that can be delivered in front of an audience gathered for prayer in the synagogue or in other assemblies. This also clarifies the connection between the sermons composed by Shlomo Zalman and his project to train and nurture “young orators.” The sermons collected in the book, those that relate to the weekly Torah portion and to the holidays, are the sermons that he trained his pupils to deliver.33 It emerges that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin sought to turn these pupils into agents who would widely disseminate his Messianic Zionist teachings.

11

Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion Rabbi Moshe Rivlin as a “Zionist” leader

Biography Moshe the son of Hillel Rivlin (1780–­1846), known as R. Moshe Maggid, is the figure at the center of Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion (The maggid who preaches for Zion), a book published in 1960.1 Moshe Maggid’s life, work, and reputation were destined to play a central role in the shaping of the Rivlinian myth because this figure serves to connect the first patriarchs of the family, Binyamin and Hillel Rivlin, to the final link in the chain of leaders who were Rivlins: Yosef Yosha Rivlin, the author’s father. However, before discussing the figure of Moshe Maggid as portrayed in the book by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, it is appropriate to present the main points of what we know about him on the basis of creditable sources from the period. Moshe Maggid held the position of maggid meisharim (official preacher) of the Shklov community in the early decades of the nineteenth century. By this time, Shklov had already lost its status as the center of regional economic and cultural flourishing, which it had enjoyed in the final two decades of the eighteenth century.2 Yet it still retained its place as a central community within White Russia. Shklov’s prestige was rooted, among other things, in its being the city from which some of the Gaon of Vilna’s disciples had left to lead groups of immigrants to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1810. The appointment of Moshe Rivlin to the position of maggid meisharim of the Shklov community indicates that he was considered a Torah scholar worthy of serving in this capacity. 106

The Invention of a tradition

107

It stands to reason also that he enjoyed social prestige on the basis of his ancestry: his grandfather Binyamin Rivlin was considered a student of the Gaon and was also a family relation; his father Hillel was another of the community’s notable figures. That there was an “ancestral privilege” influencing appointments of the maggid meisharim position in the Shklov community seems to be indicated by the fact that after Moshe Maggid gave up his position it was his son Yitzhak Isaac who was appointed as his successor. Toward 1840, when nearly sixty years of age, the resolve grew in the heart of R. Moshe Maggid that he must immigrate to the Land of Israel and settle in Jerusalem. When this became known to Vilna’s dignitaries—­who were also the fundraisers for the Prushim communities in the Land of Israel—­they decided to assign him a mission for his journey and appointed him as the maggid meisharim of the Prushim community in Jerusalem. The background for this initiative was the internal strife in the Prushim community and the accumulation of debts that were burdening its members.3 The strife was mainly between two factions. One faction was supported by the Vilna dignitaries and was headed by Neta the son of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov and R. Shlomo Zalman Tzoref; the other faction was headed by Yesha­yahu Bardacki, a son-in-law of R. Israel of Shklov, and by Neta the son of R. Saadia, both disciples of the Gaon, and supported by Ha-Pkidim ve-ha-Amarkalim, an organization in Amsterdam. One of the focal points of the dispute was the construction of a new beit midrash for the Prushim community. The first faction concentrated its efforts on the reclamation of the Hurva courtyard and its structures, while the second faction preferred that a new beit midrash be built using funds from the Lehren family of Amsterdam. The construction of the Hurva courtyard involved large financial outlays, and the builders had taken out loans for that purpose, both from wealthy Sephardim and from Muslims. At the same time, R. Israel of Shklov, the leader of the Prushim community in Safed, had taken out loans to deal with the aftermath of an earthquake in that city. Incapable of repaying all these debts, the interest on them kept mounting. This was the situation that R. Moshe Maggid was expected to deal with upon arrival in Jerusalem. The letter of appointment given to R. Moshe was signed in Vilna on 14 Adar (February 18) 1840 by the administrators of the kolel of the Prushim; it bore also the signature of R. Yitzhak son of R. Hayyim of Volozhin. Here are the main points of the letter: His honor the rabbi, famed for his Torah and good deeds, our teacher Rabbi Moshe, may his candle shine, son of the departed rabbi our teacher

108

Immanuel Etkes

Hillel Riveles [sic], the maggid meisharim of the righteous community of Shklov, may God protect it. His heart has resolved to dwell honorably in the Holy Land, may it be built and established quickly in our time. Indeed this man Moshe, whom we know from his position of holy service to the righteous community of Shklov, preaches well and practices what he preaches, and several policy improvements were instituted by him on spiritual and mundane matters. Now that he is ascending the path that rises to the House of the Lord, we said . . . it would be fit that he should draw his salary as a preacher in Zion. . . . Thus we, the signatories below, in conjunction with his honor the great luminary gaon, head of the rabbinic court of Volozhin, do hereby appoint him, the above famed rabbi our teacher Moshe, as the maggid meisharim and preacher of the assemblies within the holy city of Jerusalem, may it be built and established, in the community of God the kolel of the Prushim, may God protect and sustain them. . . . He is to preach and announce to the nation of God the laws of the Lord and his Torah on Shabbat days and holidays and High Holidays. . . . His regular sermons will be given in the great batei midrash used by the public . . . on alternative Shabbatot, once in this beit midrash once in that beit midrash. It is to the entire holy community, to the men of our kolels of Prushim, may God protect and sustain them, that this appointment of the rabbi as maggid meisharim applies. . . . They shall flock to hear from his mouth morals and chastisement and all statements that pertain to the appointment of a maggid meisharim charged with examining and supervising religious and public affairs.4 We thus find that the main purpose of the appointment is for service as a maggid meisharim, that is, as the preacher and spiritual shepherd of the community, while the administrative-­economic aspects are not made explicit in the letter. That said, the assertion that R. Moshe is qualified to serve as the maggid meisharim of all members of the Prushim community, and that he is to preach in rotation in the two synagogues of the rival camps, hints at the aspiration that he is meant to work to unify the community with all its factions. Moreover, despite not explicitly mentioning the administrative-­economic aspect of the mission assigned to him, it may be presumed that his senders equipped him with oral advice on such. On his way to the Land of Israel, R. Moshe was detained for several months in Constantinople, which he reached in late September 1840. The delay was due to the war then being waged between Mehemet Ali, the viceroy of Egypt, and the sultan’s army. During his time in Constantinople, R. Moshe Maggid met Moses

The Invention of a tradition

109

Montefiore, who at the time was petitioning the sultan’s court in connection with the Damascus Affair.5 R. Moshe would reach the Land of Israel in the month of Adar 1841 and serve as the leader of the Prushim community in Jerusalem until his death in the month of Elul 1846. The surviving testimonies regarding R. Moshe’s activities indicate that he indeed managed to unite the rival factions under a single leadership and was able to successfully cope with the debts that had burdened the Prushim community. In addition, he initiated amendments to the haluka procedures to make the fund distribution more egalitarian than it previously was, and he worked to improve the level of medical services available to the community at the time.6

Hagiography Thus far we have set forth the main facts that we know about R. Moshe Maggid and the mission he filled as leader of the Prushim community in Jerusalem. However, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin recruits the figure of R. Moshe Maggid for an important additional role within the Rivlinian myth. Shlomo Zalman begins by decorating the head of R. Moshe with extra laurels of Torah and wisdom: Already as a child, Rabbi Moshe was famous as a prodigy of supreme talents. . . . At the age of eleven he was conversant in all three volumes of Nezikim and the entire Hebrew bible; already in his youth he became famous as a master of sources, both “revealed” and “hidden,” for his thorough proficiency in Talmud and poskim and also great knowledge in studies of nature and the seven wisdoms, after the method of the Gaon of Vilna, and in foreign languages. In grammar he was quite an expert, he had wide knowledge of medicine, and he gained a reputation as being a great master of the seven wisdoms.7 As stated, the fact that R. Moshe served as the maggid meisharim of the Shklov community indicates that he was well regarded in his day as a Torah scholar. However, it is highly dubious that as early as the age of eleven he was “conversant in all three volumes of Nezikim.” Yet while this exaggeration may be a cliché of accolades of the sort given to great Torah scholars, the claims that R. Moshe Maggid was well versed in natural sciences, in medical knowledge, and foreign languages are all figments of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s imagination. True to his conception that the Gaon of Vilna commanded his disciples to engage in the study of science, Shlomo Zalman chose to describe R. Moshe Maggid as a wide-­ranging Renaissance man, a description that has no grounding in the contemporary sources.

110

Immanuel Etkes

Yet the personal virtues of R. Moshe Maggid thus far described are no more than a prelude to the Messianic Zionist task that Shlomo Zalman places on his shoulders: For thirty-­five consecutive years, Rabbi Moshe would travel from town to town in Russia, Poland, and Western Europe delivering passionate sermons about the ingathering of exiles and the settlement of the Holy Land after the method of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples. . . . Everywhere he preached, greatly packed crowds gathered. . . . So much so that once when he gave a sermon, it was necessary to control the entrance for the general public via specially paid tickets, the income from which was dedicated to the settlement of the Land of Israel. Over the decades he preached thousands of times, each sermon taking a subject of the day combined with the mitzvot of the settlement of the Land of Israel.8 Thus, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin describes R. Moshe as one of the activist preachers who went around the Eastern European communities in the final decades of the nineteenth century preaching in support of the ideas of Hibat Zion. How did R. Moshe become a Messianic Zionist preacher? Apparently, all that was needed was that he follow in the footsteps of his ancestors R. Binyamin and R. Hillel Rivlin, the two personalities that Shlomo Zalman positioned at the forefront of the Hazon Zion movement. Yet how can a Messianic Zionist leader of the Rivlin family carry on without a special blessing from the Gaon of Vilna? Indeed, Shlomo Zalman knew to tell about this too:9 Already from his childhood, he was known by this nickname [preacher of Zion], and the following happened. When he was a youth of age fifteen, he became famous as a preacher who astounded his listeners, and once his father R. Hillel brought him to the Gaon of Vilna so that he would hear his powers as a preacher. The Gaon praised the young Moshe and told him: know that with this power that God has given you, you must be a preacher of Zion, in line with the Talmudic saying “Zion she is, a carer [preacher] she has not,” indicating that a carer [preacher] is needed; he also added the hint: Doresh Zion [preacher of Zion] in gematria is the equivalent of the name Moshe ben Hillel ben Binyamin.”10 And if the blessing of the Gaon of Vilna is not enough, then like other figures in the Rivlin family, he was also blessed by a mission conferred on him “from heaven” via “sacred hints”: “Already from the dawn of his youth R. Moshe believed with a deep faith, on the basis of sacred hints received from his ancestors,

The Invention of a tradition

111

that heaven had conferred on him to engage with the supreme mission of pioneering Messianism via the ingathering of exiles and the settlement of the Holy Land.”11 Shlomo Zalman is also able to relate that R. Moshe was no mere ideologue but also a successful man of practice, since he headed the foundation built by his ancestors, the founders of the Hazon Zion movement. Following an initiative of R. Binyamin Rivlin, every Jew was asked to contribute a half ruble in coins on the fifteenth day of the month of Av, and R. Moshe found a sign for this fundraising campaign since the name Shklov contains the letters that spell Shekel-­Av. In addition to the contribution required for individuals, the Committee of the Hazon Zion movement decided that “every synagogue and every community in each town must set aside 3 percent of their revenues for the benefit of the settlement of the Land of Israel . . . , and R. Moshe was the chief executive of this program.”12 In sum, “For thirty consecutive years, from the year 1810, the beginning of the settlement of the Prushim under the leadership of the disciples of the Gaon in the Land of Israel, to the year 1841, when R. Moshe immigrated to the Land of Israel, he was the main and chief provider of the needs of the settlement in every way.”13 All of these descriptions are baseless. There never was a “Hazon Zion” movement, R. Binyamin did not create a foundation for the settlers in the Land of Israel, and R. Moshe did not head a fundraising effort for the Prushim community. The institution that headed efforts to raise funds for that community was Roznei Vilna (the notables of Vilna), and although in Shklov, as in other communities, there were activists who raised funds for the Land of Israel, R. Moshe was not one of them. Another fictional tale that Shlomo Zalman knew to tell about R. Moshe’s blessed efforts relates to the earthquake that struck Safed in 1837. In many communities, eulogies were delivered for the victims of the earthquake, and chief among the eulogizers was, of course, R. Moshe Maggid. Following a detailed letter that he received from his father, R. Hillel, R. Moshe described to his assembled audience the magnitude of the destruction. Among other things, he told his audience that “the great Torah scholars and the Kabbalists in Jerusalem determined that this punishment was caused by the sin that thousands of Jews had settled in the Galilee instead of Jerusalem.” So as to atone for this sin, R. Moshe added, the Jews of the Diaspora must financially support the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and anyone with the means to do so has an obligation to immigrate to Jerusalem and settle there. R. Moshe’s remarks caused a vast awakening “and hundreds of families traveled with great enthusiasm to Jerusalem.”14 Thus, R. Moshe Maggid’s trip to the Land of Israel to head the Prushim community in Jerusalem was a natural outgrowth of his Messianic Zionist activities

112

Immanuel Etkes

in the Diaspora. However, even before he reached Jerusalem, a chance event befell R. Moshe: he had the great privilege of revealing to Moses Montefiore the fact of his being on a Messianic mission.

The meeting with Moses Montefiore As mentioned, on his way to the Land of Israel, R. Moshe Maggid was detained in Constantinople, at a time when Moses Montefiore was also there. The two men did indeed meet, though we do not have any specific testimony about the nature of the meeting or about the relationship that formed between the two.15 Nevertheless, in the collective memory of the Old Yishuv, this meeting has been etched as a significant event. It is reported that Montefiore treated both R. Moshe Maggid and R. Shmuel Salant, who accompanied him, with great respect and even invited the two to spend the night of Hoshana Rabbah in his sukkah. Montefiore even asked them if he was allowed to take a small nap on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, and R. Shmuel Salant found a way to allow him to do so.16 Did Montefiore, as these reports affirm, indeed attach importance to the meeting with the two rabbinic scholars who were making their way to Jerusalem? The only source that contains a detailed description of Montefiore’s visit to Constantinople is the diary that was edited by (more correctly, written down by) his secretary Dr. Eliezer Halevy, who accompanied Montefiore during the visit and served as a spokesman of sorts for him.17 The segments of the diary dedicated to this visit stress Montefiore’s diplomatic activity with Ottoman officials following the Damascus Affair.18 They also describe Montefiore’s contacts with leaders of the Jewish community in the city and his visits to synagogues and Jewish educational institutions. In his meeting with Hacham Bashi (chief rabbi of the Jews of the Ottoman Empire), Montefiore proposed incorporating the teaching of the Turkish language into all Jewish educational institutions. Hacham Bashi responded affirmatively to this initiative and even issued a directive calling for its implementation.19 Yet in all those pages that describe in detail, almost daily, Montefiore’s moves in Constantinople and his meetings with various personages, the name of R. Moshe Maggid does not appear at all. It seems therefore that at least in the eyes of the writer of this diary, the meeting with R. Moshe Maggid and R. Shmuel Salant was perceived as a minor event that did not deserve documentation. That being said, it may not be ruled out that Montefiore, for whom the affairs of the Jewish Yishuv in the Land of Israel were dear to his heart, did view as important his encounter with the two rabbis making their way to Jerusalem. One way or the other, who if not Shlomo Zalman Rivlin knew to relate the intimate details of the fateful meeting between R. Moshe Maggid and Sir Moses

The Invention of a tradition

113

Montefiore? As expected, R. Moshe presents Montefiore with the main points of his Messianic Zionist doctrine and encourages him to “commit himself to the Redemption of the Jewish people.” It should come as no surprise that R. Moshe’s words made a great impression on the baron, that his eyes flowed with tears, and that the baron then stood up and hugged R. Moshe.20 Montefiore even recognized R. Moshe’s authority as a halachic adjudicator and asked his opinion on matters that were preoccupying him on what is prohibited and permitted by religious law. Among other things, Montefiore asked him “whether he is allowed to write during hol hamoed of the Sukkot holiday if for the public good—­regarding the Damascus Affair—­and R. Moshe replied that if for the sake of saving lives, it was a mitzvah to write.”21 The author further recounts a “private conversation” in which R. Moshe revealed to Montefiore “pleasing hints”: It is written, “Zion she is; a carer [preacher] she has not.” According to the holy hint that the Gaon of Vilna gave me, doresh Zion [preacher of Zion] in gematria is equivalent to Moshe ben Hillel ben Binyamin, and therefore it is my duty and honor to be the preacher of Zion. . . . Therefore, as I see the great dedication of spirit that the Baron R. Moses Montefiore has for Zion, I hereby declare that one must rather read “Zion she is, a preacher she has.” The phrase yesh lah [she has] in gematria is equivalent to Moshe [Moses], and that is the hint for Moshe Montefiore. Baron Montefiore, once the words of R. Moshe were explained to him, grew very excited and pleased and replied . . . : “I have come to realize that the common purpose of your soul, and of my soul, is one and the same, a purpose of the highest importance.”22 It thus emerges that the blessed efforts of Montefiore on behalf of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel are to be credited to the influence of R. Moshe Maggid, and who knows what fate would have befallen the Yishuv if it were not for the hints that the baron heard from his lips. To remove all doubt, it should be noted that in the description of the movements of R. Moshe Maggid in Constantinople in general and the meeting with Montefiore in particular, Shlomo Zalman did not draw on any sort of reliable source and all that he wrote in this regard is the product of his imagination.23

The exploits of R. Moshe Maggid in Jerusalem As said, R. Moshe Maggid was able to overcome the rifts within the Prushim community and even to repay the loans that burdened this community. He likewise worked to adopt an egalitarian approach with regard to the haluka funds

114

Immanuel Etkes

and sought to introduce managerial improvements in the Prushim’s leadership. Yet the fact that the surviving testimonies in relation to all these enterprises are quite limited in scope did not prevent Shlomo Zalman Rivlin from describing in detail the exploits of R. Moshe in Jerusalem. Thus, for example, he knew to tell that upon arriving at Jaffa port, R. Moshe was greeted by a delegation of rabbis who came specially from Jerusalem, but that R. Moshe had to remain for several days in Jaffa “till boxes full of clothes and shoes and bags of food supplies could be removed from the ship to be brought to the poor in Jerusalem.”24 Shlomo Zalman also relates that during the first month of his stay in Jerusalem, R. Moshe managed to generate a “real revolution” and make vital improvements in all walks of life. Among other things, he doubled the number of beds in the hospital of the Prushim community and doubled the staff size there.25 These statements are baseless. At Montefiore’s initiative a Jewish doctor first came to Jerusalem in 1843, about three years after R. Moshe’s arrival in the city; the hospital built with funds from the Rothschild family and that bore its name was founded only in 1854. Shlomo Zalman knew also to tell about other great deeds done by R. Moshe in Jerusalem, again without any support from contemporary sources: R. Moshe Maggid introduced special regulations in many fields to improve the quality of life in Jerusalem. . . . He was able to introduce special rules against all unnecessary items and luxuries, and with great care he enforced the “egalitarian method” he was famous for. . . . R. Moshe Maggid strengthened and expanded the guardian company the Jewish Gavardia, which had been founded in an earlier time. . . . And throughout his time in Jerusalem, he was the head of its management and acted in this enterprise with full dedication and at the risk to his life. It was by means of R. Moshe that for the first time a hevreh kadisha [burial society] was formed for the Ashkenazi community, and by his great influence an agreement was reached with the Sephardi kolel over the division of land for burial on the Mount of Olives.26 As said, the regulations purportedly amended by R. Moshe for greater equalization have left no trace in the sources from the period. There was never any “Jewish Gavardia,” while the agreement with the Sephardim for a separate burial plot for Ashkenazim was reached only in 1856, about a decade after the death of R. Moshe.27 And yet all of these great deeds, and other accomplishments not listed here, are no more than a prelude to his greatest act: the effort to promote the “mitzvah of expansion,” namely the building of Jerusalem in the spirit of the Messianic

The Invention of a tradition

115

Zionist doctrine supposedly laid down by the Gaon of Vilna. R. Moshe began to work to establish a Jewish settlement outside the walls of the Old City after he learned that the neighborly relations with the Arab residents of the city were prone to violence. For this purpose, R. Moshe made special public calls via special emissaries and letters calling on our brothers in exile. . . . As a first step toward this purpose, he began with great vigor to engage in the purchase of tracts of land in the environs of Jerusalem; for these purchases he invested huge sums from the “reserve funds” that he controlled.  .  .  . On one of these tracts near Jerusalem . . . he erected a stone fence and began to build a series of houses there, yet due to an edict from the sultan in 1843 to not approve any land purchases near Jerusalem that effort was halted.28 True to his method, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin recast later events as earlier ones and attributed to R. Moshe Maggid an initiative to build a Jewish neighborhood outside the walls of the Old City decades before any such idea was actually conceived of.

Did R. Moshe Maggid hold Messianic Zionist views? We have found that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin ascribed to R. Moshe Maggid great and wonderful deeds that have no confirmation in the sources of the time. As in his other writings, in Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion Shlomo Zalman is the omniscient narrator who has no need of sources to specify the close details of events that took place decades before he himself came into the world. And yet, there is still room to ponder: Did R. Moshe hold the Messianic Zionist views ascribed to him by Shlomo Zalman? Was there a background of Messianic Zionism to R. Moshe’s aliyah to the Land of Israel? The answer to this question is absolutely NOT. There is no trace in contemporary sources, for example in R. Moshe’s letter of appointment by the Roznei Vilna; the authors who wrote about R. Moshe in the late nineteenth century (drawing on traditions that survived in Jerusalem’s Old Yishuv) knew nothing about this,29 and the son of R. Moshe did not ascribe any Messianic views to his father. In 1861, a book by R. Moshe Maggid titled Sefer Beit Midrash was published in Vilna.30 In the brief introduction, his son Isaac Rivlin says: And here, what can I say and what shall I tell, who is it that did not know this Moshe who shepherded the holy flock and took upon himself the service of a maggid meisharim in the holy community of Shklov: his lips were

Immanuel Etkes

116

the lips of wisdom, the sermons that Moshe preached turned back many from iniquity, streams of tears poured forth from his chastisements that descended into the people deep in their hearts. He was also a father to orphans and widows and to any who failed in their supervision of them, great were the acts of charity he performed. . . . In his latter days, he chose his residence in Jerusalem the Holy City, may it be built, and established speedily in our day: there too he was the manager of a holy flock and verily not one was there who did not have his light shine upon him.31 It emerges that in the manner of other preachers and reprovers, R. Moshe Maggid too worked in his sermons to “turn . . . back many from iniquity,” and he even showed a special sensitivity toward orphans and widows and made efforts to assist them. However, R. Yitzhak Isaac makes no mention of or even gives the slightest hint of sermons of a Messianic Zionist orientation delivered by his

F IG U RE 9.

Front page of Sefer Beit Midrash, 1861.

The Invention of a tradition

117

father, nor does he ascribe his father’s aliyah to any Messianic motivation. And if the son’s testimony on this score is not enough, let us allow the statements of R. Moshe Maggid himself to serve as evidence. R. Moshe Maggid’s book Sefer Beit Midrash contains his commentary on biblical verses, on aggadic (nonhalachic) discussions in the Talmud, and on midrashim. Each commentary discusses a particular verse from the Pentateuch or a Talmudic passage, without the whole amounting to an integrated sermon. In his interpretations, R. Moshe seeks to deal with what he sees as a conundrum in the formulation, whether in the verse or in the Talmudic phrasing; he then explicates and resolves the difficulties after his fashion, sometimes via reliance on Talmudic discourses in other areas, sometimes by citing passages from the Zohar, and occasionally relying also on the writings of the Gaon of Vilna.32 Anyone perusing the twenty-­four pages on which the commentaries of R. Moshe are printed will not find in them a trace of Messianic ideas, let alone ideas of the Messianic Zionist sort ascribed to him by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. In light of this evidence, it may be affirmed with certainty that everything Shlomo Zalman wrote about R. Moshe’s activities as a Messianic Zionist preacher and his Messianic Zionist motives for his efforts in Jerusalem are without any basis whatsoever. A further conclusion that follows from this evidence is that the “sermons” that Shlomo Zalman included in the second part of Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, which he ascribes to R. Moshe Maggid, were themselves also the product of the spirit and pen of Shlomo Zalman alone and have nothing to do with the historical R. Moshe Maggid.33

The sermons The second part of Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion contains twenty-­six drashot, which Shlomo Zalman describes as “a selection of his [R. Moshe Maggid’s] sermons advocating for the settlement of the Land of Israel.” In actuality these sermons recapitulate familiar ideas from Shlomo Zalman’s other writings. Thus, for example, the sermon “The main points of the Athalta according to the doctrine of the Gaon,”34 repeats the main points of the Messianic Zionist view presented in Kol ha-­Tor. Nevertheless, in the opening paragraph, Shlomo Zalman claims that the remarks are cited “from the sermons of the rabbi and maggid R. Moshe of Shklov.” It emerges that Shlomo Zalman repeatedly ascribes the very same ideas to various ancestors of his, all of them supposedly prophesying in the same style.35 After presenting the main points of the Messianic Zionist perspective, Shlomo Zalman turns to a discussion of the Messianic Zionist movement that drove the aliyah of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon. To justify his repetition of

118

Immanuel Etkes

this tale, Shlomo Zalman has R. Moshe Maggid express the claim that there is a sacred duty to remember and remind everyone of the first members of the Yishuv in the Land of Israel and those who built it: “the great spiritual masters, the followers of the Ba’al Shem Tov, the Ba’al ha-­Tanya of blessed memory, and the disciples of our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna  .  .  . who carried out his commandments with absolute dedication, at the risk of their lives in their aliyah to the Land of Israel.”36 Following these statements, Shlomo Zalman retells the fictional tale about the Hazon Zion movement headed by R. Binyamin Rivlin and his son R. Hillel, along with the movement’s convention that was held supposedly in Shklov in 1806, and the immigration of the students of the Vilna Gaon which resulted from that convention.37 Another sermon that Shlomo Zalman attributes to R. Moshe Maggid deals with the “duty of maggidut” (of being a preacher),38 a topic that, it will be recalled, Shlomo Zalman already broaches in his book Midrash Shlomo. Here he reiterates the peculiar idea that “every Jew must be a preacher,” or as he puts it: “It is a mitzvah and a great duty to preach to the audience on matters that stimulate the Jewish spirit with a correct and honest explanation of the words of the Torah, virtuous words for the correction of morals in the public and the individual.”39 He supports this idea by adducing both biblical verses and passages from the Talmud and points to two aspects of the task of the preacher: chastisement and advocacy for defense. “It is the obligation of the preacher to give chastisement when needed, even using harsh words. . . . And on the other hand, the preacher has the obligation to defend from prosecution the entirety of the Jewish people, who suffer the afflictions of the Diaspora and nevertheless uphold God’s Torah.”40 Shlomo Zalman attaches, as expected, particular importance to the Messianic Zionist mission that a maggid must take on himself: “It is a mitzvah and a great duty for all the maggidei meisharim in all the Jewish diasporas to preach and arouse to great awakening about the ingathering of exiles and the commandment to settle the Land of Israel. . . . I also received a fine hint from the Gaon of Vilna on this, that maggid meisharim is the equivalent of kibbutz galuyot [ingathering of exiles].”41 We thus have here a further example of the ideas and conceptual approaches that Shlomo Zalman ascribes to one of his ancestors, when in fact he is giving voice to his own musings. This assertion applies also to the sermon about the demand for social justice as a prerequisite for Redemption.42 Here is what Shlomo Zalman sets in the mouth of R. Moshe Maggid: The building of Jerusalem means in its simplest sense the building of its ruins but also the building of truth, justice, and peace. . . . So long as jeal-

The Invention of a tradition

119

ousy and hatred have not been eradicated from the Jewish people . . . so long as one man still takes pleasure in another’s misery . . . , so long as there is insufficient equality . . . , there is not the slightest hope for the coming of the Messiah. So long as the wealthy lead a life of entertainment with all sorts of luxury and before their eyes the suffering, downtrodden poor with their children go hungry for bread and walk barefoot . . . , then there isn’t the slightest hope for the coming of the Messiah.43 Apparently, when Shlomo Zalman attaches the name of R. Moshe to the idea that social justice is a prerequisite for Redemption, he is nourished by the knowledge that R. Moshe did indeed work for a fairer distribution among the Prushim community of the funds from donations. However, Shlomo Zalman expands the demand for social justice far beyond anything that occurred to R. Moshe, who did not make the connection at all between the distribution of funds and Redemption. Perhaps in this regard Shlomo Zalman was being influenced by socialist ideas and in his fashion attributed such musings to one of his ancestors. A jarring anachronistic note appears in Shlomo Zalman’s tale about a sermon of Moshe Maggid that contained calls for social justice and then “fell into the hands of the Russian censor who interpreted the affair as a completely socialist idea; however he [R. Moshe] was already in the Land of Israel at the time and consequently his property was confiscated in Shklov.”44 Wonder of wonders. The government of Tsar Nicholas I was alarmed by the insidious message of a preacher in the Prushim community in Jerusalem and responded by confiscating his property. Yet the revolutionary movement had not yet taken off in Russia in those years, and the government of Tsar Nicholas presumably had other matters to contend with. An interesting expression of the adoption of the Zionist ethos that prevailed in the days of “the state on the way” is contained in the sermon “The Creator trained the Israelites in Egypt to work the soil in the Land of Israel.”45 R. Moshe says there that he heard the following, attributed to the Gaon of Vilna: That all the tortures [that the Israelites underwent in Egypt] were for the good, were for the sake of correcting their morals in preparation for the acceptance of the Torah and for their arrival in Land of Israel. . . . “They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields”: even this had a purpose for the good, so that the Israelites would practice and train themselves to toil in the building of the land and working the soil in the Land of Israel, because such labor is the main one needed for the settlement of the Land of Israel.46

120

Immanuel Etkes

In sum, the twenty-­six sermons contained in Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion reflect the Messianic Zionist ideas of Shlomo Zalman, and virtually all of these ideas were already published in his other writings. Shlomo Zalman went to some effort to supply credibility to the claim that these were sermons by R. Moshe Maggid, and to that end he even reported the sources from which he supposedly received the sermons—­R . Zalman Chaim Rivlin, his brother R. Moshe Rivlin, and Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin—­the three grandchildren of R. Moshe, who “worked for many years to gather the materials of his sermons and his enterprises.” He further relates that in his childhood he had the privilege to hear from the elders of Jerusalem “precious and fine words on Torah and morality and on the commandment of settling the Land of Israel that they attributed to him.”47 However, this claim has no basis in reality. Shlomo Zalman did not hold in front of him any original manuscript by R. Moshe, and as has already become clear, the authentic sermons of R. Moshe Maggid—­those printed in his book Sefer Beit Midrash—­attest, like a thousand witnesses, that his preaching contained not a trace of the Messianic Zionist ideas that Shlomo Zalman ascribed to him.

12

Sefer ha-­Pizmonim Yosef Yosha Rivlin as a “Messianic Zionist visionary”

The history and contents of Sefer ha-­P izmonim In some of his letters Shlomo Zalman Rivlin repeats the claim that his father, Yosef Yosha Rivlin, was a Kabbalist and poet alongside his known role as a public leader who for decades headed the General Committee of the kolels. His father, Shlomo Zalman affirms, also left behind a unique poetic work: Sefer ha-­ Pizmonim, Pizmonei R. Yosha Rivlin: Brit Avot be-­Se’arat Eliyahu, Pirkei Geula al Pi Torat ha-­GRA (Book of liturgical poems by R. Yosha Rivlin: The covenant of the patriarchs in the storm of Eliyahu, chapters on Redemption according to the doctrine of the GRA).1 On the content and greatness of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim and the background to its composition, Shlomo Zalman writes: In 1852 . . . when he was a youth of seventeen years, he began to awaken with great enthusiasm to [the ideals of] building Jerusalem and expanding the Yishuv, from the deep and great belief that he had been assigned a high mission from heaven, based on miraculous hints, to realize the desires of his ancestors and their fellows, the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna. It was then, in those days, that he began to write his famed, exalted verses. . . . According to the leading Kabbalists in Jerusalem, Rabbi Yosha’s verses were written under the influence of the Holy Spirit and are a great and holy treasure chest of the ideas and method of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples regarding the athalta de-­geula, the ingathering of exiles, the building of Jerusalem, and the commandment to settle the Land of Israel.2 It emerges that Sefer ha-­Pizmonim contains the vision of Redemption of the Gaon and his disciples, and that Yosef Yosha Rivlin began composing these verses 121

Immanuel Etkes

122

F IG U RE 10.

Drawing of Yosef Yosha Rivlin, b. 1837.

once he became aware that he had been tasked with a mission from heaven to turn this vision into reality. And lest one wonder how a boy who had just turned seventeen could have composed so exalted a work, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin has in store weighty evidence to support his claim, which he sets in the mouth of Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin: The rabbi, gaon, and Kabbalist Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin . . . notes that Sefer ha-­ Pizmonim is a divine work, a coveted treasure chest of tools about the ways of Redemption, and that “in the opinion of the Kabbalists in Jerusalem, they show supreme genius from the noble world of wisdom from on high”; while still young, the gaonim of Jerusalem would say of the author that he is a sort of “cipher solver” . . . a man with the spirit of God in him . . . for the discovery of the ways of the athalta via sacred hints, after the method of our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna.3 We thus learn of the mistake made by anyone who might have thought that Yosef Yosha Rivlin was merely a passionate public leader and activist who for many years headed the General Committee and greatly contributed to the building of

The Invention of a tradition

123

the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem. All that reflects only the “revealed” aspect of his figure, whereas the “hidden” aspect is expressed in the fact that while still a youth he was blessed by a divine inspiration so powerful as to reveal to him secrets of Redemption according to the method of the Gaon of Vilna. And if these were not enough, while still a youth Yosef Yosha became aware that “his soul is of the root of the soul of the Messiah ben Yosef.”4 According to the testimony of Shlomo Zalman, his father composed the verses that are in his book between 1855 and 1858.5 The question therefore arises: When and where were they first printed? The first publication of a few lines from Sefer ha-­Pizmonim appears in a manuscript from the pen of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, published in 1935.6 In this manuscript, the author notes the titles of the first eight chapters of the book. Consequently one may assume that by that time he was already in possession of these chapters. An excerpt from Sefer ha-­Pizmonim was also included in a booklet composed by Yosef Yoel Rivlin, printed in 1939.7 The first edition of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim was brought to print by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin in 1947. Only a few copies were issued.8 In addition, Shlomo Zalman cites many excerpts from Sefer ha-­Pizmonim in his book Hazon Zion, which likewise was first published in 1947.9 An expanded edition of the book, together with a foreword and comments by Yosef Rivlin, grandson of Shlomo Zalman, was published in 2004.10 In the foreword to this edition, Yosef Rivlin writes, “As is known, the RaShaZ [Rabbi Shlomo Zalman] prepared another edition with comments, yet it was never printed, and the original manuscript has disappeared.”11 As to the meaning of the disappearance of the manuscript and the possibility that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin “participated” in the formulation of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, Yosef Rivlin writes: As to the reason for the disappearance [of the manuscript] there is only speculation. In a recent conversation I had with my uncle Mr. David Rivlin, son of R. Shlomo Zalman, he held to the hypothesis that one of the RaShaZ’s students, a regular visitor in his household, took with him overseas the manuscripts of both Sefer ha-­Pizmonim and Kol ha-­Tor and even made use of them for his personal advancement. In the same conversation, David told me that he was convinced that it was not R. Shlomo Zalman who composed Sefer ha-­Pizmonim or Kol ha-­Tor, although he believes that in both instances R. Shlomo Zalman added touches of his own, especially in the style of writing. Indeed, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim makes use of words such as luxury, antisemitism, World War, mistaarim [military term for surge attacks], and other terms that do not accord with the style of the period. Likewise, some mention is made in Sefer ha-­Pizmonim of titles of

124

Immanuel Etkes

books by the Gaon of Vilna that, to the best of my knowledge, had not yet been printed, or even known about, in the period of the composition of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim by R. Yosha. . . . Although, as mentioned, there is no doubt that most of them were written by R. Yosha during the stated period.12 It turns out that members of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s family were aware of the suspicion that the individual who composed Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, and perhaps also Kol ha-­Tor, was Shlomo Zalman himself. David Rivlin and Yosef Rivlin, the son and grandson of Shlomo Zalman, reject these suspicions but also admit them partially, since there are anachronistic phrases in the book that do not fit the period in which it was supposedly written. Both try to explain this fact by stating that Shlomo Zalman added a few “touches of his own” to the original text but no more than that. In light of all of the above, the question arises: Why did Shlomo Zalman see fit to intervene in the formulation of a poetic work composed long ago by his father? And we must also ask: How are we to know where the line passes between the original version of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim and the “touches” added to the verses by Shlomo Zalman? There is interest in the assertion that a student who was one of Shlomo Zalman’s household regulars got hold of the original manuscripts for Sefer ha-­ Pizmonim and Kol ha-­Tor, took them with him “overseas,” and used them for his “personal advancement.” This serious accusation relates to Elazar Hurwitz, who as a young man served as Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s secretary and took down in dictation some of the latter’s works.13 Hurwitz moved to the United States and became a professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University in New York. The claim that Hurwitz stole the manuscripts seems baseless to me, since he never published them, in full or on part, nor did he ever publish an article discussing them. Moreover, in an article he had published in memory of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hurwitz comes off as a loyal student who admired his teacher and rabbi.14 Perhaps the claim regarding the theft of manuscripts was intended to account for why the Rivlin family did not have in its possession the original manuscripts of these two “ancient” works. One way or the other, the obvious question is: Was it indeed Yosef Yosha Rivlin who authored Sefer ha-­Pizmonim? Before addressing this question, it is appropriate to describe the features of this work and the literary qualities that distinguish it. The complete edition of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim is divided into eighteen chapters and contains also an appendix of completions of texts. I proceed next to review the contents of some of the book’s chapters.

The Invention of a tradition

125

Sefer ha-­P izmonim and its attributes The first chapter of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, “Built Jerusalem Shall Expand Beyond Its Walls,” centers on the call of the author, ostensibly Yosef Yosha Rivlin, to expand beyond the walls of the Old City and to build new neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Here are a few of the lines that express this reading: Too long have you dwelled in courtyards of sons of heathens. They have hands in everything, while their rents soar. Sons of Sarah among sons of Hagar, In darkness they dwell, afflicted by diseases. 15 Heart of our world, its existence and space: yet in the abode of our resting place we shall build for ourselves Green pastures on the hills of Jerusalem, in expanses near the Holy Mount. Its founding is in our hands and in our spirit For on both sides of its gates, Jerusalem shall be “as a city joined together.”16 The second chapter, “Hazon Zion,” begins with a description of the Messianic Zionist movement that supposedly was launched in the late eighteenth century in Shklov at the initiative of R. Binyamin Rivlin and his son R. Hillel and at the inspiration of the Gaon of Vilna. R. Hillel led the first convoy of immigrants to the Land of Israel “toward Redemption.” At first the immigrants settled in the Galilee, but R. Hillel, whose “greatest desire was Jerusalem and its settlement,” relocated to Jerusalem and founded the community of Prushim there. R. Hillel also launched the fundraising enterprise in the Diaspora communities, and as part of this, “gold from his own pocket aided in the reclamation of holy courtyards from foreigners.”17 The second section of this chapter is dedicated to the role played by R. Moshe Maggid, son of R. Hillel, as leader of the Prushim community in Jerusalem. R. Moshe “rescued the existence” of this congregation when it was in crisis. He brought peace between the Ashkenazim and Sephardim and even worked to deliver the city’s poor from the debts that burdened them. The highlight of his efforts was the construction of a new wing on the grounds of the ruins of the R. Yehuda he-­Hasid synagogue.18 The last part of the chapter is devoted to Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s enterprise as entrepreneur-­activist and leader of the construction of the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The building of the Great Synagogue within the “Hurva” of R. Yehuda he-­ Hassid is the subject of chapter 5; the author regards the reconstruction of this synagogue as a step designed to hasten Redemption. Here are a few lines from this chapter:

126

Immanuel Etkes

All of these were supported, planned and enacted By the disciples of Eliyahu [the Gaon of Vilna]. The Torah’s raised platform, moved to the Land of Israel and its center in Zion, “ heart of the world”—­to securely rebuild it. And the word of God from Jerusalem, this house of prayer Near His holy dwelling, mighty and glorious—­to restore it. A start, a foundation stone, for the building of Jerusalem First growth of Salvation, according to their Rabbi Eliyahu. The building of Jerusalem and the gathering of its sons to her, According to the commandments of God, by charity to establish it. To hasten Redemption, they enlisted, resolved: If by these we can advance it, we are the ones who must prepare it.19 In chapter 6, the author presents verses suggesting that the building of Jerusalem is a divine decree and that once this decree is responded to, the divine promise of the ingathering of exiles will be fulfilled. In this chapter, too, the author returns to the first immigrations of the Gaon’s students to the Land of Israel and describes this aliyah as an enterprise of the Hazon Zion movement. The recurring theme in this chapter is the central role played by Yosef Yosha Rivlin in the building of Jerusalem as someone who had this destiny imposed on him from on high. The author explains that the building of Jerusalem involves a joint effort by the residents of the city and the Jews of the Diaspora, who assist in this effort through their contributions. However, the fundraising effort has been met by obstacles raised by “haters of Zion,” who claim that “lazy people chose to dwell in Zion.” In these remarks, the author alludes to the criticism being voiced in Diaspora communities about the haluka policies of the Old Yishuv. “In Thy Gates, Oh Jerusalem: The Holy War on Amalek from Generation to Generation” is the title of chapter 7, which focuses on the war being waged at the gates of Jerusalem between Messiah ben Yosef and Amalek. In order to advance the process of Redemption, it is necessary to eliminate the spirit of impurity hovering over the gates of Jerusalem by engaging in the building of Jerusalem. Prayer and Torah study by the residents of Jerusalem are powerful weapons in the battle against Samael and the forces of impurity. The author calls on the residents of Jerusalem to put their shoulders to the wheel and engage in its construction, but as a prerequisite for this he presents the demand for unity among the different classes. The author likewise calls on the Diaspora communities to do their part for the building of Jerusalem. A central theme that appears in chapter 8 is the role of Messiah ben Yosef in the age of the athalta de-­geula. Moreover, the process of Redemption is char-

The Invention of a tradition

127

acterized by oppositions, periods of “harsh judgements and grace,” of light and shadow: Sons build from one side and sons of Korah from the other, Bekim and Balakim pulling at the glue. Planters of vineyards from one side, uprooters from the other, These by their behavior, are strangling the truth.20 These lines clearly imply that Yosef Yosha Rivlin is the figure at the center of the Messianic drama, devoting himself to the building of Jerusalem; while the underminers, the sons of Korah and the Balakim, are opponents of Yosef Yosha from the Bek family.21 Chapters 9, 10, and 11 discuss again the campaign that is taking place at the gates of Jerusalem between Messiah ben Yosef and the forces of impurity. Some ideas about the beginnings of Redemption are also at the center of chapter 12. “Kol ha-­Tor” is the title of the seventeenth chapter, in which the author indeed repeats some of the main ideas in the book Kol ha-­Tor. At the beginning of the chapter, the author highlights the central role played by the Rivlin family’s patriarchs in the aliyah of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon to the Land of Israel. The Messianic destiny of the Gaon is explained by the author as his being a spark of the soul of Messiah ben Yosef. Another idea that appears in the book Kol ha-­Tor and is repeated in this chapter is that the first stage of the Redemption process requires an assembly of six hundred thousand Jews in the Land of Israel. Of particular interest is the pizmon found in the supplementary chapter, in which the author, allegedly Yosef Yosha Rivlin, responds to accusations made against him by his opponents. Here are some lines from this pizmon: As for the “vast and great property of the secretary of the committee of the kolels,” I have already announced at the gate of the public, That a writ have I given to the rabbis, in which I bequeathed all my property, the land plots and buildings that my accusers have attributed to me.22 In the course of Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s activities in the construction of the new neighborhoods, allegations were made that he had misappropriated some of the funds meant for construction.23 The author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim rejects these accusations, adding that he regrets having yielded to the rabbis’ request and not responding to the libelous remarks, since “silence is a cry for the ages.”24 He also notes in his favor that “the people of Jerusalem, its most venerable residents,” were not complicit in the defamation of him. He describes his critics as “fraudsters, a

128

Immanuel Etkes

few outsiders, well-­known embezzlers.”25 On the whole, this pizmon has the character of a personal polemic, and its contents coincide with what Shlomo Zalman Rivlin wrote about the topic in his book Mossad ha-­Yesod.26 Examination of the pizmonim chapters indicates that they contain two main themes side by side. One theme is the role played by the patriarchs of the Rivlin family in the aliyah of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon to the Land of Israel and in the leadership of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem during the nineteenth century. The pizmonim that deal with this subject are of a narrative nature and show a repeated effort to glorify and elevate the family’s ancestors. The second theme harped on in these chapters is the process of Redemption in its two aspects: the earthly aspect, expressed in the building of Jerusalem and the ingathering of exiles, and the spiritual aspect, expressed in the war of Messiah ben Yosef against the forces of impurity. We thus find that the material contained in Sefer ha-­Pizmonim overlaps with the content of the other writings produced by the hand of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, namely the books Hazon Zion, Kol ha-­Tor, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, Midrash Shlomo, and Mossad ha-­Yesod. As for the poetics of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, it seems that the author drew inspiration from the poems found in the prayer books for Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and other holidays. Chapter heads contain acrostics of the names of Yosef and of the Rivlin ancestors. The text brims with gematriot and verse hints, attesting to the author’s proficiency in the textual sources. Aesthetically, it is difficult to regard Sefer ha-­Pizmonim as a creative masterpiece, despite the effort made by the author to imbue the verses with a poetic form. Many of the rhymes are forced and rely on mere similarity of grammatical endings; the texts present no vivid imagery and the lines are unbalanced. It seems that the main poetic achievement of the author was expressed in the creation of gematriot and in the inclusion of verse hints.

Who composed Sefer ha-­P izmonim? Is there any truth to Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s claim that the poetic work Sefer ha-­Pizmonim is the product of the mind and the pen of his father, Yosef Yosha Rivlin? It seems to me that the answer to this question is a clear No. This affirmation relies on several considerations that will be presented next. Yosef Yosha died in 1896, yet the first publication of an excerpt from Sefer ha-­Pizmonim appeared only in 1935, thirty-­nine years after his death. The books and articles published before then show no trace of the existence of Sefer ha-­ Pizmonim. Is it conceivable that a literary work purporting to express the secrets of Redemption according to the teachings of the Gaon of Vilna, whose ideas supposedly guided Yosef Yosha Rivlin as a public leader, was unknown to anyone?

The Invention of a tradition

129

How did it leave no trace among his contemporaries and those near to him, for the duration from the 1850s, when it was supposedly composed, until 1935?27 Moreover Yosef Yosha Rivlin wrote dozens of articles and accounts during his lifetime, and these were printed in the Hebrew periodicals of the day—­HaHavazelet, Ha-­Levanon, Yehuda ve-­Yerushalayim, Ha-­Maggid, Ha-­Tsfira, and Ha-­Melitz.28 These articles and accounts deal with many topics: news about the Jewish community in Jerusalem with special emphasis on construction and renewal initiatives,29 a defense of the institutions of the Old Yishuv from the harsh critiques being leveled against it,30 the relationship between the Old Yishuv and the Kol Israel Haverim (Alliance Israelite) society on one side and the Hibat Zion movement on the other,31 eulogies for rabbis who have passed away,32 and more. Anyone who reads Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s writings will be impressed with his qualities as a public leader with a deep knowledge of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem who worked devotedly for its well being and flourishing. And yet, in all these writings there is not a clue to the Messianic Zionist concepts reflected in Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. Moreover, as mentioned, the few lines written by Yosef Yosha about the aliyah of the students of the Vilna Gaon do not make any reference to Messianic motives. Here is what he does say: And so it was, when the settlement of the Land of Israel had been launched at the command of the Gaon, Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna of blessed memory, by his gaonic students, may their virtue protect us, amen, they who mortified their souls to approach [the place of] sanctity. . . . They traveled by mast ship in the midst of raging seas among the sea pirates and ship chasers. For not like those first days are the present days for travel by sea. . . . In those early days, when a man traveled a long distance such as this by sea, he took his life in his hands and from the outset exposed himself to immense danger, apart from the trials and tribulations that he would encounter on the road, which the pen refrains from describing. Some three moons was the length of their voyage before reaching Safed, for that was the site of the first settlement for the Ashkenazim who followed the Gaon of Vilna of blessed memory. . . . And they became a respectable community that was called the Prushim [those who withdraw]. For in those days all the Prushim from abroad came to dwell in the Holy Land, at a time when all its gates were desolate and her roads forlorn, and there was neither settlement nor an economy; they withdrew also from the pleasures of this world. Therefore they have been called Prushim to this very day.33 It appears that Yosef Yosha Rivlin is unaware of the existence of a Messianic Zionist movement called Hazon Zion, supposedly launched by his ancestors

130

Immanuel Etkes

in the late eighteenth century. He also did not know that the followers of the Gaon of Vilna immigrated to the Land of Israel for messianic reasons and that they viewed their aliyah as the first stage in the process of Redemption. Although Yosef Yosha believed that the disciples of the Gaon immigrated to the Land of Israel at the instruction of their rabbi, what they are mainly to be commended for is “having mortified their souls to approach [the site of] sanctity” despite the trials and tribulations of the journey, and for seeking in their aliyah to the Land of Israel to withdraw from the “pleasures of this world” so as to study Torah.

A group of Ashkenazi Jews from the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. Photo taken around 1865 by Henry Philips, photographer for the British Research Foundation. From Charles Warren, Underground Jerusalem. London: Richard Bentley and Son, publishers in Ordinary to her Majesty the Queen, 1876.

F IG U RE 11.

The Invention of a tradition

131

And what about the testimonies of the contemporaries of Yosef Yosha, those who lived nearby and knew him closely for years? Indeed, authors of the Rivlin family who sought to glorify the name of Yosef Yosha cited in their writings the praises written about him by his admirers and acquaintances.34 For the most part these were eulogies published in periodicals shortly after his death. A typical example is what Yechiel Michal Pines wrote in Ha-Havazelet in the month of Elul 1895: Rabbi Yosef Rivlin died and has passed on. . . . The central pillar has fallen that the entire General Committee has rested on. While he was still alive, there were those who interpreted this title pejoratively as if God forbid he grabbed the scepter of leadership into his own hands without granting others a piece of it; yet all now admit that it is to be interpreted entirely in his praise. He was the central pillar because the goodness and innocence of his heart and his endurance of spirit and personal integrity made him fit to carry alone all this heavy weight, and now that he has passed away there is no one to take his place. Tens of thousands came and left because of him, and despite all the libels made against him none of it stuck to him. . . . Rabbi Yosef Rivlin was a man of many talents in the fullest sense of the word, and when true writers come to write the history of the development of the Yishuv in the Holy Land, they will inscribe this man’s name in “gold letters.” He is the man who began in the building of neighborhoods outside the walls of Jerusalem. He laid the cornerstone for the Nahalat Shiv’a association, founded the Mea She’arim society, and built “Mishkenot Yisrael” and “Even Israel.”  .  .  . Rabbi Yosef was a man of truth who never wavered; even when showered with trash, he did not budge from his place. Even so, the most recent slanders written maliciously and groundlessly burdened his soul and depressed him to death.35 Here is the eulogy by David Yellin: The deceased was the grandson of the late Rabbi Moshe Maggid of Shklov, who was sent here in 1840 to become the leader of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. . . . And as he was a fluent writer in Hebrew and had been accepted as a scribe in one of the kolels already in his youth, when the General Committee was founded he became its secretary until his death, some thirty years later. And indeed he wasn’t just its secretary but also its head and manager; he lead all the affairs of the Ashkenazi community. Whenever help was required for some general or private purpose he was turned to, and when edicts were made against this community, he was the first

132

Immanuel Etkes

of the lobbyists to try to sweeten the edicts. His upbringing in Jerusalem, his knowledge of Arabic and Spanish, and his fluency in spoken Arabic granted him opportunities in the homes of the leading figures among our brothers the Sephardim and among officials of the regime, and it was he alone who would handle all the affairs between one ethnic community and its neighbor and between the community and the government. He had an immense capacity and vigor as an initiator: it was he who was first in founding the construction companies among our brothers in Jerusalem, and nearly all the neighborhoods from Nahalat Shiv’a and Mea She’arim, Even Israel and Mishkenot Israel . . . , all of these hundreds and thousands of houses were built with his help, and all funds passed through his hands, while at his death he did not leave one single house as inheritance to his children. Also on the subject of working the soil, he was among the first to lobby; he became a member of a society that intended to purchase the Jericho lands. Yet in the founding of settlements distant from his place of residence, he was unable to participate, although he liked the idea very much.36 Yechiel Michal Pines and David Yellin knew Yosef Yosha Rivlin closely and followed his activities for years. The figure portrayed in their remarks is of a vigorous public leader who played a central role in the life of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. Both praised him for his contribution to the building of the new neighborhoods and commended him for his integrity in the face of the allegations that he was taking personal appropriations at the public’s expense. Remarks in a similar vein were included in the eulogy by Hayyim Michal Michlin.37 For his part, R. Yechiel Michal Tikotzynsky wrote that Yosef Rivlin “was a man of many talents who had it all: Torah, wisdom, and morality; self-­taught and the teacher of others.”38 Yet not one of these eulogists attributed Messianic motives to R. Yosef or described him as engaging in the Kabbalah or relying on verse hints and gematria. Moreover, none of them knew anything about Sefer ha-­Pizmonim that he supposedly authored. And what of the testimonies presented in the writings of the Rivlin family that support the claim that Yosef Yosha composed Sefer ha-­Pizmonim? These testimonies refer to two sources: one source is the letters sent, purportedly, to the Committee for the Publication of Megillat Yosef, which was supposed to describe the professional life and activity of Yosef Yosha Rivlin. The book was never published, “but there are letters and articles left among the files of R. Shlomo Zalman connected with the book.” The second source is the remarks supposedly made at a memorial event held in Jerusalem in the month of Elul 1920, on the twenty-­fi fth

The Invention of a tradition

133

anniversary of the death of Yosef Yosha Rivlin. In fact, these two sources served as fig leaves for the hoax of Shlomo Zalman, who did not shy away from attributing to certain individuals expressions that they never uttered and never wrote. I will cite just a few examples of such “testimonies.” When seeking to buttress the fiction that Yosef Yosha Rivlin was the author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim and that this composition was striking for its profundity, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin availed himself of some very high authorities. One of them was the Jerusalem Kabbalist R. Shimon Zvi Horowitz (Lieder) (1870–­ 1946). Shlomo Zalman did not content himself with just a single “testimony” from this figure and cited two from him, the first being statements that the Kabbalist made, supposedly, during the memorial event for Yosef Yosha Rivlin and the second being a letter that he supposedly wrote to the Committee for the Publication of Megillat Yosef. Here is what R. Horowitz “said” at the memorial rally: The rabbi and gaon Shimon Lieder, speaking at the aforementioned memorial ceremony said, among other things: All the people of Jerusalem remember mainly the “revealed” side of Rabbi Yosef ’s enterprises; but more than this, one must speak of the “hidden” side. I mean by this two things: (a) the “hidden” aspects relating to the deep intentions in the Torah of the hidden, viz., the Kabbalist doctrines in the method of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples on which he based himself and designed each and every operation in the workings of the Yishuv—­these hidden intentions and sacred hints were known only to the few virtuous individuals in Jerusalem skilled in occultic matters—­and (b) what was hidden in his own sufferings. Everyone knows the afflictions R. Yosef dealt with in his sacred work and the slanders showered on him in all the periodicals, yet many more awful sufferings [!] in the enterprise of construction he would hide even from those closest to him so as not to create any weakness in the spirit of the public on the matter of the building of the neighborhoods.39 And here is the text of the letter R. Horowitz supposedly wrote to the Megillat Yosef committee: The rabbi and gaon R. Yosef Rivlin of blessed memory, the builder of Jerusalem, his image stands before my eyes: full of sacred glory and noble majesty. Surely the broad public in Jerusalem judged his soul on the basis of his deeds, yet in truth one must judge his deeds on the basis of his hidden soul. Not many have descended to the profundity of his statements and in particular to his sacred pizmonim, many of which are a “locked garden, a

134

Immanuel Etkes

sealed fountain” in their use of secrets of the Kabbalah, meant to hasten the Redemption by means of the building of Jerusalem and the ingathering of the Tribes, etc.: these descend and penetrate to the abyss, to the intentions and purposes of the prophets and the Talmudic sages in the revealed and the hidden and in wonderful hints from the subtlest of the subtle. Thank God I too have taken part in the elucidation and discovery of many of the intentions and hints in the pizmonim on the basis of the depths of the doctrine of the Kabbalah, and I am full of amazement at the gaonic profundity and the greatness and glory and chiefly the exalted spirituality and strength of faith that all are founded on ivory pillars in the pizmonim by the champion and genius of spirit and action in the building of Jerusalem, the Gaon and Tzaddik R. Yosef Rivlin of blessed and righteous memory.40 And there we have it: one of the great Kabbalists of Jerusalem was full of amazement at the proficiency that Yosef Yosha Rivlin showed in the doctrines of the esoteric, and not only that but it was a great honor to him that he was able to take part in deciphering of some of the more obscure secrets contained in the pizmonim. Yet none of this ever happened. R. Shimon Zvi Horowitz never uttered and never wrote these things, and both the content of these passages and the way they are formulated clearly indicate that they are the product of the spirit and pen of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. Thus, for instance, the claim that R. Yosef Yosha “designed each and every operation in the workings of the Yishuv” on the basis of “the Torah of the hidden, the Kabbalist doctrines in the method of the Gaon of Vilna” is no more than a fiction concocted by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, for as has already emerged, R. Yosef Yosha was not a Kabbalist and his activity in public affairs was based on practical considerations. Likewise the assertion that R. Yosef Yosha hid the suffering he experienced from the slanders made against him so as to not undermine the “spirit of the public” is identical to the apologistic statements that issued from the pen of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. In the letter attributed to him, R. Horowitz expressed satisfaction at taking part in “the elucidation and discovery of many of the intentions and hints in the pizmonim.” If so, we would have expected that these elucidations and interpretations of a text noted for its “gaonic profundity” would have appeared in print or at least in a manuscript form. And yet, there is not a single source to confirm the very existence of such elucidations, and no one has ever mentioned them. The simple truth is that the concept of Redemption incorporated in Sefer ha-­Pizmonim is inconsistent with the particular Messianic idea that R. Horowitz held. R. Shimon Zvi Horowitz was one of the founders of the Sha’ar ha-­Shamayim yeshiva and one

The Invention of a tradition

135

of the most important of the Kabbalists in Jerusalem. Holding the belief that the discovery of the Ten Tribes was a prerequisite for Redemption, he embarked on a long journey through Asia in 1900 in quest of the lost tribes.41 In 1907, his book Or ha-­Meir ve-­Kol ha-­Mevaser (Light of the illuminator and voice of the herald) was published in Jerusalem; in it he urges study of the Kabbalah as a means of hastening Redemption. In 1923, he published a book titled Kol ha-­Mevaser (Voice of the herald) with a subtitle meaning “significant news of findings in the distant isles and all details on locations of the Ten Tribes.” In the introduction, the author presents his view of the methods that would be necessary to bring Redemption closer. The main points are as follows: And here are two reasons that delay our Redemption and the reclamation of our souls, as is known and as is cited thousands of times in the holy Zohar that “on deeds and words a matter depends,” meaning study and action, in speech and in practice, meaning the study of the wisdom of the Kabbalah, the essence and soul of the Holy Torah. . . . For it is only thanks to such holy study that release from exile will occur, and the Gaon of Vilna of blessed memory cites a support to this, in what we recite in our prayer: “lighten our eyes with your Torah” means the essence of Torah, and a nearby phrase is “and may you bring us peacefully from the four edges of the earth.” And in practice, we are to uphold the midrashic sayings of the Sages, that the Diaspora of Judah and Binyamin are destined to send messengers to the Ten Tribes and bring them back according to the sayings of the prophet (Jeremiah 3:11) “In those days the house of Judah shall join the House of Israel,” etc.; certainly all depends on an awakening from below from our side. . . . And let us be privileged to join together with the Ten Tribes and the sons of Moses whose heroism is divinely wonderous, above the bounds of nature. . . . And the great Gaon of Vilna of blessed and righteous memory, writes in his commentary on the Song of Songs, where it is written “Thy hair is like the flock of goats,” that about them it is said “and saviors shall rise on Mount Zion to judge,” etc., “and shall take vengeance [among the peoples] and chastisements [among the nations],” etc., and we shall be privileged to be heralded with good news, deliverance, and consolation, and may our eyes behold the ingathering of our exiles, when God returns the captivity of His people, to our land built with delight and rejoicing.42 Indeed, R. Horowitz too believed that hastening Redemption required actions that constituted an “awakening from below.” However, unlike the Messi-

136

Immanuel Etkes

anic Zionist perspective that the Rivlinian myth attributes to the Gaon of Vilna, R. Horowitz believed that hastening Redemption depends on study of the Kabbalah and the discovery of the Ten Tribes. For some reason he did not know that Redemption depends on the building of Jerusalem and the ingathering of exiles—­the idea that is at the center of the Messianic writings from the production house of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. R. Horowitz’s very reliance on the Gaon of Vilna accentuates how far he is from the Rivlinian form of messianism. While the former also regards study of the Kabbalah as important, the Rivlinian tradition stresses the immigration to the Land of Israel and the building of Jerusalem as the decisive steps for advancing the process of Redemption whereas R. Horowitz puts the onus on the Ten Tribes. Finally it should be noted that close scrutiny of R. Horowitz’s style of writing leaves no doubt that it was not he who formulated the statements that were attributed to him. The inescapable conclusion is that just as Shlomo Zalman Rivlin did not hesitate to put words in the mouths of his forefathers, so he did not hesitate to put words in the mouths of eminent figures who were his contemporaries. However, he made a point of doing so after their deaths when they could not protest. R. Shimon Zvi Horowitz died in 1946, while the book Megillat Yosef, which cites his purported utterances, was published in 1953. Another example of a “testimony” that Yosef Yosha Rivlin was the author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim is the statements attributed to Hayyim Michal Michlin (1867–­1937). Michlin immigrated to the Land of Israel with his family as a child and studied at the Etz Hayyim yeshiva in Jerusalem. As a teenager, he began to learn foreign languages, including Arabic, French, and German. Thanks to his education, he played prominent roles in the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem. Among other things, he served as secretary of the Etz Hayyim yeshiva and secretary of Jerusalem’s Bikur Holim hospital. He likewise frequently published in periodicals accounts of what was happening in Jerusalem.43 This is the eulogy that Michlin supposedly gave at the memorial to R. Yosef Yosha in 1921: Anyone who wants to raise himself to an elevated spirit and develop high attainments in the sanctity of the soul and the spirit, which is associated with the world of creation and action; who wants to be strengthened by faith and confidence at the highest level in principle and in practice; who wants to understand how great is the power of practical faith, a pure and complete faith in the commandments of God, the intentions of the prophets based on signs and clues in the holy scriptures and to build on them great and sturdy structures . . . should properly study the wonderful and sacred pizmonim of the gaon of spirit and deed, the builder of Jerusa-

The Invention of a tradition

137

lem, the leader by supreme grace, the righteous R. Yosef Rivlin of blessed memory.44 As mentioned, this is the eulogy that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin set in the mouth of Hayyim Michal Michlin. Yet an entirely different picture emerges from what Michlin himself published on the pages of Ha-­Tsfira in the month of Kislev 1896, shortly after the death of Yosef Yosha Rivlin: From the day of the passing of Rabbi Yosef Rivlin of blessed memory, the central pillar of the committee of all the kolels in Jerusalem, the heads of the committee are despondent, as they have not yet found anyone they approve of who can fill the place of the deceased. . . . And we mourn in front of the doors of the committee, for the deceased who disappeared suddenly, for the deceased who for thirty continuous years was the foundation of the institution. . . . The deceased was truly a wonderfully personable man. His soul was open to any good and fine idea, but for that reason, as he trusted everyone and was drawn to everything, just as he would absorb good things he also would absorb bad waters fed to him by people known for their interests, and he carried for them whispering coals in his hands, and his name was tainted, through no fault of his own; now there is no replacement for him, no one to take his place, no one who has acquired all the information . . . needed to fill such a position, for which reason the committee is limping along.45 Michlin, who knew Yosef Yosha Rivlin closely for many years, chose to emphasize his role as the leader of the General Committee. He incidentally implies that R. Yosha had failed in some affair “through no fault of his own” because he had taken the advice of people who had misled him. Essentially, he describes him as a wide-­ranging public activist whom no one can replace. Yet Michlin knew nothing whatsoever about Yosef Yosha as a man who acted “on the basis of signs and hints,” as a “gaon of the spirit” and as a Kabbalist who authored the Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. Moreover there is no similarity at all between Michlin’s style of writing in his many articles and the rhetorical style of the eulogy attributed to him. Conversely it is easy to identify in that eulogy the rhetorical mannerisms characteristic of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin when he comes to glorify his father. The audacity of inventing testimonies and attributing them to various famed personages reaches its peak with the eulogy delivered purportedly by R. Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook at the memorial to Yosef Yosha Rivlin: I have read and studied his poems just now. Externally they are full of majesty and grandeur, unparalleled genius and art; internally they are a

138

Immanuel Etkes

fountain of wonderful ideas and hints, built on ivory pillars. A fountain of Salvation they are on the ways of Redemption, the building of Jerusalem, and the return to Zion. They were written under the influence of the great Holy Spirit and implemented at the risk of his body and soul. A great and deep doctrine are the sacred poems of R. Yosef, and the teaching of them we must properly undertake.46 Wonder of wonders. R. Kook, the towering figure for Religious Zionism and one of the most important thinkers in Israel’s history in modern times, a person who combined a vast halachic scholarship with a deep knowledge of Kabbalah literature, and one who put forth an original conceptual doctrine on the subject of Redemption, needed Sefer ha-­Pizmonim in order to learn from it “wonderful ideas and hints . . . in the ways of Redemption.” R. Kook died in 1935, while Sefer ha-­Pizmonim was published serially in the 1940s, so that it is almost certain that he did not know this book. And even if we assume that R. Kook was exposed to this work, it is inconceivable that he would have said about it what Shlomo Zalman Rivlin asserts he does. As in other cases, so in this case, the statements attributed to R. Kook were published years after his death and thus he could not refute them. What did R. Kook actually say at that memorial? For this we can refer to a report in the newspaper Haaretz that reviewed the event: On Thursday, on the twenty-­fi fth anniversary of the death of Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, the main founder of most of the neighborhoods outside the Old City, the residents of the neighborhoods of Mazkeret Moshe and Mishkenot Israel held a memorial service in the synagogue of Mazkeret Moshe. Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook opened the memorial with praise of the deceased and described at length the value of the first pioneers who worked devotedly under difficult living conditions in order to build and establish the Yishuv.47 Evidently R. Kook spoke highly of Yosef Yosha Rivlin for his contribution to the building of Jerusalem’s neighborhoods. The report gives no indication of the deceased’s greatness as a Kabbalist whose composition is a storehouse of secrets about Redemption.48 A testimony of an exceptional kind is a letter by R. Yaakov Moshe Harlap from the month of Ellul 1946.49 R. Harlap attributed a Messianic meaning to the aliyah of the students of the Vilna Gaon, and in so doing he also wrote in praise of Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. This is undoubtedly an authentic letter, yet it does not contradict all that has been said here. R. Harlap (1882–­1951) was

The Invention of a tradition

139

about fourteen years old when Yosef Yosha died. His acquaintance with Yosef Yosha was extremely superficial, a fact reflected in his remarks: “I remember his noble face when he walked through the court of R. Yehuda he-­Hasid, when I studied as a child in the Etz Hayyim Talmud Torah.”50 Hence the image he had of Yosef Yosha as the author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim was based on what R. Harlap had heard from members of the Rivlin family, who made sure to send him a copy of the book. R. Harlap adopted this image, just as he adopted other elements of the Rivlinian myth, because they were in line with his Messianic Zionist worldview. We have found that individuals who knew Yosef Yosha Rivlin closely knew nothing about his proficiency in the Kabbalah or that he was the author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. Moreover, the “testimonies” supporting the claim that Yosef Yosha was the author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim turn out to be fraudulent. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s manner of putting statements in the mouths of renowned personages and turning them into unwitting witnesses who attest to his father’s extraordinary virtues, is reflected in other cases. A prominent example of this are the statements that Shlomo Zalman set in the mouth of Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, who died in 1934, about a year before the first publication of a short passage from Sefer ha-­Pizmonim.51 Accordingly, it is highly doubtful that Yitzhak Zvi was familiar with this work, and even if he was, he would not have attributed it to Yosef Yosha, whom he knew closely and knew for certain was neither a Kabbalist nor a liturgical poet. The conclusion that emerges from our discussion so far is unequivocal: Yosef Yosha Rivlin did not compose Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. Therefore, the question must be asked: Who did compose it? It seems to me that the only reasonable answer is Shlomo Zalman Rivlin himself. He and no one else authored this book. Here are the considerations that support this assertion. Recall that David and Yosef Rivlin, the son and grandson of Shlomo Zalman, admit that there are words and phrases in the book that do not fit the period in which it was supposedly written, the 1850s. They explain this phenomenon by stating that Shlomo Zalman indeed intervened in the formulation of the text and added “touches of his own.” This explanation is astonishing, for why should Shlomo Zalman intervene in the text of a work written by his father “under the influence of the Holy Spirit”?52 Moreover, how do we know where the line runs between the original text of the book and the “touches” added to it by Shlomo Zalman? The obvious conclusion is that before Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s eyes stood no ancient and “original” version of the book and that he composed it from start to finish. As it has turned out, the “encoded” and “hinted-­at” contents of the book are congruent with those in the books Hazon Zion, Kol ha-­Tor, Mossad ha-­Yesod, Ha-­ Maggid Doresh Zion, and Midrash Shlomo. It therefore stands to reason that only

140

Immanuel Etkes

a person familiar with these books could compose a work that is a sort of poetic parallel to them. The reader of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s various writings cannot escape the conclusion that he was compulsive in all that concerns verse hints and gematria. Time and time again, he stresses that the eminent figures of the Old Yishuv, from the leaders of the immigrants to Israel in the early nineteenth century to his father Yosef Yosha, based their actions in public affairs on verse hints and gematria. It is therefore not puzzling that the pizmonim are also filled with verse hints and gematria. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin had a powerful psychic urge to glorify his father and fend off the accusations leveled at him by his opponents. This motif, which we found in Mossad ha-­Yesod, is prominent also in Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. Moreover, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim is the clear expression and the firm proof of a central idea in the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, to wit—­that the patriarchs of the Rivlin family were for generations acting “on a mission from heaven,” driven by Messianic motives and inspired by the vision of Redemption of the Vilna Gaon. The last figure in this dynasty of leaders is Yosef Yosha Rivlin, whose entire enterprise in the building of Jerusalem supposedly was a product of this vision of Redemption. There is no dispute about the fact that Sefer ha-­Pizmonim was brought to press by Shlomo Zalman and that the manuscript delivered for publication was written down by Elazar Hurwitz, who served as Shlomo Zalman’s secretary.53 Yet there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of an ancient “original” manuscript that Hurwitz held in front of him, and the obvious conclusion is that Shlomo Zalman dictated this book to his secretary just as he dictated other books and writings to him. Finally, the fact that Shlomo Zalman ascribed to his father a work that he himself had labored over should not come as a surprise, since in his other writings too he assigned statements to his ancestors that were in fact the product of his own pen.

PART IV

The creation of Kol ha-­Tor

This page intentionally left blank

13

Who was the author of Kol ha-­Tor?

The four books by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin reviewed here, as well as the books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor discussed in the first part of this study, combine to form an elaborate story: the Rivlinian myth. The main points of this tale can be summarized in a few sentences: In the late eighteenth century, a Messianic Zionist movement took form in Shklov, in White Russia. Inspired and blessed by the Gaon of Vilna, the movement was based on the view that the first stage of the process of Redemption must be expressed in a mass immigration to the Land of Israel, the building of Jerusalem, and the flowering of the Holy Land’s wastelands. In line with this view, the Vilna Gaon ordered his students to immigrate to the Land of Israel. Once this aliyah took place, the entire Old Yishuv adopted the Messianic Zionist vision of the school of the Gaon and conducted itself on this basis. The personages who headed this Messianic Zionist enterprise were the heads of the Rivlin family down through the generations: R. Binyamin Rivlin and his son R. Hillel founded and led the Hazon Zion movement; R. Hillel headed the first convoy of followers of the Vilna Gaon who immigrated to the Land of Israel, and it was he who initiated and led the relocation of the Prushim from the Galilee to Jerusalem. R. Moshe Maggid, the son of R. Hillel, for decades delivered sermons to spread the Messianic Zionist word among the Jewish masses in Europe; after immigrating to the Land of Israel in the early 1840s, he led the Prushim community in Jerusalem for several years. Finally, R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Shlomo Zalman’s father, headed the General Committee for decades and played a crucial role in the construction of the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem and in the foundation of the agricultural community of Petah Tikva. All of these personages 143

144

Immanuel Etkes

from the Rivlin family were well versed in the secrets of Redemption according to the doctrine of the Vilna Gaon and were acting “on a mission from heaven.” Thus, the patriarchs of the Rivlin family were the main bearers of the Messianic Zionist legacy of the Vilna Gaon and were the ones who worked tirelessly to bring this program from idea into reality. The book Kol ha-­Tor, which purports to present the Messianic Zionist teachings of the Gaon of Vilna, plays a special role within the totality of the works published by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, both because the book reveals the theoretical Kabbalist underpinnings of the Rivlinian myth and because this infrastructure is anchored in the authority of the Vilna Gaon. Moreover, Kol ha-­Tor has special importance owing to the way it has been taken up in certain circles of Religious Zionism, a subject I expand on in chapter 15. Who, then, was the author of Kol ha-­Tor? In order to sharpen this question it is necessary to reiterate some basic facts. Recall that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, who first brought Kol ha-­Tor to press in the late 1940s, claimed that the book was a “precis” of an ancient work composed by R. Hillel Rivlin, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon. However, as has already become clear, R. Hillel Rivlin was not one of the Gaon’s disciples at all, and it stands to reason that if the Gaon of Vilna had a doctrine of Redemption for the entire Jewish people, he would have passed it on to his greatest students, for example to R. Hayyim of Volozhin, who took over from the Gaon as the leader of the Mitnagdim in Lithuania, or to R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov or R. Israel of Shklov, leaders of the Prushim community in the Land of Israel. Is there any truth to Shlomo Zalman’s claim that the book that issued from his hands is a precis of an ancient treatise that came down to him via Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, who received it from Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, son of the original author R. Hillel?1 One person who accepted this claim is R. Menachem Mendel Kasher. He affirms that Kol ha-­Tor had remained in handwritten form since it was written by R. Hillel and that his sons, grandsons, and great-­grandsons, many of whom were famous preachers, “had always used it in their sermons.”2 R. Kasher was not alone, for in 1959 another edition of Kol ha-­Tor was published on behalf of the Committee for the Dissemination of Kol ha-­Tor. The ­publishers’ introduction indicates that they unreservedly embraced the claim that the book faithfully expresses the doctrine of Redemption by the Gaon of Vilna.3 The guiding aim of the publishers was to demonstrate that the beginnings of the movement of the return to Zion were anchored in the world of tradition and not in secular nationalism. In essence, they sought to influence the ultra-­ Orthodox public. As they wrote, “It is our hope that this book will be one of the guides of the National Revival movement, returning it to its sources which are

The Invention of a tradition

145

rooted in the written and orally transmitted Torah, and that it will open the eyes of the ultra-­Orthodox camp to the meaning of our era—­the period of the athalta de-­geula.”4 The backers of this edition of Kol ha-­Tor were R. Hayyim Friedlander (1923–­86) and R. Yitzhak Shlomo Zilberman (1929–­2001). R. Friedlander was a follower of the Mussar movement and served, among other things, as a mashgiah (spiritual guide) in the Ponivezh yeshiva. R. Zilberman was an atypical figure in the ultra-­Orthodox Lithuanian community: he established an original method of education, established a congregation called Aderet Eliyahu, and took a favorable approach toward the settlement of the Land of Israel. His perspective on the subject of Redemption was based on Kol ha-­Tor. Two scholars who belong to the Religious Zionism camp likewise adopted elements of the Rivlinian myth on the basis of Kol ha-­Tor. While Arie Morgenstern and Raphael Shuchat were aware of the difficulty in attributing the book to R. Hillel Rivlin, they nevertheless endeavored, each in their way, to defend the status of this book as representing an ancient tradition with origins in the circle of students of the Vilna Gaon. Indeed, Morgenstern admits that “no connection has been proven between the book and R. Hillel.” Nevertheless, he asserts: There is no doubt that this is essentially a completely authentic book . . . [that] can be attributed to each of the greatest students of the Vilna Gaon who immigrated to Jerusalem since 1816, including some members of the Rivlin family who were among the greatest rabbinic scholars and Kabbalist preachers of the Prushim community in Jerusalem in the nineteenth century.5 Elsewhere, Morgenstern attributed the source of the ideas in Kol ha-­Tor to one particular member of the Rivlin family: There is reason to speculate, on the basis of the historical sources in our possession and on the basis of plausible traditions held by the Rivlin family, that the basic ideas of the book are connected with the tradition of the Rivlin family of Shklov. . . . Most of the development of the ideas for the sermons in which the theme of gematria is emphasized was carried out by Moshe Maggid during the decades in which he served as “the preacher of Zion,” especially in the years of the Messianic crisis in Jerusalem during his tenure as the leader of the kolel from 1840 to 1845.6 Raphael Shuchat too was aware of the difficulty of attributing Kol ha-­Tor to R. Hillel Rivlin; yet he too tended to trust the claim that the book originated in a tradition passed down within the Rivlin family from generation to generation. Shuchat concluded his discussion of this question with the following words: “It is

146

Immanuel Etkes

possible to summarize and affirm with sufficiently great certainty that the Rivlin family possessed a tradition of an orderly doctrine regarding Redemption, and it can be assumed that the book Kol ha-­Tor is the essence of these traditions and was edited by RaShaZ (R. Shlomo Zalman) Rivlin, in his style, and perhaps also by R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin.”7 However, all of these speculations have no grounding in reality. No one knew of or mentioned a book called Kol ha-­Tor until Shlomo Zalman Rivlin published it in the late 1940s.8 This assertion holds true also for members of the Rivlin family down through the generations. As you may recall, R. Binyamin Rivlin’s book Gvi’ei Gavia Kesef (Goblets of silver), which contains commentaries on biblical verses and many Talmudic subjects, makes no mention of Messianic ideas, let alone Messianic Zionist ones.9 Furthermore, there is a letter from R. Hillel Rivlin in which he explains the meaning of his immigration to the Land of Israel, an explanation that contains no marks of Messianism.10 As has become clear, the book of sermons written by R. Moshe Maggid, the son of R. Hillel, does not show any marks of Messianism either. The many articles written by R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin make no mention of a book called Kol ha-­Tor, just as they show no connection with any Messianic Zionist ideas. Furthermore, Yosef Yosha did describe the immigration of the Gaon of Vilna’s students to the Land of Israel but did not attribute a Messianic motive to this aliyah.11 As for Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, which is a sort of poetic version of Kol ha-­Tor, it has already become clear that there is no truth to the claim that it was written by Yosef Yosha Rivlin. R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, who often preached in public and made efforts to convince his listeners that Zionism was the beginning of Redemption, did not mention a book called Kol ha-­Tor in his sermons, nor did he base himself at all on the writings of the Gaon of Vilna.12 Eliezer Rivlin, a scholar who dealt with the history of the Old Yishuv, wrote statements in praise of R. Hillel but had no knowledge of the existence of a book called Kol ha-­Tor.13 And if that is not enough, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin himself in 1935 published a pamphlet in which he described the exploits of R. Hillel as the leader of the Hazon Zion movement and as the leader of the Prushim community, but at that point, too, even he did not know of the existence of a book called Kol ha-­Tor.14 It bears repetition and emphasis that no one has ever attested to having seen the original manuscript of Kol ha-­Tor, the one that supposedly was present to the eyes of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin as he wrote. A person who might have attested to the existence of such an ancient manuscript, had it been real, is Elazar Hurwitz, who at the time was Shlomo Zalman’s personal assistant and whose handwritten version of the book was the one that was set to type.15 Shlomo Zalman would dictate some of his compositions to the young Hurwitz, apparently because he had

The Invention of a tradition

147

eyesight problems and also perhaps because Hurwitz was endowed with beautiful and clear handwriting.16 In recent years, Hurwitz has been asked several times what he has to say about Kol ha-­Tor, and he has repeatedly rejected those who have approached him on the grounds that he has nothing to say about it. In the same spirit he expressed himself in a telephone conversation that took place recently: “I can’t say anything about it. . . . There is a big war in academia over this whole thing. . . . I myself have no side, am not getting involved in all this. . . . I did the technical part.”17 What is the meaning of this reaction? It is clear that Hurwitz is aware of the debate that is taking place on the question of the credibility of Kol ha-­Tor and is also aware of the importance of the issue. Nevertheless, he refuses to address the question itself and limits himself to the claim that he is not a party to the argument. However, Hurwitz was there during the birth of this book, since he prepared with his own handwriting the version that was given to the press. Hence, we are allowed to conclude that his silence is akin to a confession, that is, a confession that Shlomo Zalman had no ancient manuscript in front of him. If there had been such a manuscript, Hurwitz presumably would have been happy to confirm its reality. Moreover, in an article published by Hurwitz in memory of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, he described his literary work in detail, with admiration for his teacher, and there is no mention of an ancient manuscript in his remarks.18 It is worth repeating again in this context that among the Rivlin family there has been a widespread assumption that Hurwitz took with him overseas the manuscripts of both Sefer ha-­Pizmonim and Kol ha-­Tor so as to make personal use of them. It seems that this baseless hypothesis was intended to account for why the Rivlin family did not have in its possession any ancient manuscripts of these texts. At this stage of our discussion, it is worth reiterating that the main ideas of Kol ha-­Tor are not reflected anywhere in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna, a conclusion that was also reached by Yosef Avivi, a scholar of the Kabbalah: Can anyone point to a single idea in Kol ha-­Tor, the likes of which are found in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna? That is, not the idea that the Redeemer will come and gather the remnants of the people of Israel, which, as we know, was already said before the Gaon of Vilna and before Kol ha-­Tor, but a clear statement by the Gaon of Vilna that is like those that are in Kol ha-­Tor? And can anyone show where the Gaon of Vilna wrote miraculous gematriot in the manner that the author of Kol ha-­Tor did? I do not ignore the place of the gematriot in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna, but, as I believe, the distance is great between the simple and short

148

Immanuel Etkes

gematriot of the Gaon of Vilna and the long gematriot of entire verses in Kol ha-­Tor. It also seems that the Gaon does not base his conclusions on gematriot; these are only pleasing confirmations of his ideas. You can take away the gematriot, and the content of his statements remain standing. On the other hand, the gematriot of Kol ha-­Tor are the basis of the ideas there, and if you take away the gematriot, the structure falls with them. The Gaon of Vilna did not write anything about the obligation of Jews to immigrate to the Land of Israel, or to build its houses, or to plant its plantings in order to bring Redemption closer and to hasten the coming of our righteous Messiah. Certainly the Gaon of Vilna wrote about Cyrus; certainly he wrote that the Redemption of the future would also be as it was with Cyrus, etc.; but Cyrus is not a member of the Jewish people, and he is not obligated to the 613 commandments [as Jews are]. Cyrus issued his decree; but he was a non-­Jew, and the Gaon of Vilna did not link his decree to any action taken by the Jewish people. The Gaon of Vilna indeed wrote that we need to and are able to hasten the Redemption. How? By repentance . . . by Torah study . . . by the study of the Kabbalah . . . by prayer . . . by the hope for Redemption . . . by the belief that God will redeem [the people of] Israel. . . . Is there a Zionist act in any of these?19 Here are a few other ideas that play a central role in Kol ha-­Tor yet have no basis in the writings of the Gaon of Vilna: that the Messianic purpose of the Vilna Gaon, as the embodiment of Messiah ben Yosef, is to lead a process of mass migration to the Land of Israel; that a spirit of impurity hovers over the streets of Jerusalem and prevents the flow of abundance from the Upper Worlds; that by building Jerusalem, the spirit of impurity is uprooted from it and the flow of abundance is renewed; that the Gaon of Vilna said that if six hundred thousand Jews could be moved to the Land of Israel at once, it must be done immediately, for the number six hundred thousand would enable overpowering Samael, and with his defeat, the complete Redemption would miraculously come; that the building of the Land of Israel and the building of Jerusalem need to be based on the ethic of social equality; and that study of the seven wisdoms is meant to play an important role in hastening Redemption. As said, all of these ideas have no foundation in the Gaon of Vilna’s writings, and most importantly there is no basis for the idea at the center of Kol ha-­Tor that mass immigration to the Land of Israel, the building of Jerusalem, and the flowering of the Holy Land’s desolate spaces compose the first stage in the process of Redemption. The Gaon of Vilna

The Invention of a tradition

149

never crossed the line between the traditional view that Redemption would come from heaven and the Zionist view that advocates human initiative. This assertion is also reinforced by the studies of Yehuda Liebes on the attitude of the Vilna Gaon and his disciples toward Sabbateanism.20 Liebes sought to establish that the students of the Gaon of Vilna, and perhaps even the Gaon himself, believed that Sabbateanism was a necessary stage in the process of Redemption and that the damage caused by the “First One,” namely Shabbetai Zvi, would be repaired by the second Messiah-­king.21 Assuming that Liebes’s interpretation of the sources that he relied on is indeed accurate, it is quite clear that all these ideas fall within the realms of the traditional perspective that Redemption is to come from on high, with no hint of the idea that immigration to the Land of Israel is a means of hastening Redemption.22

Let us now examine the question about the author of Kol ha-­Tor, in light of our conclusions about the literary methods of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. We have found that he had a practice of attributing to his ancestors texts that he himself conceived of and composed. This is a reoccuring behavior that is usually accompanied by the claim that the material is a “summary” of an original text.23 This claim is no more than an excuse to hide the fact that no original manuscript was present in front of him as he wrote. Kol ha-­Tor too is presented by Shlomo Zalman as the precis of an ancient treatise. If he had in his hand a manuscript of such a work, he could have cited from it even a few actual paragraphs or sentences, but no such manuscript existed at all. Moreover, the claim that the text of Kol ha-­Tor is a precis of an ancient treatise is inconsistent with the fact that the book contains many repetitions of the same ideas in fairly identical formulations. In this context, it is worth noting that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin often cited works that never existed and are complete fabrications of his own.24 We have also found that the writings of Shlomo Zalman are characterized by a compulsive repetition of ideas, with those same ideas sometimes attributed to different figures from the Rivlin dynasty. Thus, for example, in Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, he reiterates the main ideas that appear in Kol ha-­Tor regarding the beginning of Redemption, but here he claims that the ideas had been revealed to his father, Yosef Yosha. Moreover, Shlomo Zalman attributes the ideas that appear in Kol ha-­Tor to R. Moshe Maggid as well. The attribution of those “secrets of Redemption” to different members of the Rivlin family is puzzling, because if the Gaon of Vilna had already revealed the secrets of Redemption to R. Hillel, who supposedly wrote the book Kol ha-­Tor, why did R. Moshe Maggid and R. Yosef have

150

Immanuel Etkes

to rediscover those “secrets” on their own? The resolution to this contradiction is simple: Shlomo Zalman sought to crown the ancestors of the Rivlin family down through the generations as the bearers of the Messianic Zionist legacy of the Vilna Gaon, and therefore he repeatedly attributes to them the ideas that he himself conceived and assigned to the Gaon of Vilna. It is unsurprising therefore, given the claim that the Gaon of Vilna is an incarnation of Messiah ben Yosef, that Shlomo Zalman also attributes to his ancestors the virtues of being on a “mission from heaven” and having a link to Messiah ben Yosef.25 Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s “fingerprint” in Kol ha-­Tor is evident in his extensive use of verse hints and gematria. These appear hundreds of times in Kol ha-­Tor, and they form the main evidentiary infrastructure for the validity of the ideas expressed in it. Compulsive use of verse hints and gematria is repeated in all the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. A clear example of this is found in Sefer ha-­ Pizmonim, and the phenomenon is also noticeable in the collection of sermons. As a rule, the world of Shlomo Zalman is erected on verse hints and gematria, so it is unsurprising that all the heroes of the Rivlinian myth learned about their Messianic destiny via verse hints. This applies to the Vilna Gaon, to R. Shneur Zalman of Liady, and to the ancestors of the Rivlin family down through the generations: Binyamin, Hillel, Moshe Maggid, Yosef Yosha, and Yitzhak Zvi. Furthermore, Shlomo Zalman repeatedly asserts that it was the hints from verses and gematria that underpinned the conduct of the key figures of the Rivlin family and that guided the leaders of the Old Yishuv at every step. The reader of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s books gets the impression that the author is a sort of omniscient narrator, that is, one with the power to describe in great detail events that have left no trace in any historical record from the time. Hence, descriptions that purport to represent historical reality are nothing more than fictions that Shlomo Zalman produced and embellished as far as his imagination could take him. A striking example is the tale about the growth of a Messianic Zionist movement named Hazon Zion that operated in Shklov in the late eighteenth century.26 Another example is the tale of the heroic exploits of the Gevardia, the Jewish fighting force that defended the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. Yet another fiction is the tale about the Beit Midrash for Sciences founded by the students of the Vilna Gaon in Jerusalem.27 These examples are just a few of the many invented stories that appear in the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin.28 Imaginary exploits also appear in Kol ha-­Tor. For example, it tells of a delegation of Jewish dignitaries who traveled to the capital of imperial Russia to reverse the evil counsel of Christian priests who incited against the Jews. The royal ministers received the delegation, whose members included Binyamin Rivlin, Yehoshua Zeitlin, Neta Notkin, and Baruch Shik of Shklov, with great respect

The Invention of a tradition

151

owing to “several inventions involving medicines for infectious diseases and the science of measurement . . . which were invented by them, as is known, and which were used by the government.” It goes without saying that the royal ministers heeded the delegation’s request and ordered “the complete uprooting of the acts of the priests and their slander against the Jews.”29 And if the personages listed above excelled in their knowledge of the sciences, clearly the Gaon of Vilna did so all the more. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the author of Kol ha-­Tor knew to tell wonderful things about that as well: Many of the well educated and the scholars known for their study of natural sciences from among our Jewish brethren, as well as those not of our brethren, also on behalf of ministers and counts, would come to our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna to ask him for solutions and counsel on difficult questions in natural studies, and he resolved all the difficult questions miraculously and with great speed.30 To remove all doubt, it can be stated with certainty that Binyamin Rivlin, Yehoshua Zeitlin, Neta Notkin, and Baruch of Shklov never traveled to the capital to deal with the incitement of priests, they did not make scientific discoveries in the field of medicine, nor did the Russian government need or seek their help. As for the Gaon of Vilna, in all the testimonies left behind by his sons and students there is no mention that he ever gave advice and answers in the field of natural sciences. As an omniscient narrator, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin was also able to reach into the depths of the Gaon of Vilna’s soul and describe the doubts that weighed on him about the fulfillment of his Messianic destiny: Shortly after returning from his voyage toward the Holy Land in 1782 . . . he was stuck in a deep worry and emotional distress that is hard to describe. On the one hand, he saw via his Holy Spirit the great mission that was entrusted to him from heaven to awaken and begin the ingathering of exiles in practice; on the other hand he saw the terrible dangers that would be involved, both in traveling to the Land of Israel and in the conditions of the settlement there—­at a time when the Land of Israel was a desolate desert, with infectious diseases, . . . savage robbers, . . . needs of an economy and the means of livelihood.31 Yet not to worry: just as the author of Kol ha-­Tor knew to tell of the mental distress that the Gaon of Vilna was suffering from, so he found a way to deliver him from this distress. The Gaon of Vilna fasted and prayed so as to “receive clear advice from heaven,” and he did indeed receive a “great and holy vision,” during

152

Immanuel Etkes

which verse hints and gematriot were revealed to him. “Among them are these verses: ‘Fear not, Jacob, my servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen,’ and it was hinted to him that the words Jeshurun whom I have chosen are equivalent to his trigenerational name, Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman ben Yisacchar Dov, and in this he saw for the first time his mission in the great task of the Messiah of the beginning [of Redemption], for ‘Jeshurun in gematria is Messiah ben Yosef.’ ”32 “This sublime vision,” Shlomo Zalman concludes his story, “encouraged and strengthened the heart of our rabbi, and from then on the doubts ceased to bother him.”33 Indeed, who knows how the Gaon of Vilna would have become acquainted with his Messianic destiny were it not for the marvelous skill of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin in interpreting verse hints and calculating gematriot. On the face of it, there is room to ask: Was Shlomo Zalman Rivlin capable of composing such a book as Kol ha-­Tor? Raphael Shuchat ruled out such a possibility. He relied, among other things, on statements he heard from Shmuel Rivlin, a son of Shlomo Zalman: “My father was very wise, but to write a book like Kol ha-­Tor, that he was not capable of.”34 Yet this statement is contravened by the testimony of Asher Rivlin, also one of Shlomo Zalman’s sons, who described his father’s literary work as follows: We lived with this occupation of his day after day and month after month. The household was saturated . . . with the names of ancient periodicals and books of midrash, halacha, and Kabbalah. . . . Throughout the house there echoed calculations of gematriot and acronyms, Messianic terminology, hints for calculating [the date of] Redemption . . . tangles of interpretations, the hidden from the revealed based on techniques from the Pardes, using biblical verses and Talmudic passages. . . . On more than one occasion we were staggered at his vast proficiency in the historical, midrashic, and Kabbalist literature, when faced with the depth of his analysis and his wonderful memory.35 Examination of Kol ha-­Tor shows that the following are the realms of knowledge and skills required of the author of this book: proficiency in the Bible, ability to interpret scriptures via drash, ability to uncover “hints” in the scriptures, skill in calculating gematriot, proficiency in the midrashic literature and especially the midrashim relating to Messianic Redemption, and a general knowledge of Kabbalist doctrines. And indeed, all of these we have found in the other books penned by Shlomo Zalman. Another realm of proficiency that is required of the author of Kol ha-­Tor is familiarity with the Gaon of Vilna’s writings relating to the topic of Messianic Redemption. That Shlomo Zalman Rivlin was indeed familiar with these writings is attested to by the notes he wrote for the first chapter

The Invention of a tradition

153

of the book, in which he relied on the writings of the Gaon of Vilna.36 In addition to all of these, the author of this book required a fertile imagination and great daring, qualities that Shlomo Zalman certainly did not lack. In sum, there is no escaping the conclusion that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin was the author of Kol ha-­Tor from beginning to end. Just as he wrote the books Hazon Zion, Mossad ha-­Yesod, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, Midrash Shlomo, and Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, so too did he compose the book Kol ha-­Tor. In the end, Kol ha-­Tor is but one component, albeit a very important one, within the literary complex that underlies the Rivlinian myth, a myth that is entirely a creation of the imagination and of the pen of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin.

14

Shlomo Zalman Rivlin The man and his literary motives

Kol ha-­Tor is thus a clear instance of the phenomenon called pseudoepigraphy, that is, writing attributed to an ancient figure so as to grant it prestige and authority. This phenomenon, as is known, has many precedents, both in Jewish literature throughout the ages and in the literature of other nations. The most important example of a pseudo-­epigraphic treatise in Jewish literature is the book of Zohar, which first became known in Spain toward the end of the thirteenth century but was attributed to the Mishnaic personage R. Shimon bar Yochai.1 The motive of R. Moshe de Leon, the Kabbalist who “discovered” the book of Zohar and ascribed it to R. Shimon bar Yochai, was revealed in an exchange between him and his wife, as described by his contemporary the Kabbalist R. Yitzhak of Acre: I [the wife of Moshe] say to him, seeing him write without anything in front of him: Why do you declare that you are copying from a book when there is no book and it is only from your head that you write? Would it not be pleasing to you to say it is from your own mind that you write, and would it not be a greater honor to you? And he [Moshe] replied and said to me: “If I inform them of this secret, that I am writing from my own intellect, they will not pay attention to my words and will not give a penny for them. . . . But now when they hear that I am copying the words from the book of Zohar, which [R. Shimon bar Yochai] composed via the Holy Spirit, they will buy them with precious funds as your eyes shall see.2 154

The Invention of a tradition

155

The credibility of this testimony is doubted by some, and in any case it is hard to imagine that a desire for financial gain was the main motive that guided R. Moshe de Leon.3 As for Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, that he did not act from pecuniary motives is certain since the goal he had in mind when he attributed Kol ha-­Tor to R. Hillel Rivlin, “the disciple of the Gaon of Vilna,” was to grant the book some of the prestige and authority of the Gaon of Vilna. So what were the motives for Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s literary endeavor? Why did he devote years of his life to composing the books Kol ha-­Tor, Hazon Zion, Mossad ha-­Yesod, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, Midrash Shlomo, and Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion? Why did he repeat the same ideas and storylines over and over again in his various works, trying to lend them credibility and validity? It seems to me that the answer to all these questions lies in his biography: he was born in the heart of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem, but during his life he was exposed to the ethos of the New Yishuv, was influenced by it, and adopted it. The pair of terms Old Yishuv and New Yishuv, as was prevalent in the discourse of the late nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, expressed the assumption that these were two societies in polar opposition to each other. Indeed, as far as the ideology held by the elites of these two societies was concerned, this assumption is justified. Yet the social and cultural reality of the Old Yishuv was more complex and diverse than this polar opposition represents.4 From the point of view of our discussion, what matters is that as early as the late nineteenth century, individuals from the Old Yishuv began to adopt certain aspects of modernity, including the exposure of their children to a general education.5 This trend was also reflected in the activity of some members of the Rivlin family. Thus, for example, Reuven Rivlin (1864–­1928), who served as Yosef Yosha’s assistant as secretary of the General Committee and who took over this position after his death, supported the establishment of schools for secular studies. He sought to have boys continue to fill the benches of the Talmud Torah Etz Hayyim in the morning hours and then study general subjects in the afternoons.6 Reuven Rivlin also made sure to impart to his son Yosef Yoel knowledge of the German language via private tutors and later sent him to study at the Lemel School.7 We do not have detailed information on the stages of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s education. It is known that he studied for several years in the Talmud Torah and in the Etz Hayyim yeshiva and in those years acquired proficiency in the Bible and rabbinic literature. Yet at a certain stage in his youth, he was also exposed to a general education and, among other subjects, gained some knowledge of the English language.8 At a young age, Shlomo Zalman showed a penchant for music and soon turned to cantorial work. In 1906, the cantor and scholar of Jewish

156

Immanuel Etkes

music Avraham Zvi Idelson immigrated to the Land of Israel. Shlomo Zalman found Idelson to be a skilled teacher and studied music reading, harmony, and voice development with him. In 1910, they founded the cantorial training institute Shirat Israel together, and after Idelson left the country in 1921, Shlomo Zalman continued to manage the institute himself for decades.9 Shlomo Zalman also held administrative positions in various public institutions for several years. But at the age of fifty, he retired from these occupations and devoted himself entirely to his two hobbies—­cantorial work and the Shirat Israel Institute on the one hand and the study of the Old Yishuv on the other.10 The receptiveness of the Old Yishuv to modernity was reflected also in the transformation that took place in relation to the Zionist movement. This turning point occurred mainly following the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of the British Mandatory government for Palestine. The change in the balance of power and the transformation of the Zionist establishment into the leading factor for the Jews of the Land of Israel presented the leadership of the Old Yishuv with a dilemma: do they cooperate with the Zionist establishment, or do they distinguish themselves from it?11 The need to deal with this issue led to a split between the moderates, who chose to cooperate with the establishment, and the extremists, who chose to distinguish themselves from it. Yet this description applies to the leadership of the Old Yishuv: there were individuals within it who tended to

F IG U RE 12 .

Shlomo Zalman Rivlin and his choir.

The Invention of a tradition

157

identify with Zionism long before the establishment of the British Mandate in the Land of Israel. Interesting evidence of this can be found in the memoirs of Yosef Yoel Rivlin, who tells of some members of the Old Yishuv, including his father, who regarded the Zionist movement under Herzl’s leadership with sympathy but at the same time had reservations about the Hibat Zion movement because of the bad name it was giving to the Old Yishuv.12 The most prominent case of an early identification with Zionism within the Rivlin family relates to the figure of R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin. As you may recall, he was very taken by the ideas of Hibat Zion, immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1884, and worked resolutely to spread the message of Zionism among the Jews of Jerusalem. We have no information about the path that Shlomo Zalman took to his own Zionism, but there is no doubt that he adopted the Zionist ethos early in life and identified with it with all his might. His was also a strictly Zionist home, as his sons attest: one of them belonged to the Haganah, one to the Palmach, one to the Etzel, and one to the Hashomer Hatzair “commune.”13 It is quite possible that the person who paved Shlomo Zalman’s path toward Zionism was his relative R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that Shlomo Zalman repeatedly cites him in his writings, calls him “my teacher and rabbi,” and even claims to have received the text of Kol ha-­Tor from him.

F IG U RE 13.

Shlomo Zalman Rivlin and wife Hadasa, circa 1950.

158

Immanuel Etkes

The identification with the Zionist enterprise, from one side, and the emotional attachment to the legacy of his ancestors who were leaders of the Old Yishuv, from the other, put Shlomo Zalman Rivlin in a bind since the Old Yishuv and Zionism were hostile to each other. And if that was not enough, Shlomo Zalman felt the insult of the harsh criticism directed at the Old Yishuv. Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, the Jews of Central and Western Europe began to take an interest in the Land of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. From the point of view of Jews who had adopted the values of modernity, the people of the Old Yishuv were seen in a negative light. Their dependence on the funds of the haluka gave them a reputation for living on charity and being lazy and lethargic. There was also a strong critique of the educational practices prevailing in the Old Yishuv and of its leaders’ opposition to all aspects of modernization in education.14 The critique of the Old Yishuv reached its peak following the reports published by the historian Zvi Graetz15 and Samuel Montague, the representative of the Committee of Deputies in London,16 who visited the Land of Israel in the 1870s.17 One of the focal points of Graetz’s criticism was the unequal distribution of the funds of the haluka, as a result of which there are poor people on the brink of starvation. Having no other recourse, many of the poor are sending their children to missionary schools. The economic hardship is also giving rise to bitterness, jealousy, and even corruption. Another ill effect involved in the haluka regime is idleness. Many of those who earn their living from charity are pretending to be Torah scholars, even though they wander about in the streets doing nothing. Added to all this is illiteracy, since there are no schools in the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv except for the heders.18 A further escalation of the criticism of the Old Yishuv occurred during the Hibat Zion period. The leaders of the Old Yishuv had reservations about the New Yishuv, fearing that support for it would come at the expense of the funds of the haluka. Moreover, agricultural settlement was perceived as a threat to the Old Yishuv because it provided an alternative to its modes of earning a living.19 The speakers representing Hibat Zion returned the favor by strongly criticizing the Old Yishuv’s leaders and accusing the heads of the kolels of theft and corruption.20 The criticism of the Old Yishuv by members of the Hibat Zion movement contributed to the adoption of the negative image of the Old Yishuv by leaders of the Zionist movement during the first half of the twentieth century. It is not surprising that members of the Rivlin family, like other descendants of families from the Old Yishuv, felt a burning insult when confronted with this image of them. It can be assumed that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin was especially sensitive to this insult

The Invention of a tradition

159

since his father, Yosef Yosha Rivlin, served as the spokesman for the Old Yishuv and defended it against its attackers. An event that illustrates the role of Yosef Yosha as a defender of the Old Yishuv is the visit to Jerusalem in 1890 from a delegation of rabbis and activists who were leaders of Hibat Zion. The delegation, headed by R. Shmuel Mohilever, spent Shabbat in Jerusalem and on Friday met with the heads of the kolels in the city. The description of the meeting has come to us from the pen of Hayyim Michal Michlin, a Jerusalem resident who often published articles in the periodical Ha-­Tsfira about what was happening in the city.21 Michlin relates that the guests expressed astonishment at the important institutions and enterprises they found in Jerusalem and openly admitted that the negative image of the residents of Jerusalem prevalent in Europe was baseless. Yosef Yosha responded “on behalf of all the sons of Jerusalem” and thanked the guests with these words: “At such a time, when at home and abroad we are the target of the arrows from the mob, who pours on us a barrage of abuse and invective—­from every direction and corner we hear only cruel mockery and laughter from the mouths of our brethren, our haters, and our ostracizers—­at such a time, how pleasant to us are words of consolation and fine statements from the mouths of noble persons such as yourselves.”22 On the day of Shabbat, Torah portion Bamidbar, the guests prayed in the Mazkeret Moshe synagogue, and after the haftarah, R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin delivered the sermon. In it, he reached out to the envoys from Hibat Zion and expressed support for their enterprise. At the same time, he called on them to not turn their backs on the population of the Old Yishuv. According to him, many of its residents were willing to do work of any sort to support their families. Hence, the leaders of Hibat Zion were called upon to assist them in finding sources of livelihood. Rivlin dedicated much of his remarks to refute the contemptable image that the Old Yishuv had acquired. Among other things, he mentioned its efforts to establish new neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the formation of the Petah Tikva agricultural colony.23 The remarks made by Yosef Yosha in this meeting with the Hibat Zion people are but one of many examples of the role he played as defender and advocate for the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. How, then, could Shlomo Zalman Rivlin cope with the tension between his identification with the Zionist enterprise and his deep emotional commitment to the legacy of his ancestors—­and far more to his own father, who for decades headed the General Committee? He found the solution to his predicament through an anachronistic projection of the characteristics of the Zionist enterprise onto the Old Yishuv, that is, in the claim that the immigration of the stu-

160

Immanuel Etkes

dents of the Vilna Gaon to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century was the beginning of Zionism. To bolster this claim, he invented the Hazon Zion movement, which was supposedly active in Shklov in the late eighteenth century, and gave it the features of the Hibat Zion movement, which arose in the late nineteenth century. The formula on which he based his account of the aliyah of the Vilna Gaon’s students he found ready made in the writings of the heralds of Zionism, the rabbis Kalisher and Alkalai, and of the rabbis who supported the Hibat Zion movement.24 Both sets of rabbis affirmed that the first stage of Redemption would be expressed in the mass immigration to the Land of Israel and the greening of its wastelands by natural means, while in the second stage the complete Redemption would come from a heavenly origin. The storyline at the heart of the Rivlinian myth is therefore the “Zionist” enterprise of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and their successors in the Old Yishuv. As early as the end of the eighteenth century, they organized a movement that called for mass immigration to the Land of Israel, and from the moment they took up residence there they never ceased their efforts to purchase land meant for the construction of new neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Moreover, once they immigrated to the Land of Israel they worked tirelessly to establish agricultural settlements there. In the course of doing so they also established a Hebrew defensive force to repel violent members of the Arab population. In sum, it was the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and their successors in the Old Yishuv who initiated and were the first to implement the main elements of the Zionist ethos: aliyah, building the country, agricultural settlement, and self-­defense. However, unlike the blatantly secular nature of the pioneers of the Second Aliyah and Third Aliyah, and unlike the secularism of the labor movement that has been a central factor in the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel since the 1930s, Shlomo Zalman made sure to enshroud the Zionism of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon and their successors in a veil of messianism. The Gaon of Vilna was a spark of the Messiah ben Yosef, and his Messianic destiny was to initiate and lead the necessary steps of the athalta de-­geula, while the disciples of the Gaon and the leaders of the Yishuv were well versed in the secrets of Redemption according to the Gaon’s doctrine and relied on verse hints and gematriot. Their program was thus a Zionist Messianism, and one may also say a Messianic Zionism. Hence the special importance of Kol ha-­Tor, which discloses the details of the Messianic Zionist doctrine of the Gaon of Vilna and his students. As said, the main motive underlying the creation of the Rivlinian myth was the desire to bridge the polar gap between the Old Yishuv and Zionism. Yet to better understand the motives of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, one must appreciate more fully the depth of the insult he felt from the negative image of the Old

The Invention of a tradition

161

Yishuv that was prevalent in Zionist discourse. In several of his writings, Shlomo Zalman argued that this image is the result of a systematic and deliberate act of distortion that was manifested, among other things, in the destruction of authentic documents and the invention of forged documents.25 The feelings of insult and rage at what seemed to him to be a malicious distortion of the image of the Old Yishuv weighed on Shlomo Zalman during the years in which he was engaged in composing his various writings and fueled his impulse to compose them. About a year before his death, he took pains to publish a special pamphlet about it.26 These are its opening sentences: Many of the elders of Jerusalem speak with deep sorrow about the distortions and fictitious statements that are written in connection with the history of the Old Yishuv in the Land of Israel. . . . For more than sixty years there has been constant propaganda, malicious propaganda, to uproot the memory of all the activity of the Old Yishuv, especially the great actions of the main leadership of . . . the General Committee of the kolels. The authors of this propaganda and their agents are not satisfied with the work of uprooting alone but rather . . . [engage] also in a “campaign of defamation” of the community leaders and the rabbis of Jerusalem . . . , those who worked all their lives to strengthen the Yishuv, to build Jerusalem, and to expand the Yishuv in every way.27 Shlomo Zalman concluded the pamphlet with a statement about his mission: It is his duty to correct the terrible injustice done to the Old Yishuv by the distorters and defamers by providing an alternative history that will do justice to it. This mission is in line with the dictum, “the deeds of the fathers are signposts for sons,” since for many years it was his father who defended the Old Yishuv from its critics. And if that wasn’t enough, it was also the will that his father conveyed to him shortly before his death.28 Why specifically him? Why is this great task imposed on Shlomo Zalman Rivlin and not on other individuals who are descendants of the Old Yishuv? The answer to this question becomes clear in light of his remarks about the knowledge and proficiency required of those who wish to fulfill this task: Anyone who comes to write or speak about the history of the Old Yishuv must be knowledgeable and expert in these three things: (1) the doctrine of Messianism of the athalta de-­geula in the method of our rabbi the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples . . . and be well versed in the chapters of Kol ha-­Tor by the Gaon’s disciple R. Hillel of Shklov; (2) to be properly knowledgeable in the history of the General Committee. . . . ; (3) and to

162

Immanuel Etkes

be knowledgeable and well versed in the writings of the director of this institution . . . Rabbi Yosef Rivlin of blessed memory. There is no doubt that in these statements Shlomo Zalman is alluding to himself. Another source too indicates that this was indeed his self-­image. In the preface to the book Midrash Shlomo, it is stated that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin is “the most knowledgeable and expert of our generation in the sublime ideas of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples with regard to the ingathering of exiles and the ways of athalta de-­geula, as well as in the history of the Old Yishuv.”29 As you may recall, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin repeatedly claimed that his forefathers were the bearers of the Messianic Zionist legacy of the Gaon of Vilna and that they were acting “on a mission from heaven.” It is not surprising that he viewed himself as yet another link in the Rivlin family’s generational chain that was also working “on a mission from heaven.” An explicit statement to that effect was included in his introduction to Kol ha-­Tor. He wrote that he turned to the engagement with this book because he had been “awakened by heaven.”30 His brother-­in-­law Alter Dov Vishnatsky was likewise able to report that Shlomo Zalman “believed with a deep faith that he was destined by a heavenly mission to continue the deeds of the fathers by strengthening and expanding the Yishuv.”31 His forefathers were the leaders of the Old Yishuv who worked to realize the Messianic Zionist vision of the Gaon of Vilna, and it was his mission to tell the truth about the greatness of their acts. In consequence of this examination of the literary motives of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, one cannot help but wonder about the fact that his writings make no reference at all to the dramatic events taking place in pre-­state Israel in the 1930s and 1940s, during which he composed his writings. The Great Arab Revolt (1936–­39), the struggle against the White Paper of 1939, the Second World War and the anxiety over the invasion of the region by the German army, the political struggle that preceded the UN decision to partition Palestine, the bloody riots that broke out following the partition resolution, the War of Independence and the establishment of the State of Israel—­all of these are not mentioned in the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. This silence is perplexing, for one would expect that he would have associated the Messianic Zionist enterprise that he attributes to the Old Yishuv with the fateful events that preceded the establishment of the state. How can this silence be explained? Did the spiritual identification with the imaginary world he had created push him to turn a blind eye to the contemporary political reality? Or perhaps it is the opposite: Did this reality itself—­that is, the Zionist ethos inherent in the actions of the secular labor movement—­drive him

The Invention of a tradition

163

to invest his energies in creating an alternative history in which the residents of the Old Yishuv were the first Zionists? Did Shlomo Zalman Rivlin believe the myth he created in his writings? It is in the nature of such things that an unequivocal answer to this question may not be given. And even so, the reader of his writings cannot escape the impression that the words were written with tremendous mental fervor and self-­persuasion. It seems to me that during the years he was composing his writings he was increasingly captivated by the shackles of the myth he created, until he began to believe in it. Moreover, it seems that emotionally he was completely engulfed by the fictional world he had created—­a world whose heroes are the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples, the ancestors of the Rivlin family down through the generations, and the members of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv; a world that began in the late eighteenth century and ended with the death of his father in the mid-­nineties of the nineteenth century. Be all this as it may, when Shlomo Zalman wrote his books in order to advocate for the Old Yishuv and to celebrate the deeds of his ancestors, he could not have imagined that within a few decades the myth he had created would play a significant role in the world of rabbis and educators from Religious Zionism.

15

The embrace of the Rivlinian myth and Kol ha-­Tor in Religious Zionist circles

The question of the credibility of the Rivlinian myth in general and of Kol ha-­Tor in particular is of great importance because of the role that these play in the nexus of ideas about Redemption that has developed and been cultivated since the 1970s in some circles of Religious Zionism. The first publication of the books Hazon Zion and Kol ha-­Tor in the late 1940s did not, as said, produce significant reverberations, and the myth of the Gaon and his disciples as being the “first Zionists” remained the domain of a small group. The turning point in the status of this myth occurred after the Six-­Day War, when R. Menachem Mendel Kasher published Kol ha-­Tor as an appendix to his book Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah (The great era) in 1968.1 Given the Messianic moods that certain sectors of Religious Zionism were caught up in at the time, inspired by R. Zvi Yehuda Kook and his disciples,2 it is no wonder that a book purporting to present the messianic teachings of the Vilna Gaon drew much attention. As in Yosef Ahituv’s incisive statement, “the publication [of Kol ha-­Tor] by R. Kasher immediately after the Six-­Day War turned it from a family asset into a national asset.”3 One of the expressions of the acceptance of this myth in Religious Zionist circles has been its adoption within the state-­religious education system. One example of this can be seen in the Israel ve-­Geulato: Yalkut Mekorot (The Jewish people and its Redemption: Anthology of source materials), published in 1975.4 Yehuda Kiel, the editor of the anthology and the head of the department of religious education at the time, wrote an introduction to the anthology of sources in which he discussed the commandment of aliyah to the Land of Israel. In this con164

The Invention of a tradition

165

text, he cited a statement from Kol ha-­Tor supposedly made by the Gaon of Vilna to his students, “who faithfully promised him to go to the Holy Land . . . : May you be privileged to fulfill the commandment of the settlement of the Land of Israel, which is equal in weight to all the commandments in the Torah.”5 Within the body of the anthology too, Kiel cites an excerpt from Kol ha-­Tor, stating that immigrating to the Land of Israel at this period has the significance of being a first step toward Redemption.6 A different kind of example of the adoption of the Rivlinian myth in the Religious Zionist educational system can be found in the catalog of an exhibition held at the Har Etzion yeshiva in 2011. The title of the exhibition, which displayed bibliographical items related to the Gaon of Vilna, was Mi-­Vilna ad Har Etzion: Giluyei Eliyahu ba-­Torah uba-­Geula (From Vilna to Har Etzion: The discoveries of Eliyahu in Torah and Redemption).7 The meaning of this title is clarified by the curator in his introduction to the exhibition catalog. He describes the Gaon of Vilna as someone who worked to bring Redemption closer “by natural means” through the settlement of the Land of Israel. Yet of even greater interest is another paragraph from the introduction: Part of the Torah world denied the Messianic heritage of the Gaon of Vilna but remained faithful to his Torah devotion. The beit midrash of Har Etzion yeshiva . . . has from its inception been imbued with a historical perspective and a sense of national mission. Consequently, it is faithful to the Torah legacy of the Gaon of Vilna and his disciples, and also to the spirit of his “Messianic” legacy, which requires itaruta diletata [awakening from below] through active participation in the building of the country, and the integration of Torah in Israeli society and state institutions.8 What we have here is a statement that seeks to distinguish the Har Etzion yeshiva from the Lithuanian-­Haredi Torah world. The latter maintains allegiance only to the Gaon of Vilna’s Torah heritage while the Har Etzion yeshiva is faithful also to his “Messianic” heritage (i.e., to the Zionist one). It appears that the reliance on the authority of the Gaon of Vilna is being accompanied here by an apologetic tone. Faced with the Torah weight of the “holy yeshivas” from the ultra-­Orthodox camp, the Zionist hesder yeshiva retorts with a proud embrace of the Gaon of Vilna.9 It is worth noting that the exhibition catalog also contains an article by Arie Morgenstern in which he reiterates the main points of his teachings on the “Messianic figure of the Gaon of Vilna.”10 It thus turns out that the Gaon of Vilna is providing a “kosher certificate” for the Zionism of the Har Etzion yeshiva, while Morgenstern is providing the “kosher certificate” for the Zionism of the Gaon of Vilna.

166

Immanuel Etkes

Following are some additional examples that illustrate how rabbis and educators from Religious Zionism adopted the Rivlinian myth and incorporated it into the Messianic Zionist vision that they sought to instill in their constituents. R. Shlomo Aviner, who heads the Ateret Cohanim yeshiva, earned himself a reputation as one of the most prominent and influential rabbis in the Religious Zionist circles known as the Hardalim (those who combine Haredi values and lifestyles with Zionism). Among other things, he is noted as a prolific author whose books encompass subjects in halacha and religious practice and who writes about Judaism’s religious worldviews. In his essay on “the relationship between the oath not to make aliyah ba-­homah [mass immigration to the Land of Israel] and our actions for the resurrection of our country,”11 he deals with the argument that the Zionist enterprise is contrary to the oath that forbids mass immigration to the Land of Israel.12 One of the answers that R. Aviner offered to this argument is based on the assertion that the oath to “not make aliyah ba-­homah” was nullified from the moment the process of Redemption began. Regarding the beginning of this process, R. Aviner writes, “Here the appearance of the Gaon of Vilna is the beginning of Redemption, for the Gaon of Vilna was a spark of Messiah ben Yosef, and this was revealed to him in a lofty vision.” Here he is relying, of course, on Kol ha-­Tor.13 Further evidence that the oath to “not make aliyah ba-­homah” does not contradict the Zionist enterprise is found in the following passage, which is likewise attributed to the Gaon of Vilna by Kol ha-­Tor: “To the question of ‘whether there will be a possibility in physical reality of transferring all the Jewish people at once to the Land of Israel . . .’ the Gaon of Vilna replied: ‘If it is possible to transfer to the Land of Israel six hundred thousand at one time, it must be done immediately, for this number of six hundred thousand has a great and perfect power.’ ”14 During his discussion, R. Aviner repeatedly cites Kol ha-­Tor with the absolute certainty that it expresses the position of the Gaon of Vilna. Thus, for example, he writes, “And the Gaon of Vilna likewise wrote that Redemption will come by the revealed end [of exile] with the aliyah to Zion and the building of the Land.”15 “And likewise the Gaon wrote that we must choose the path of the revealed end of the return to Zion, and then we will not have need of the warnings of the Sages about a king whose decrees are as harsh as Haman’s.”16 A more strident expression of the warning of the catastrophes that may befall the Jewish people if they do not rush to immigrate to the Land of Israel is in the following excerpt, also from Kol ha-­Tor: “And almost every day our rabbi spoke to us with enthusiasm and excitement that in Zion and Jerusalem there will be a refuge [and to go] before it is too late. Who can verbalize the magnitude of our rabbi’s concern by telling us such things via his Holy Spirit and with tears

The Invention of a tradition

167

in his eyes.” Immediately following these words, R. Aviner added, “In the year 1933, ten years before the destruction of Europe, when the oppressor of the Jews, may his name be erased, rose to power, the Hafetz Hayyim said that the camp that would escape to survive would be in the Land of Israel.”17 The conjunction of the statement attributed to the Gaon of Vilna and that of the Hafetz Hayyim suggests that the Gaon of Vilna had anticipated the Holocaust and had indicated that immigration to the Land of Israel would be the way to find refuge from the catastrophe. Another rabbinic personage who adopted the Rivlinian myth is R. Baruch Zalman Melamed, head of the Beit El yeshiva. At a gathering of hesder yeshiva students held in Beit El on Independence Day 2002, R. Melamed delivered a sermon in which he asserted that on Independence Day, “the barrier was shattered between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel.”18 He based this assertion on a story that appears in Kol ha-­Tor, the gist of which was this: in 1812, seven families of students of the Gaon of Vilna, who had previously lived in Safed, immigrated to Jerusalem and laid the foundation for a beit midrash named for the Gaon of Vilna. That event was described by them as follows: “It seems to us, the students of the Gaon of Vilna, that at that moment the first window of the iron barrier was opened, which allows the joining of the rights granted by the covenant of the patriarchs . . . which had been blocked by the destruction of the Temple: that day was the ‘twentieth of the Omer.’ ”19 The twentieth day of the Omer, R. Melamed went on to explain, is the fifth of the month of Iyar—­Independence Day—­and hence the event that is recounted took place on Independence Day about two hundred years ago. From this it follows that “if for the laying of the foundation for the synagogue a window was opened, how many windows opened on the fifth of Iyar 1948?”20 Later in his sermon, R. Melamed cited another passage from Kol ha-­Tor that tells of the efforts of the Sitra Ahra to delay the process of Redemption.21 This, he finds, serves to explain current events (i.e., the Intifada of 2000). The lesson to be learned from Kol ha-­Tor here is therefore that “we must know this and not retreat. . . . The students of the Gaon of Vilna knew in advance that as the Redemption progressed, so would the difficulties increase; but they were not deterred from advancing the Redemption. And here we are now in a process of progress, and against each stage of progress there are also delays from within and from without, as was expected.”22 Later in the sermon R. Melamed argued that the plan for Redemption developed by the students of the Gaon of Vilna, as presented in Kol ha-­Tor, was coming true before our eyes, and he ended his remarks by calling on the students of the hesder yeshivas to continue the work of the students of the Gaon.

168

Immanuel Etkes

An important aspect of the adoption of the Rivlinian myth is revealed in an article published by R. Melamed in the periodical Nekuda. Here is an excerpt: For several generations we have been in the process of the athalta de-­geula. The Gaon of Vilna, who prepared for the Redemption, sent his students to the Land of Israel—­as did the great Hasidic leaders who sent their students to the Land of Israel with the aim of starting the process of returning and building our country. And this athalta then proceeded bit by bit, one person from this city and two from that family. And little by little this trend expanded; the walking became firmer, the pace picked up, the steps increased, until we reached, about forty years ago, a new stage: the establishment of the State of Israel.23 Lo and behold, Zionism has nothing to do with the pogroms in Russia or with modern anti-­Semitism in Central and Western Europe. Zionism was also not influenced by modern nationalism in Europe. And what need was there for leaders such as Pinsker, Lilienblum, Ahad Ha’am, and Herzl, not to mention Weizmann and Ben-­Gurion? After all, everything began with the students of the Besht and the Gaon of Vilna, who immigrated to Israel in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries, and from then on the process of Redemption advanced “bit by bit” until the establishment of the State of Israel. A penetrating analysis of the new discourse that is spreading in certain sectors of Religious Zionism, especially in institutions of Torah study influenced by the teachings of the Mercaz ha-­R av yeshiva, can be found in Yosef Ahituv’s article “Me-­Herzl el ha-­GRA” (From Herzl to the GRA).24 Ahituv addressed himself, among other things, to the new historiography of Zionism, of the kind we found in the expressions of R. Zalman Melamed.25 According to Ahituv, the creation of this historiography has the purpose of achieving a mental and ideological disconnect from the wider, “secular” Zionism. As those engaged in this discourse see things, secular Zionism can only decline and degenerate because it has no roots in tradition. Religious Zionism, on the other hand, is the true Zionism because it is “firmly anchored in the foundations of Jewish faith and the continuous Jewish tradition of the vision of Redemption and Messianism.”26 Ahituv pointed out the close connection between the attribution of the beginnings of Zionism to the Gaon of Vilna and what he calls the “mystification of Israeli nationalism”27 (i.e., the strengthening of the dimension of messianism that is expressed in Kabbalistic terms). This, in his opinion, is the background to the canonical status that the aforementioned sectors are assigning to Kol ha-­Tor. One example of this is the treatment of the book as if it were Urim ve-­Tummim, as if it

The Invention of a tradition

169

F IG U RE 14 . Praying at the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem, 1910. Source: Eric Matson, National Photo Collection of Israel, Photography Dept.

were a guiding, mystical text on the basis of which the events of the disengagement from the Gush Katif settlements could be interpreted, and in light of which it is both possible and appropriate to plan activities in the present and in the future.28 An interesting variation on the adoption of the Rivlinian myth may be found in an article published in Or Hadash, a monthly magazine that deals with the dissemination of the teachings of R. Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook. Two characteristics distinguish this variant: an anti-­Haredi polemic and the creation of a continuous affiliation between Rav Kook and the Vilna Gaon. Both of these are reflected in the following passage: This very fact that the teachings of Rav Kook are based on the teachings of the Gaon of Vilna was deliberately obscured by the fanatics, the masters of propaganda. It was not difficult to conceal this since the doctrinal thought of the Gaon of Vilna himself has almost never been studied by the general public and was even deliberately erased from memory. . . . And not only was the Gaon of Vilna’s view on the subject of Redemption erased by the fanatics but so too was the long history of the aliyot of the students of the Vilna Gaon at the inspiration of their rabbi’s doctrine of Redemption.29

170

Immanuel Etkes

The “fanatics” in question are the residents of the Old Yishuv who made Rav Kook’s life miserable because of his support for Zionism. Yet the author also meant this connotation to apply to contemporary Haredim. Not only did the “zealots” obscure Rav Kook’s affiliation with the Gaon of Vilna but they also obscured the Gaon’s actual Messianic Zionist teachings as well as the “history of the aliyot of the students of the Vilna Gaon at the inspiration of their rabbi.” The internal logic of these claims is quite clear. Since the author of the article, most likely R. Yitzhak Dadon,30 is convinced that the Gaon of Vilna indeed advocated a Messianic Zionist worldview, and since the writings that reveal this “truth” (i.e., the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin) were first discovered only toward the middle of the twentieth century, the conclusion follows that there must have been people who worked to conceal the facts up until that time. Who had an interest in concealing such truths? It can only have been the ultra-­Orthodox fanatics, the opponents of Zionism, who had difficulty digesting the fact that the Gaon of Vilna was a Zionist. Moreover, because Rav Kook’s teachings have played a central role in the world of the Religious Zionists, at least since the Six-­Day War, and because the Gaon of Vilna had already established a Messianic Zionist doctrine of Redemption in the late eighteenth century, it stands to reason that “the teachings of Rav Kook are based on the doctrines of the Gaon of Vilna.” Confirmation for this far-­ reaching assertion comes from the statements that Rav Kook supposedly made about Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, a book attributed to R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin. As you may recall, Shlomo Zalman claimed that Rav Kook was deeply impressed by the book that his father wrote, and Shlomo Zalman even cited remarks that Rav Kook supposedly wrote in praise of this book. However, as has already become clear, Rav Kook was not at all familiar with Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, and the statements in praise of this book were ones that Shlomo Zalman set in his mouth.31 Following the assertion that “zealots” had worked to conceal the Messianic Zionist doctrine of the Gaon of Vilna, the author recommended to his readers a series of books that could “correct this situation.” The books in question are, as expected, all the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin: Kol ha-­Tor, Hazon Zion, Mossad ha-­Yesod, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, and Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion. “These books,” he asserts, “are the ABCs of the doctrine of Redemption, and it is the duty of every Jew interested in this doctrine to properly examine these works.” In sum, the author of the article swallowed the Rivlinian myth hook, line, and sinker and in this way was able to rescue the Gaon of Vilna from the clutches of the Haredim and recruit him to the ranks of the Religious Zionists.32 The three rabbis whose statements are cited here represent a pervasive, ongoing, and spreading trend of adoption of the Rivlinian myth in the teachings of

The Invention of a tradition

171

rabbis and educators belonging to the “devotional” circles of Religious Zionism. Following are some further examples of this phenomenon. In 1998, R. Ilan Tzipori33 published an article titled “Ha Torah ha-­Meshichit shel ha-­GRA be-­Sefer Kol ha-­Tor” (The Messianic doctrine of the GRA in Kol ha-­Tor).34 R. Tzipori summarizes the main ideas that appear in Kol ha-­Tor from an absolute certainty that the book was written by R. Hillel Rivlin, a disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, and is therefore a reliable expression of the Gaon’s teachings. In advance of the Shavuot holiday of 2009, an article was published by R. Moshe Zvi Wexler, head of the Bnei Akiva yeshiva in Bnei Brak. The article “Kol ha-­Tor and Kol ha-­Torah [Voice of the Torah]—­Is There a Connection?!”35 discusses the link between the giving of the Torah and Redemption. In it he relies on Kol ha-­Tor as a work written by “Rabbi Hillel ben Binyamin Rivlin . . . who composed it on the basis of the teachings of his rabbi the Gaon of Vilna of blessed and righteous memory.” The line of rabbis who adopted the Rivlinian myth was joined in 2018 by R. Yitzhak ben Yosef.36 He too maintains that R. Hillel Rivlin was a student of the Gaon of Vilna, except that in this regard he goes beyond what Shlomo Zalman relates: For seventeen years R. Hillel was a servant of the Gaon of Vilna. When the Gaon saw that he was unable to immigrate to the Land of Israel, he decided to hand over this mission of heaven entrusted to him, in other words the activity for the ingathering of exiles and the settlement of the Land of Israel, to his disciple and transferred to him the “secrets of Redemption.” And so he became one of the leaders of the waves of immigration of his students to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century. The ideas about Redemption that he received from his rabbi, the Gaon of Vilna, were written by Rabbi Hillel in the book Kol ha-­Tor.37 If Shlomo Zalman Rivlin assigned to R. Hillel the coveted and prestigious status of a disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, then, according to R. Yitzhak ben Yosef, he also had the privilege of serving the Gaon of Vilna for seventeen years, a privilege not granted even to the greatest of his students, including R. Hayyim of Volozhin, R. Saadia, R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, and R. Israel of Shklov. It needs repeating that R. Hillel Rivlin was not one of the Gaon of Vilna’s students at all. In any case, R. Yitzhak ben Yosef clearly also has no doubt that Kol ha-­Tor expresses the “ideas about Redemption” of the Gaon of Vilna. Unlike the rabbis who found Kol ha-­Tor to be reliable as a source for the Gaon’s Messianic Zionist doctrine as a whole, R. Elyakim Krumbein38 chose to focus on a very specific aspect of it—­the study of the sciences. A critical examina-

172

Immanuel Etkes

tion of contemporary sources shows that the Gaon of Vilna indeed viewed the study of certain sciences as an essential tool for understanding topics in halacha.39 However, R. Krumbein was not satisfied with this, and in a lecture he devoted to the subject of “upper wisdom and earthly wisdom,” he asserted that the Gaon of Vilna regarded the study of science as an important means of advancing Redemption.40 The source that R. Krumbein relies on is, as expected, Kol ha-­Tor.41 Yet following this assertion, R. Krumbein was beset by a critical doubt: If this indeed was the position of the Gaon of Vilna, we would expect to find traces of it among his active disciples, already from the first generation. These disciples would be expected to have engaged in external wisdoms, and not only in the study of the revealed and the hidden [Torah]. We also would have expected to read about the direct, practical encouragement of these studies more broadly on the part of the Gaon, rather than in that single statement quoted by R. Baruch of Shklov. The traditions mentioned previously are impressive but “floated to the surface” only with the public discovery of Kol ha-­Tor. Is there an earlier anchorage [for this view]? Indeed, there is a difficult question: Why do the writings of the close disciples of the Gaon of Vilna not yield any basis for the assertion that he viewed the study of science as a means for advancing Redemption? R. Krumbein explains away this difficulty as follows: Not all the principles of the Gaon of Vilna left a clear and unambiguous literary impression. For example, we do not find that his disciples quote anything from him about the need to work toward national revival in the Land of Israel, even though some of his greatest disciples were probably convinced that this was his wish and even fulfilled this mitzvah with their own bodies. Before us is an interesting innovation in evidentiary method: one difficulty can be rationalized by means of another. The fact that the writings of the students of the Vilna Gaon do not express the Messianic Zionist outlook that he supposedly instilled in them, serves to explain the fact that these writings give no basis for the idea that study of the sciences brings Redemption closer. For some reason, R. Krumbein does not draw the simple conclusion that the Gaon of Vilna instilled in his students neither a Messianic Zionist doctrine nor the idea that the study of the sciences hastens Redemption. Later in his remarks, R. Krumbein adduces a list of personalities from the “close circle” of the Gaon of Vilna who nevertheless engaged in the study of sciences, including Binyamin Rivlin, Yehoshua Zeitlin, Baruch Shik of Shklov, and

The Invention of a tradition

173

Menashe of Ilya. Yet a critical examination of this list of personages shows that it does not prove anything. In the only detailed testimony we have about R. Binyamin Rivlin that describes his interest in the sciences, there is no indication that he was influenced in this regard by the Gaon of Vilna or that he attributed a Messianic meaning to his involvements.42 Baruch Shik of Shklov was not a student of the Gaon of Vilna, and his interest in spreading scientific knowledge among the Jews was not the result of the influence of the Vilna Gaon. It was only retrospectively, when he decided to publish a Hebrew translation of Euclid’s The Elements, that he turned to the Gaon of Vilna to gain his support. In all the words Baruch Shik wrote about the importance of studying science, no trace is found of any Messianic motive.43 Yehoshua Zeitlin was not a student of the Gaon of Vilna nor was he involved in the sciences. He was a wealthy merchant with a Torah education, and on his estate he hosted resident Torah scholars, among them some who had an interest in science.44 Menashe of Ilya was exposed to the influence of enlightenment ideas and tended to support them, and on that account he was persecuted within Lithuanian Torah-­scholar circles.45 What’s more, of the close disciples of the Gaon of Vilna, the ones who immigrated to the Land of Israel in order to fulfill, purportedly, his Messianic Zionist vision included R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, R. Israel of Shklov, R. Saadia, and R. Hayyim Katz. They established a beit midrash in Safed named after the Gaon of Vilna and devoted all of their time to the study of Torah. Engaging in the sciences never occurred to them at all.46 The same applies for the most senior of the disciples of the Vilna Gaon, R. Hayyim of Volozhin, who in the yeshiva that he founded and that he headed for two decades, engaged in the study of Shas and poskim and nothing else.47 A few of the rabbis from Religious Zionism who took decided positions supporting the authenticity of Kol ha-­Tor were aware of the criticism of the use of this book. In 1969, R. Moshe Sternbuch, rabbi and head of the court of the ultra-­Orthodox community in Jerusalem, published an article titled “Are We Today in the Athalta de-­Geula as per the Book Kol ha-­Tor, or Are We Not” (Hebrew).48 The bulk of the article is a fierce polemic against the manner in which R. Menachem Kasher interpreted Kol ha-­Tor. As you may recall, R. Kasher believed that Kol ha-­Tor faithfully expressed the Gaon of Vilna’s view on the subject of Redemption, and R. Kasher found in it statements supporting the claim that the State of Israel is the athalta de-­geula. On the question of the reliability of Kol ha-­Tor, R. Sternbuch’s position is inconclusive. Although he admits that there were “some things in it from the rabbi the Gaon of Vilna of blessed memory,” he also argued that much of what was included in the book needs to be questioned.49

174

Immanuel Etkes

Despite his doubts, R. Sternbuch chose to devote an extensive discussion to Kol ha-­Tor so as to reject the pro-­Zionist interpretation given to it by R. Kasher and to offer an alternative interpretation from an anti-­Zionist, Haredi perspective. R. Sternbuch’s polemic is therefore based on the assumption that there are indeed elements in the book that originate from the Gaon of Vilna, yet the focus on them leads to entirely different conclusions from the ones proposed by R. Kasher. Here are a few examples. At the top of chapter 2 he writes, “Therefore, the war on the erev rav is the most difficult and bitter war,50 and we must prevail with all our remaining strength in this war, and whoever is not actually engaged in the battle against the erev rav becomes in any case a partner to the klipa [demonic force] of the erev rav.”51 R. Sternbuch does not specify who the erev rav are, but from his overall account it is clear that for him this concept corresponds to secular Zionism. As for Religious Zionism, which not only does not fight the seculars but even collaborates with them, this qualifies as being “a partner to the klipa of the erev rav.” The following is another passage cited by R. Sternbuch from Kol ha-­Tor, which likewise leads to the same conclusion: It is our duty to know and understand in advance our holy work for the sake of the ingathering of the exiles and the building of Jerusalem, to know in advance that to the extent that this sacred work will grow, the Sitra Ahra will increase to interrupt and undermine it via its main weapon, which is the uprooting of the truth, etc., and we will know how to combat it . . . by redeeming the truth and sanctifying the name of heaven.52 In this case, too, R. Sternbuch did not find it necessary to specify who were the forces identified with the Sitra Ahra and who was fighting by “redeeming the truth and sanctifying the name of heaven,” since the Haredi reader does not need an explication of these words. R. Sternbuch believes that the Gaon of Vilna did indeed instruct several of his greatest disciples to immigrate to the Land of Israel and to act to advance Redemption, but his intention was that a few select individuals would make aliyah and that the task assigned to them would be to subdue the Sitra Ahra by studying Torah in holiness and purity.53 R. Kasher’s interpretation of this idea, “as if our rabbi [the Gaon] was a nationalist who demanded that everyone immigrate to the Land of Israel in order to bring Redemption by that means . . . , to approach Redemption as a natural process, and to find legitimization in the words of our rabbi of blessed memory for the State of Israel, the Six-­Day War, and secular rule—­this interpretation is a complete distortion of the teaching of the Vilna Gaon.”54

The Invention of a tradition

175

The proof that R. Kasher distorted the intent of the Gaon of Vilna is given by R. Sternbuch at the historical level. Had there been any truth to the claim that the Gaon of Vilna sought to encourage mass migration to the Land of Israel so as to advance Redemption, why did he instruct only “his most select disciples” to immigrate and not all of his students? On the contrary, he ought to have “shaken up worlds and shouted for all the House of Israel to immigrate to the Holy Land since by that means they would bring the Messiah.”55 One has no choice but to admit that the intention of the Gaon of Vilna was that only specially qualified virtuous individuals would immigrate, so that they could engage in Torah study in holiness and purity. At the end of the article, R. Sternbuch presents the conclusion that, in his opinion, necessarily follows from the correct interpretation of Kol ha-­Tor: That we must deal today with the athalta de-­geula, that is with the expansion of holiness in each and every corner of our Holy Land, and especially to fight against the SM [Samael, Satan], especially in the holy city. . . . And we shall all fight together against an SM that is growing stronger and stronger in our Holy Land until it reaches even the gates of the Western Wall. . . . And if we work with devotion, God will assist us and we will soon be privileged to receive our righteous Messiah, amen! I believe wholeheartedly in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may tarry, I will await him every day for his coming.56 In sum, R. Sternbuch argues that R. Kasher’s attempt to link the Zionist enterprise to the authority of the Gaon of Vilna has no legitimate basis. On the contrary, the Haredim, who work to spread holiness and to combat the Sitra Ahra, that is, the secular public and secularism, are the true continuers of the legacy of the Vilna Gaon. The affirmation of the “I believe” with which R. Sternbuch concludes his remarks leaves no room for doubt that the Zionist enterprise is not an athalta de-­geula and that the true Redemption will come only from heaven.57 Naturally, R. Sternbuch’s criticism of R. Kasher also was meant as a challenge to those rabbis from Religious Zionism who drew legitimization from Kol ha-­Tor. How, then, did the rabbis who were aware of R. Sternbuch’s criticism react? We present three responses to this. On Kipa’s “Ask the Rabbi” web page,58 an inquirer asked the following question. R. Sternbuch stated that “it is difficult to determine whether Kol ha-­Tor is indeed attributable to the Gaon of Vilna,” that “it should not be trusted,” and further he wrote “extremely harsh things against Rabbi Kasher of blessed memory and his book Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah.” The user stated that given that “these two books, especially Kol ha-­Tor, are cornerstones of our perspective on the

176

Immanuel Etkes

affairs of the Redemption of Israel . . . , I want to know how to relate to R. Sternbuch’s claims.” The inquirer indicated that his exposure to R. Sternbuch’s criticism caused him great discomfiture: if there is any doubt as to the connection of Kol ha-­Tor to the Gaon of Vilna’s teachings, and if the Zionist interpretation that Rabbi Kasher gave to this book is also to be questioned, then the “cornerstones of our view on the affairs of the Redemption of Israel” are threatened. The inquirer thus attests, inadvertently, to the important place that these two books occupy in imparting the Messianic Zionist view by followers of the school of R. Zvi Yehuda Kook. R. Avigdor Shilo gave the following answer: I don’t have the book you mentioned in front of me, so I don’t know what the honorable Rabbi Sternbuch is basing his remarks on. (A) The book is not attributed to the Vilna Gaon but to his disciple Rabbi Hillel of Shklov, of the Rivlin family. The book was published in Jerusalem by the great-­ grandson of Rabbi Hillel. It is a bit difficult to claim forgery when the lineage is quite clear. (B) Rabbi Kasher of blessed memory does not need me and those like me to attest to his greatness. His books in various fields and his research testify to his being a giant of spirituality and a rabbinic scholar well versed in the various fields of Torah. It is enough to examine his book Torah Shlema to get some impression of his greatness.59 It emerges that R. Shilo did not bother to read R. Sternbuch’s statements and completely defers to the authority of R. Kasher. As for Kol ha-­Tor, he relies on the Rivlinian tradition that the author of the book is R. Hillel Rivlin, a student of the Gaon of Vilna, and therefore faithfully expresses the view of the Gaon. The response of R. Shlomo Aviner was more sophisticated.60 To the question “Did the book Kol ha-­Tor indeed come from the Gaon of Vilna?” he replied that the book was indeed edited long after it was written, “but the main things there, and the majority of the things, can be found elsewhere in [writings of] the Gaon of Vilna.” Unlike R. Shilo, R. Aviner looked at R. Sternbuch’s statements and even quotes from them. However, he sets against them the “introductions from the rabbis of Jerusalem that support the authenticity of the work,” which were presented in the edition of Kol ha-­Tor from 1994, and he also relies on R. Zvi Yehuda Kook, “who greatly valued the book.” Finally, he refers to the book Olam Nistar Bememadei Hazman (A world hidden in the dimensions of time) by Raphael Shuchat, who “discusses Kol ha-­Tor at length and concludes that it contains original elements from the doctrine of Redemption by the Gaon of Vilna, which are already present in the Kabbalist books by the Gaon of Vilna in hints only and are expanded on in Kol ha-­Tor. Hence, all the elements are from the Gaon of Vilna himself, but his disciples have expanded on them.”61

The Invention of a tradition

177

R. Elyakim Krumbein also addresses himself to this issue: The credibility of Kol ha-­Tor has been discussed by rabbis and scholars, and more is to be expected in this regard. For the time being, what suffices for us is the fact that these traditions are old, and their respectable place in the community of “Prushim” undoubtedly associates them with the heritage of the Vilna Gaon. Hence we can glean an important perspective from this, which may shed light on the degree to which the Vilna Gaon is connected to the world of general enlightenment.62 It thus emerges that R. Krumbein too chose to trust the “traditions” that originated in the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. In general, the three rabbis whose statements are presented here chose to suppress the doubts regarding both the credibility of Kol ha-­Tor and the Zionist interpretation given to it by R. Kasher. And although each of them did so in their own way, the common denominator for them all is the internalization of the Rivlinian myth to such a degree that they were unable to hear criticism with even a minimally sympathetic ear. Three main reasons can be pointed out for the enthusiastic acceptance of the Rivlinian myth in general and of Kol ha-­Tor in particular by rabbis and educators from the Religious Zionist camp. First, the myth and the book reinforce the view that we are presently in the period of the athalta de-­geula. This view has been spreading among broad circles of Religious Zionism since the 1970s, to the point where it has become a cornerstone of their worldview. Secondly, if the Zionist enterprise began with the immigration of the Gaon of Vilna’s students in the early nineteenth century, then “first rights” must go to the Religious Zionists, and not to the secular pioneers who immigrated in the subsequent aliyot. Thirdly, in “Lithuanian” circles, the Gaon of Vilna is perceived as standing at the head of the pantheon of Haredi “Torah greats”; yet the Rivlinian myth and Kol ha-­Tor prove that the Gaon of Vilna was “one of ours,” that is, was a Religious Zionist.63

This page intentionally left blank

Conclusion

The Prushim who immigrated to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century, headed by several students of the Gaon of Vilna, sought to establish there an important center of Torah study. While their decision to immigrate to the Land of Israel was not in obedience to an instruction of the Gaon, nevertheless, their desire to devote themselves to study of Torah while retiring from practical life drew its inspiration from the character and lifestyle of the Gaon. This assertion is not intended to question the fact that the Prushim believed in the coming of the Messiah and wished for his coming. However, a distinction must be made between faith in the coming of the Messiah, a characteristic of Jewish believers for many generations, and the Messianic turmoil that erupts when a generation believes that Redemption is literally on the brink. It is also necessary, of course, to distinguish between messianic turmoil and a messianic movement that grows on the basis of recognition that the process of Redemption has already begun or is at least within reach. In light of all the historical sources known to us, many of which were reviewed in the early chapters of this work, there is no basis for the claim that the Prushim immigrated to the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century because of Messianic motives. It is true that in the course of the years they spent in the Land of Israel, a Messianic expectation increased for some of them, as is reflected in the 1831 epistle of R. Israel of Shklov to the Ten Tribes. This Messianic expectation intensified further among some of them toward 1840. However, even at its peak, this expectation did not go beyond the limits of the traditional religious perspective that longs for Redemption to come by heavenly intervention. The claim that the Prushim adopted a Messianic Zionist doctrine from the school of the Vilna 179

180

Immanuel Etkes

Gaon, and in light of this doctrine viewed their immigration to the Land of Israel as the first stage in the process of Redemption, is nothing more than a literary fiction that originated in the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. Moreover, the attempts of researchers such as Arie Morgenstern and Raphael Shuchat to lend this fiction scholarly credibility do not stand up to critical scrutiny. The question posed at the beginning of chapter 13 of this book was: Who wrote Kol ha-­Tor? And more specifically: Did Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, who undoubtedly shaped the text of the book as it is and brought it to publication, possess manuscripts from earlier authors that he held as he wrote? To answer this question, I conducted a “voyage” through all the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, on the assumption that the totality of his literary oeuvre may shed light on the background of Kol ha-­Tor. As a result of this voyage, it became clear that Kol ha-­Tor is indeed only one part, albeit a particularly important one, of a whole combination of elements used to construct the myth about the Vilna Gaon and his disciples as the first Zionists. From this it follows that whoever created this myth in its entirety is also the person who created Kol ha-­Tor. Moreover, in the course of reviewing the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, characteristics of his writing emerged that constitute his “fingerprints,” and we found these in Kol ha-­ Tor as well. In addition, the historical evidence presented in the course of this study completely undermine the claim that Kol ha-­Tor reflects traditions which were passed down in the Rivlin family from generation to generation. Therefore, there is no escaping the conclusion that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin is the author of Kol ha-­Tor from beginning to end. Just as he cites sermons that he attributes to ancestors of his who never gave them, and just as he attributes to his father pizmonim that his father did not compose, so he attributes the book he composed, Kol ha-­Tor, to R. Hillel Rivlin. The examination of the writings of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin has rolled out before us a broad view of the myth about the Vilna Gaon and his students as being the first Zionists. Indeed, it is impossible not to be impressed by the enormous effort that Shlomo Zalman invested in the literary enterprise that underpins this myth. This prompted the question, what were the motives that drove this literary enterprise and shaped its contents and character? A reasonable guess is that Shlomo Zalman sought to bridge the tension between the two poles that were central to his mental world: his affinity for the Zionist ethos and his commitment to the legacy of his ancestors, the leaders of the Old Yishuv. The price he was willing to pay in order to bridge these two poles is the blurring of the line between the traditional form of connection to the Land of Israel and Zionism. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin and those who followed him sought to project onto the Gaon of Vilna and his students the ideas that were advanced decades later by

The Invention of a tradition

181

the harbingers of Zionism, R. Zvi Hirsch Kalisher and R. Yehuda Hai Alkalai, as well as by some of the rabbis who supported Hibat Zion. Thus they characterize the Old Yishuv as a society that adopted the main elements of the Zionist ethos—­ mass immigration to the Land of Israel, agricultural settlement, and the building of Jerusalem. This is an anachronistic rewriting of history that fails to acknowledge the spiritual-­religious world of the Gaon and his disciples and attributes to them ideas and initiatives that did not occur to them at all. The Gaon of Vilna was not a Zionist, and his conception of Redemption never deviated from the traditional view that Redemption would come by an intervention from heaven. Likewise, there is also no basis for the claim that the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna immigrated to the Land of Israel believing that their very immigration was the first stage in the process of Redemption. The aliyah of the students of the Gaon of Vilna, like the aliyah of the Hasidim that preceded it, was a traditional aliyah, and the underlying motive was an aspiration to achieve transcendence in the worship of God. The watershed that separated the traditional aliyot, such as those of the Hasidim and Prushim, from the Zionist aliyot of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was the “Zionist Revolution,” which began in the eighth decade of the nineteenth century. The Gaon and his disciples were not partners to this revolution, much less did they lead it. Zionism was born in the late nineteenth century as a result of the severe hardship that the Jews in Europe found themselves in—­the pogroms in the Russian Empire and modern anti-­Semitism in Central and Western Europe. The disappointment with emancipation in the countries of Central and Western Europe and the despair of the prospect of emancipation in the Russian Empire led the forefathers of Zionism to adopt the idea that underpinned modern European nationalism, to wit, that a group sharing a common ethnicity, a common history, and a common territory was entitled to self-­determination in a nation-­state. The dramatic innovation that Zionism introduced was the recognition that Jews must take their national destiny into their own hands and can no longer depend solely on divine mercies. Experience teaches that the power of myths does not depend on the degree to which they are related to historical truth but on the extent to which they satisfy the ideological, cultural, or political needs of those who hold to them. As has become clear, the myth created by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin has indeed been embraced and is being cultivated within certain circles of Religious Zionism, because it satisfies the ideological and political needs of these circles. And if this were not enough, the myth has also been granted state approval. In the month of Iyar 1997, the Knesset plenum held a discussion on a proposal for the agenda “to mark the 200th anniversary of the passing of R. Eliyahu

182

Immanuel Etkes

ben Shlomo Zalman—­the Gaon of Vilna.”1 The first of the speakers was MK Shmaryahu Ben-­Tzur of the Mafdal (National Religious) party, who said, among other things, that “in his old age, the Gaon of Vilna wanted to fulfill a Zionist dream, to immigrate to the Land of Israel, but for reasons that are unclear he had to turn back. However, his disciples who immigrated a few years later engaged in agriculture and in making the wilderness flourish.”2 In his speech, then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu quoted a paragraph from Kol ha-­Tor in which the Vilna Gaon purportedly told his students about the mitzvah to immigrate to the Land of Israel.3 The person who knew to tell in great detail about the Zionist exploits of the students of the Vilna Gaon was the then member of the Knesset, and later the president of Israel, Reuven Rivlin. He concluded his speech by stating that “one hundred years before the existence of Zionism as a political movement, a mystical Zionism arose, headed by our teacher and rabbi the Gaon of Vilna.”4 The adoption and cultivation of the myth of the Gaon and his disciples as the first Zionists, whether done out of naivety and historical ignorance or from extraneous motives, is an attempt to deny the origins and character of Zionism as a modern phenomenon, with all that this entails. Accordingly, the present work has sought to challenge a myth whose origin and teaching is a distortion of history and an attempt to create an alternative history. It is dedicated to all those who believe that responsible engagement with the challenges of the present and of the future must be based on familiarity with the historical truth, insofar as critical scholarship is able to reveal and to reconstruct it.

APPENDIX

Rivlin family members

Born in Shklov in 1728, he was a relative of the Gaon of Vilna and was counted as one of his students. He is considered to be the person who brought the teachings of the Gaon to the scholars of Shklov. Simultaneously with being a Talmud scholar preoccupied with his study of Torah, he developed an interest in natural sciences and gained some knowledge of them. He also specialized in the preparation of medicines from medicinal plants. For several years he was a resident scholar at the estate of Yehoshua Zeitlin in Ustye, near Shklov. His book Gvi’ei Gavia Kesef (Goblets of silver), which contains commentaries on biblical verses and on Talmudic issues, was published in 1804. After Napoleon’s defeat in Russia in 1812, R. Binyamin Rivlin sought to immigrate to the Land of Israel, but on his way he stopped in Mogilev, where he fell ill and died.

BINYAMIN RIVLIN (RIVELES), son of Shlomo Zalman (1728–­ 1812) 

Born in Shklov in 1757, he was a Talmud scholar who made a living from trade and was considered a regular visitor in the household of the Gaon of Vilna. In 1832 he immigrated to the Land of Israel and settled in Jerusalem. In a letter to family members in Shklov, he asked them to sell the shops in his possession and invest the funds so that he could make a living from the proceeds. While in Jerusalem, he worked to correct defects in the existing arrangements for kosher slaughter. His son-­in-­law was the wealthy Shmaryahu Luria. Rivlinian tradition attributes to Hillel the composition of the book Kol ha-­Tor, but as the chapters of the present study make clear, this claim is without foundation. R. Hillel Rivlin died in Jerusalem in 1838. HILLEL RIVLIN, son of Binyamin (1757–­1838) 

183

184

Appendix

Born in Shklov in 1780, Moshe Maggid served as the maggid meisharim (official preacher) of the Shklov community. In 1840, when nearly 60 years old, he decided to immigrate to the Land Israel, and consequently the Roznei Vilna, the notables in charge of collecting donations for the sake of the kolel of the Prushim, assigned him the task of becoming the maggid meisharim of the Prushim community in Jerusalem. In effect, he was appointed to be the leader of this community and worked to heal its factional rifts. As part of his role, he managed to free the kolel of the Prushim from the financial debts that had burdened it and introduced revisions to the arrangements for the haluka, the distribution of funds from abroad. He died in Jerusalem in 1846.

MOSHE MAGGID RIVLIN, son of Hillel (1780–­1846) 

Born in Jerusalem in 1837, Yosef Yosha was educated in the Talmud Torah Etz Hayyim and in the Or ha-­Hayyim yeshiva. He began his public activity as one of the Jerusalem secretaries of the Ha-Pkidim ve-ha-Amarkalim organization. After a while he became the secretary of the Raisen kolel, and at the same time worked as an assistant to his cousin, Yosef Yoel Rivlin, who was secretary of the Prushim kolel. In 1866, the General Committee was established—­a joint organization of all the kolels in Jerusalem—­and Yosef Yosha was appointed as secretary of this organization. In practice he functioned as the director of the General Committee from its inception until his death. He also played a central role in the construction of the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem, including Nahalat Shiv’a, Mea She’arim, Mishkenot Yisrael, Shaarei Zedek, and Zichron Tuvia. He supported the initiative for agricultural settlement as expressed in the establishment of the colony of Petah Tikva. He published many articles in the periodicals of the time in which he defended the Old Yishuv from the criticisms leveled against it. In his writings, he took a moderate stance on Hibat Zion and called on its leaders to provide the people of the Old Yishuv with the necessary means to earn a living from working the land. Yosef Yosha died in Jerusalem in 1896. YOSEF YOSHA RIVLIN, son of Avraham Binyamin (1837–­1896) 

Yitzhak Zvi was born in 1857 in the town of Tulachin, Russia, where his father served as a rabbi. His father, Binyamin, and his mother, Reisel, were grandchildren of Moshe Maggid, the son of Hillel Rivlin. He studied Torah from his father and at the Volozhin yeshiva and was known as a prodigy already in his youth. He was caught up by the ideas of Hibat Zion and immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1884. He settled in Jerusalem and initiated the establishment of societies for the building of new neighborhoods and for agricultural settlement. He also founded “associations for

YITZHAK ZVI RIVLIN, son of Binyamin (1857–­1934) 

Rivlin family members

185

speaking in the holy tongue.” In 1903 he was one of the founders of the Mizrahi movement’s Jerusalem branch. He became known as “the preacher of Redemption” owing to the passionate public sermons he gave in which he affirmed that the Zionist enterprise was the first stage of Redemption. For years he served as the rabbi of the Mazkeret Moshe neighborhood. He was highly regarded for his diligence as a Torah scholar and his vast proficiency in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Yitzhak Zvi died in Jerusalem in 1934. ELIEZER RIVLIN, son of Binyamin (1889–­1942)  Born in Jerusalem in 1889, he was a Talmud scholar who acquired his Torah education in the Talmud Torah and at the Etz Hayyim yeshiva. He also acquired a general education from private tutors. He earned a living as the secretary of a home for the elderly in Jerusalem. For years he engaged in research on the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem and published many articles in journals. His books, in Hebrew, include R. Yosef Zundel of Salant and His Rabbis, Jerusalem 1932; The Riots or the Looting in Safed, 1834 and 1838, Jerusalem 1933; The Rivlin Family Pedigree, Jerusalem 1935; and The Story of the Beginnings of the Ashkenazi Settlement Called the Prushim, and the Haluka Regulations, Jerusalem 1928. He also edited and brought to print the book Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim (A history of the sages of Jerusalem), Jerusalem 1922, by Aryeh Leib Frumkin. Eliezer Rivlin died in Jerusalem in 1942.

Born in Jerusalem in 1884, Shlomo Zalman acquired a Torah education at the Talmud Torah and the Etz Hayyim yeshiva, and a musical education under the guidance of the musicologist Avraham Zvi Idelson. For decades he served as a cantor and conducted a choir called Shirat Israel. He also managed an institute for the training of cantors and trained generations of cantors, many of whom were to occupy prominent positions in the cantorial field in Israel and in the Diaspora. He also founded and directed an institute for the training of young orators called Midrash Shlomo. In 1924 he published an English-­Yiddish dictionary, and in 1933 he published his book in Hebrew Songs of Shlomo: From Unified Singing to Audience Singing (with musical notation), in which he presented a combination of melodies from different ethnic Jewish origins. In the late 1940s, he published the first editions of his books Kol ha-­Tor (Voice of the turtledove), Hazon Zion (Vision of Zion), and Sefer ha-­Pizmonim (Book of liturgical poems). Other books he authored are Mossad ha-­Yesod (The foundational institution), Jerusalem 1951, extended edition 1958; Midrash Shlomo (Sermons of Shlomo), Jerusalem 1953; and Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion (The maggid who preaches for Zion), Jerusalem 1960. Shlomo Zalman died in Jerusalem in 1962. SHLOMO ZALMAN RIVLIN, son of Yosef Yosha (1884–­1962) 

186

Appendix

YOSEF YOEL RIVLIN, son of Reuven (1889–­1972)  Born in Jerusalem in 1889, he studied at the Talmud Torah Etz Hayyim, then at the Lemel School and at the Teachers Seminary of the Ha-­Ezra society in Jerusalem. He also studied Arabic at the Raudat el-­Ma’ruf state high school. In 1819 he was sent by the Zionist Organization to Damascus to run a Hebrew school for girls. In 1923 he began academic studies at the University of Frankfurt, where he received his doctorate. In 1927 he began teaching at the Hebrew University and served as a professor in the Department of Arabic Language. In 1929 he was appointed as a member of the Committee for the Hebrew Language, and with the founding of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, he was one of its members. Professor Rivlin translated works of Islamic literature into Hebrew, including the Qur’an (1936), and published many articles on education, the history of the Old Yishuv, the Jews of the East and their culture, and Arab culture. Among his works in Hebrew that relate to the subject of this book are The Beginnings of Settlement Outside the Walls of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 1939; Mea She’arim, Jerusalem 1947; and the articles “The Vilna Gaon and His Disciples in the Settlement of the Land of Israel” and “The Rivlin family in the Land of Israel.” Chapters from his memoirs were uploaded to the internet as part of the Ben Yehuda project. Yosef Yoel Rivlin passed away in 1972. His son Reuven (Ruvi) Rivlin served as the president of Israel between 2014 and 2021.

Notes

Introduction 1. “Rivlin: Aliyat talmidei ha-­GRA—­tashtit ha-­Zionut” [Rivlin: The immigration of the students of the Vilna Gaon—­foundations of Zionism], Arutz-­7, Oct 15, 2009, http:​/​​/​ www​.inn​.co​.il​/​News​/​News​.aspx​/​195382. All translations in this book are my own unless other​wise credited. 2. See Igeret Talmidei ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna mi-­Tsfat [Epistle of students of the Gaon of Vilna in Safed], in Yaari, Igrot Eretz Israel [Letters from the Land of Israel], 330. 3. Prushim (literally “those who withdraw”) are people who withdraw from practical life and from worldly pleasures so as to devote all their strength and time to worship and Torah study. 4. On the role of the Vilna Gaon in the battle against Hasidism, see Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna, 84–­108. 5. For a comprehensive overview of the historiography of the immigration of the Prushim, see Barnai, Historiographia ve-­Leumiut [Historiography and nationalism], 160–­76. 6. Gematria (pl. gematriot) is a form of numerology in which a new meaning for a biblical word is discovered besides its literal one. The numerical values of the biblical word’s letters are summed, and another word with the equivalent sum of letter values is its “secret” additional meaning. Chapter 1: Hazon Zion, a Messianic Zionist movement 1. An article titled “Ha’Aggadah le-­Beit Rivlin” [The legend of the House of Rivlin], which reviews writings by members of the Rivlin family relating to the subject of this book, appeared on the website Eli Eshed’s Multi-­Universe, https:​/​​/​no666​.wordpress​.com​ /​2009​/​11​/​09​/​. 2. On Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, see Gafni, “Hinuch, Tfilah ve-­Darshanut” [Education, prayer and preaching]; Asher A. Rivlin, “Beit Aba” [Father’s home]. For more on Shlomo 187

188

Notes to Pages 1–16

Zalman, see chapter 14. On the role that Shlomo Zalman played in the composition of Kol ha-­Tor [Voice of the turtledove], see chapter 13. 3. That year, two editions appeared, with identical frontispieces but with typographical variations. The author’s name was not specified in them. However, the first edition reads “Edited by H.H. Rivlin” (i.e., Hayyim Hillel Rivlin, son of Shlomo Zalman), and the frontispiece of the second edition reads “Second and Complete edition—­1947.” This edition was signed by members of the Committee for the Publication of Hazon Zion Shklov ve-­Yerushalayim [Vision of Zion—­Shklov and Jerusalem], including the author Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. A third edition of the book was published in Jerusalem in 2002 and was preceded by an introduction by Yosef Rivlin, grandson of Shlomo Zalman. The references that follow are to the second edition, 1947. 4. The term Messianic Zionism is used in this book to indicate the idea that mass immigration to the Land of Israel, the greening of its wastelands, and the building of Jerusalem are the first stage of the process of redemption. This stage is entirely a function of human initiative, whereas the full redemption is set to arrive later from heaven. 5. On Yehoshua Zeitlin, see Ben-­Zion Katz, Rabanut, Hasidut, Haskalah [Rabbinate, Hasidism, enlightenment], 2, 137–­39; Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews, in the index. 6. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, Shklov ve-­Yerushalayim [Hazon Zion, Shklov and Jerusalem], 20. 7. Ibid., 21 8. Ibid., 22. 9. Ibid., 25. 10. Ibid., 26–­27. 11. Ibid., 33–­36, eulogy sermon. 12. Ibid., 42–­43. 13. Ibid., 37–­38. 14. The author of Hazon Zion is drawing here on a text from the Talmud, tractate Brachot 58A, which says “No population counts as such under 600,000.” However, the Talmud there does not address the issue of the return of the Shechinah from exile. 15. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, 38–­39. 16. Ibid., 40. 17. This refers to the first Zionist immigration to the Land of Israel, which was led by the Hibat Zion movement between 1882 and 1904. During these years, some twenty-­five thousand Jews immigrated to the Land of Israel and twenty-­three agricultural colonies were established. 18. Yehoshua Zeitlin’s estate in Ustye was between the towns of Tcherikov and Krytshev, in a region adjacent to Shklov. 19. Fin, Kirya Ne’emana [Faithful city], 271–­72. 20. Ibid., 272–­73. 21. Binyamin Rivlin (ben Shlomo Zalman), Gvi’ei Gavia Kesef [Goblets of silver]. The publisher of the second edition includes a detailed description of R. Binyamin that is consistent with the account by Mordechai Natanshon. 22. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, 27–­28. 23. The only mention of R. Binyamin regarding the conflict is in a handwritten manuscript that contains several anti-Hasidic polemics, which reads “copied from the MS of the gaon R. Binyamin of Shklov.” It is doubtful that this is indeed a manuscript that belonged to R. Binyamin. However, even if this attribution is reliable, what may

Notes to Pages 16–22

189

be concluded from it is only that R. Binyamin possessed a copy of anti-­Hasidic polemic documents. See Dubnov, Toldot ha-­Hasidut [History of Hasidism], 424–­25n2; Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, 30; Wilensky, Hasidim u-­Mitnagdim [Hasidim and Mitnagdim], B:20n25. 24. Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 198–­204. 25. See Morgenstern, “Shtei Masorot al Reshit Aliyat Talmidei ha-­GRA” [Two traditions on the beginnings of the aliyah of the disciples of the GRA]. 26. See Morgenstern, Ha-­Shiva li-­Yerushalayim [The return to Jerusalem], 49. Binyamin Rivlin, son of the scholar Eliezer Rivlin of the Old Yishuv, came out publicly against Morgenstern’s assertion and sought to reaffirm the family tradition that R. Hillel immigrated to Israel in 1809. But the evidence he adduced is not compelling. See Binyamin Rivlin, Zecher Av [In memory of Father], 32–­36. Chapter 2: The main ideas of Kol ha-­Tor 1. GRA is the Hebrew acronym for Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna. 2. A single copy of this edition exists in the Gershom Scholem Collection at the National Library of Jerusalem. References to the book in the discussion in this chapter are to an edition published in Jerusalem in 1994, edited by Yosef Rivlin, grandson of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. This edition contains parts of the book that were not printed in previous editions. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, introduction to Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 1. 3. According to the Midrash, this period is characterized by disastrous events, hence the tendency to interpret difficult events in the life of the Jewish people as a sign of the approaching redemption. 4. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 20. 5. Ibid., 21–­22. 6. Ibid., 22. 7. Ibid., 32. 8. Ibid., 31. 9. Ibid., 25–­26. 10. Ibid., 30–­31. 11. Ibid., 115. 12. Ibid., 118. 13. Ibid., 79. 14. Ibid., 80. 15. A thorough discussion of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s role as the author of Kol ha-­Tor is presented in chapter 13. Chapter 3: Does Kol ha-­Tor express a Messianic Zionist doctrine held by the Vilna Gaon? 1. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, Sefer Maginei Eretz, Orach Hayyim [Book of defenders of the land, lifestyle]. 2. Yehoshua Heschel Levin, Aliyot Eliyahu [Eliyahu’s ascensions]. 3. See the haskamot (letters of support) that appear at the beginning of the book, and see there the exchange of letters between the author and R. David Luria of Bihov. 4. Yehoshua Heschel Levin, Aliyot Eliyahu, 70–­74. 5. Ibid., 68 comment 55.

190

Notes to Pages 23–36

6. Cited in Binyamin Rivlin, Zecher Av, 27–­29. 7. Ibid., 28. 8. Most of these prefaces were collected in the book Zichron Eliyahu: An Anthology of the Writings of the Disciples of Our Rabbi the Gaon of Vilna (Bnei Brak: publisher unknown, 1990). Some of these prefaces were also printed as an appendix to Yehoshua Heschel Levin, Aliyot Eliyahu. 9. On the figure of the Gaon as his sons and disciples viewed him, and as portrayed in the aforementioned sources, see Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna, 10–­36. 10. Preface by the sons of the Vilna Gaon to his commentary on Shulkhan Aruch, Orach Hayyim. 11. This epistle by the Gaon of Vilna has been reprinted many times. The references that follow are to Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, Alim li-­Trufa [Pages for healing]. Chapter 4: Why did the disciples of the Vilna Gaon immigrate to the Land of Israel? 1. “Surely I am the most ignorant of men, and I lack the understanding of a man” (Proverbs 30:2). 2. “Lord, what is a human that you should know him, the son of man that you should consider him” (Psalms 144:3). 3. Frumkin, Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim [A history of the sages of Jerusalem], 3:158–­59. 4. Talmud tractate Berachot 6B. 5. For a biography of R. Israel of Shklov, see Mintz, introduction to Israel ben Shmuel mi-­Shklov, Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan [Table’s edge]. 6. See Frumkin, Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim, 3:138–­40. According to Frumkin he received the pinkas (record book) from R. Aryeh Ne’eman of Kaidan (138n1). It is unknown whether the book remained in Frumkin’s possession or he returned it. In any case, apparently the text has been lost. 7. Frumkin, Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim, 3:138–­40. 8. Ibid., 3:140. 9. Ibid., 3:141. 10. Israel ben Shmuel mi-­Shklov, foreword to Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan. 11. See Yaari, Igrot Eretz Israel, 328–­41. 12. Avraham Yaari wrote that the letters were printed in Shklov (Igrot Eretz Israel, 325). A copy of the printed letters is in the National Library of Jerusalem. 13. Yaari, Igrot Eretz Israel, 339. 14. Ibid., 339. On the role that women played as breadwinners for the family in Eastern European Jewish society, and especially among scholarly circles, see Etkes, Lita bi-­ Yerushalayim [Lithuania in Jerusalem], 63–­84. 15. Yaari, Igrot Eretz Israel, 339. 16. Ibid., 339–­40. 17. Ibid., 341. 18. Ibid., 329. 19. Ibid., 330. 20. Ibid., 330. 21. Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna, 10–­36. 22. See ibid., 232–­44.

Notes to Pages 36–45

191

23. For more about this, see Etkes, Lita bi-­Yerushalayim, 114. 24. For a comprehensive description of the immigration from Europe to the Land of Israel in the thirteenth century and the attitude of the sages of France and Germany toward aliyah, see Reiner, “Aliyah la-­Regel le-­Eretz Israel” [Pilgrimage to the Land of Israel], 50–­118. Chapter 5: How did the Rivlinian myth take form? 1. For a comprehensive biographical survey of Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s life, enterprises, and writings see the introduction to his Megillat Yosef [Scroll of Yosef]. 2. Ibid., 221–­22. 3. “Hazon Zion” was published serially in Ha-­Tsfira, issues 87, 94, 98, 100, 103, 106, 107. Hayyim Michal Michlin’s signature appears in the margins of the last part of the article, in issue 107. Issue 94 contains the article with the reference to Hillel Rivlin. 4. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin was familiar with the article “Hazon Zion” by Hayyim Michal Michlin and refers to him in his book Hazon Zion, 26n29. 5. On the life and activities of Eliezer Rivlin, see Binyamin Rivlin, Zecher Av, 39–­63. 6. The book was published in Jerusalem in 1927–­29. Eliezer Rivlin also authored the following books: R. Yosef Zundel mi-­Salant ve-­R abotav [R. Yosef Zundel of Salant and his rabbis] (Jerusalem: Salomon Press, 1932); Ha-­Praot oh ha-­Bizot bi-­Tsfat, 1834 ve-­1838 [The riots or the looting in Safed, 1834 and 1838] (Jerusalem: unknown publisher, 1933); Sefer ha-­Yahas le-­Mishpahat Rivlin [Rivlin Family Pedigree] (Jerusalem: Hathiya Press, 1935). 7. Frumkin, Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim, 3:175–­76n1. 8. Cited in Binyamin Rivlin, Zecher Av, 7. 9. An article of identical content with slight changes in wording was also published by Eliezer Rivlin in Ha-­Tsofeh, July 22, 1938. 10. Ibid., 8. 11. The biographical account here is based on Binyamin Rivlin, Ha-Rav Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin. 12. Ibid., 53. 13. Kol me-­Heichal is a circular that was published by the heads of the kolels in Jerusalem against the Hibat Zion movement. The circular was printed in Droyanov, Ktavim le-­Toldot Hibat Zion [Writings on the history of Hibat Zion], 3:700–­10. 14. Binyamin Rivlin, Ha-Rav Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, 51. 15. A clear example of this phenomenon is the figure of R. Yitzhak Yaakov Reines, the founder and first leader of the Mizrahi movement and the person who combined Torah study with general studies at the yeshiva he headed. See Rephael, Ish ha-­Meorot [Man of illuminations]; Yosef Salmon, Ortodoksya be-­Mezarei ha-­Leumiyut [Orthodoxy in the confines of nationalism], 266–­86; Joseph Salmon, “Enlightened rabbis as reformers in Russian Jewish Society.” 16. [Shlomo Zalman Rivlin], Ha-­R av ha-­Gaon Hillel Rivlin mi-­Shklov [The rabbi and gaon Hillel Rivlin of Shklov], 1935. 17. As part of the story of R. Hillel’s initiative to establish an agricultural settlement north of Jerusalem, the author of the pamphlet writes, “This is the land that was redeemed a second time by R. Hillel’s great-­grandson, the gaon R. Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin of blessed memory, when he founded the company Nahalat Israel Ramah in 1881.” 18. For short excerpts from this author, see Binyamin Rivlin, Ha-­R av Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, 60–­63.

192

Notes to Pages 46–56

19. For a broad discussion of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s motives in these literary efforts, see chapter 14. Chapter 6: Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher’s Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah 1. Kasher, Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah [The great era]. 2. The front page of Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah says this: “At its end is appended the book Kol ha-­Tor, chapters on redemption by the gaon and Kabbalist R. Hillel of Shklov, of blessed memory, which contains the glorious vision of his rabbi the Gaon of Vilna, of blessed memory, who sheds a bright light on the events of our period.” Kol ha-­Tor printed as an appendix to the book Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah has two chapters that were not included in the first edition; R. Kasher received them from one of the sons of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. 3. Kasher, Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah, 412. 4. Ibid., 412–­13. 5. The collected sermons of R. Moshe Maggid Rivlin, Sefer Beit Midrash [Study hall book], was published in Vilna in 1861. The sermons make no mention of Kol ha-­Tor and contain no hint of a Messianic Zionist perspective originating with the Vilna Gaon. 6. Kasher, Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah, 415. 7. Ibid., 452; emphasis in the original. Chapter 7: The academic version of the Rivlinian myth 1. Eliav, Eretz Israel ve-­Yishuvah ba-­Meah ha-­19 [The Land of Israel and its settlement in the nineteenth century]. 2. Ibid., 85–­86. 3. Morgenstern, Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel [Messianism and the settlement of the Land of Israel], 68. Morgenstern’s book was translated to English under the title Hastening Redemption: Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel (Oxford University Press, 2006). References here are to passages in the Hebrew version, translated here. Morgenstern believes that “it is also appropriate to accept the key ideas mentioned in R. Binyamin Rivlin’s eulogy for his cousin the Vilna Gaon” (97). The reference here is to the eulogy that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin wrote as if spoken by R. Binyamin. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, 33–­36. 4. Morgenstern, Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel, 13–­37. 5. Ibid., 13. 6. Ibid., 16–­17. The book by R. Wolf Hamburg, Kol Bochim [Weeping voice], was published in Fürth in 1820. 7. Morgenstern, Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel, 18–­19. 8. Ibid., 19–­20. 9. Ibid., 30. 10. Ibid., 30 11. Ibid., 38–­65. 12. Ibid., 32. 13. See Ibid., 107. 14. Yaari, Igrot Eretz Israel, 354–­55. 15. Morgenstern, Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel, 94–­113. 16. Ibid., 95. 17. See Plongian, Ben Porat [Son of Porat]; Barzilay, Menashe of Ilya.

Notes to Pages 57–62

193

18. Menashe mi-­I lya, Alfei Menashe [Menashe’s thousands], 73A–­B. 19. Article published in the newspaper Davar, July 19, 1985. 20. Arie Morgenstern published an article responding to Barnai’s criticism in Davar, August 9, 1985. 21. In 1984, Cathedra ran a response article by Bartal to the article by Morgenstern, printed in the same journal in which he first presented the main lines of his view. Subsequently, in 1987, Bartal in the journal Zion published his review of Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel. Morgenstern responded to the criticism in Zion, and Bartal gave his rejoinder. The four articles were brought together in Bartal, Galut ba-­Aretz [Exile in the homeland], 236–­95. 22. Bartal, Galut ba-­Aretz, 251. 23. Ibid., 251–­52. 24. Ibid., 252. 25. Ibid., 253–­54. 26. Ibid., 255. 27. Ibid., 259. 28. See for example Morgenstern, Geula be-­Derech ha-­Teva be-­Kitvei ha-­GRA ve-­ Talmidav [Redemption by natural means in the writings of the GRA and his students]; Geula be-­Derech ha-­Teva: Talmidei ha-­GRA be-­Eretz Israel [Redemption by natural means: Disciples of the GRA in the Land of Israel]; Ha-­Shiva li-­Yerushalayim [The return to Jerusalem]. To Morgenstern’s credit, in an article first published seven years after the release of his book, Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel [Messianism and the settlement of the Land of Israel], he took a critical stance regarding the Rivlinian myth on the role supposedly played by Hillel Rivlin as the leader of the first wave of Prushim (see near the end of chapter 1). However, as far as his main theses are concerned, Morgenstern has made no retractions. Another book in which he repeats the main points of his previous writings was recently published: Morgenstern, Ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna ve-­Hashpa’ato al Tahalich ha-­Geula [The Gaon of Vilna and his influence on the process of Redemption]. 29. The article citing Morgenstern’s remarks is signed Y. Amos. I have not been able to ascertain who was hiding behind that pseudonym. 30. Shuchat, Olam Nistar be-­Memadei ha-­Zman [A world hidden in the dimensions of time]. 31. Ibid., 73–­109. 32. Ibid., 78. 33. Ibid, 78. Incidentally, this latter-­day source was already relied upon by Morgenstern; Shuchat is merely following him here. See Morgenstern, Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel, 96n9. 34. Shuchat, Olam Nistar be-­Memadei ha-­Zman, 78–­80. 35. Ibid., 81. 36. Ibid., 106. 37. Ibid., 166. 38. Ibid., 262–­91. 39. Ibid., 267. 40. Ibid., 267–­68. 41. Ibid., 270. 42. Ibid., 267–­70. 43. Ibid., 271–­79.

194

Notes to Pages 62–70

44. See Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90B. 45. On the teachings of R. Alkalai and R. Kalisher, see Jacob Katz, Leumiyut Yehudit [Jewish nationalism], 285–­356. For R. Berlin’s view, see Slutsky, Shivat Zion [Return to Zion], 175–­76; for R. Eliasberg’s perspective, see 179–­81. 46. For “the duty of knowledge of the seven wisdoms of natural sciences,” see Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 115–­26. 47. For examples of depictions of a clearly fictional nature, see ibid., 95–­96, 121–­22. Further discussion of the fictional aspects of Kol ha-­Tor is provided in chapter 13. 48. For Raphael Shuchat’s response to the critical debate, see his article “Ha-­GRA mi-­Vilna, Talmidav ve-­Heker ha-­Meshichut: Tshuva le-­Professor Immanuel Etkes” [The Gaon of Vilna, his students and the study of Messianism: A response to Professor Immanuel Etkes], Zion 81 (2016), 95–­108. 49. Hershkovitz, “Kivunim Hadashim le-­Heker Kol ha-­Tor” [New directions in the research on Kol ha-­Tor]. 50. Shuchat, Olam Nistar be-Memadei ha-Zman, 270. 51. Hershkovitz, “Kivunim Hadashim le-­Heker Kol ha-­Tor,” 164–­65. 52. Ibid., 167. 53. Ibid., 168. 54. Ibid., 179–­81. 55. See chapter 11. 56. See Hershkovitz, “Kivunim Hadashim le-­Heker Kol ha-­Tor,” 181. On this book by R. Moshe Maggid, see chapter 11. 57. Ibid., 182. 58. See chapter 12. 59. On this topic, see chapter 13. 60. See the beginning of chapter 6. 61. The role played by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin as author of Kol ha-­Tor is elucidated in chapter 13. Chapter 8: Did Shlomo Zalman Rivlin receive the text of Kol ha-­Tor from Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin? 1. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 17. 2. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Committee for the Dissemination of Kol ha-­ Tor edition). 3. Ibid., 14. 4. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion [The maggid who preaches for Zion], 209–­91. 5. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, 21–­25. 6. Ibid., 21n23. 7. See Etkes, “Ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna ve-­Talmidav ka-­‘Zionim ha-­R ishonim’ ” [The Gaon of Vilna and his disciples as the “first Zionists”], 93–­96. 8. I owe thanks to the scholar of the Kabbalah Yosef Avivi, who planted the seed of doubt in me about this. 9. See chapter 5. 10. On the association that Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin was one of the founders of, see Binyamin Rivlin, Ha-­R av Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin [Rabbi Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin], 49–­50. See Alter Lazinski, Ha-­Tzvi 44 (August 14, 1896).

Notes to Pages 70–81

195

11. These booklets were printed by The Holy Land Settlement Society and republished in Binyamin Rivlin, Ha-­R av Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin, 60–­63. 12. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, Zichronot [Memoirs]. See the testimony there of R. Hayyim Ratser, who was Yitzhak Zvi’s teacher in his youth, about the wonderful memory he had. 13. Parush, Betoch ha-­Homot [Within the walls], 169 note. 14. The death notice published in the newspaper Doar ha-­Yom says, “He was known in Russia and the Land of Israel as ‘The Living Shas’ because of his proficiency in Talmud and halachic sources.” Chapter 9: Mossad ha-­Yesod 1. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod: Toldot ha-­Vaad ha-­Klali Knesset Israel [The foundational institution: The history of the General Committee of Knesset-­Israel]. The author’s name, Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, is lacking for some reason from the book’s frontispiece; instead a statement appears that the publication was “edited by the Committee for the History of the Old Yishuv.” 2. A kolel is an organizational framework for distributing funds raised from donations in Jewish communities in the Diaspora to provide for the members of the Old Yishuv in the Land of Israel, typically those engaged in studying Torah. 3. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod: Tamzit Mitoch Toldot Vaad ha-­Klali Knesset Israel Yerushalayim [The foundational institution: A precis of the history of the General Committee of Knesset-­Israel] (following citations are from this second edition). The first two parts of the book, “History of the General Committee” and “The Openings of Merhavia,” are more or less identical in both editions. However, the second edition adds a division into chapters, has more extensive footnotes (both longer and additional ones), and is mainly distinctive in that a third part is added, “Building Jerusalem.” 4. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 2–­3. 5. On the great aliyah of the Hasidim in 1777, see Stiman-­Katz, Reshitan shel Aliyot ha-­ Hasidim [The beginnings of the aliyot of the Hasidim]; Assaf, “She-­Yatza Shmua She-­Ba Mashiach ben David” [A rumor was heard that Messiah ben David was coming]; Etkes, “Al ha-­Meni’im le-­A liyot ha-­Hasidim le-­Eretz Israel” [The motivations for the aliyot of the Hasidim to the Land of Israel]. 6. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 13. 7. Ibid., 13–­14, n8. 8. See Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 132–­50. 9. Ibid., 122–­42. 10. Diskin, Mishnat Yoel [Teaching of Yoel]. 11. The kolel of the Prushim was founded in 1812, and the kolel of the Hasidim in 1821. 12. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 9. 13. Ibid., 11. 14. Ibid., 12. 15. See Friedman, Hevrah ve-­Dat [Society and religion], 16. 16. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 35–­36. On the realms of operation of the General Committee, see Yosef Salmon, “Haluka ve-­Kollelim” [Haluka and kolels]. 17. Ibid., 37–­39. 18. See Zar, Lohamim ba-­Layla [Warriors at night]. 19. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 199. 20. Ibid., 39.

196

Notes to Pages 81–86

21. Ibid., 39n70; citation to Ha-­Levanon, 20 (27 Sivan 1864). 22. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, “Yehudei Yerushalayim ve-­ha-­Mission” [The Jews of Jerusalem and the missionaries], in Megilat Yosef, 71–­72. 23. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 59. 24. Ibid., 63. 25. Ibid., 64. 26. The author of Mossad ha-­Yesod is here basing his statements on the closing remarks of Montefiore following his visit to the Land of Israel in 1839, a Hebrew translation of which was printed in Ha-­Levanon 32 (March 22, 1876). But he attributes to Montefiore things he didn’t write. The original text states that the heads of the Prushim community requested that “the top of the agenda should be building houses in Jerusalem,” whereas the words “and settlements for the work of the soil” are the addition of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. 27. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 57–­58. The article in Ha-­Levanon 45 (June 30, 1875) is an apologetic response by Yosef Yosha Rivlin to a critique of the Old Yishuv penned by Yechiel Michal Pines. Among other things, Yosef Yosha writes, “Many are those [among the residents of Jerusalem] who are capable and want to leave the metropolis to dwell in the field in the hope that from there the Creator will redeem them from the grip of their stress.” The article contains no “practical plan” for agricultural settlement, and of course it does not relate working the land to any sort of Messianic process. Such settlement is meant to deliver the residents of Jerusalem from their economic hardship. 28. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 64–­65. 29. Ibid., 68–­69. 30. Ibid., 81. 31. See Rothschild, Ha-­Haluka [The haluka]. 32. See Mordechai Levin, Hevrah ve-­K alkala ba-­Idiologia shel Tkufat ha-­Haskalah [Social and economic values in the ideology of the Haskalah period]; Peles, Hayyim. “The Attitude of the Old Yishuv toward Settlement.” 33. Bartal, “Tochniyot Hityashvut mi-­Yemei Masa’o ha-­Sheni shel Montefiore le-­Eretz Israel (1839)” [Plans of settlement from the days of Montefiore’s second voyage to the Land of Israel (1839)]. 34. See Tzoref ’s letter to Montefiore in Salomon, Shloshah Dorot [Three generations], 93–­104. 35. Ha-­Pkidim ve-­ha-­A markalim was an organization founded in Amsterdam in the early nineteenth century with the aim of collecting funds for inhabitants of the Old Yishuv in the Land of Israel. 36. Bartal, “Tochniyot Hityashvut,” 117. 37. The reference is to Egypt’s Ibrahim Pasha, who ruled the Land of Israel from 1831 to 1840. 38. The letter is cited by Kressel, Pothei ha-­Tikva [Pioneers of hope], 109–­10. Kressel describes the authors of the letter as “the chief speakers of the Ashkenazi settlement.” 39. Ha-­Levanon 9 (April 26, 1866). 40. Eliav, Mordechai. “Hevlei Bereshit shel Petah Tikva” [Birth pangs of Petah Tikva]. 41. Yellin, Zichronot le-­Ben Yerushalayim [Memoirs of a Jerusalemite], 64–­70. 42. On the negative position of R. Shmuel Salant toward agricultural settlement ini-

Notes to Pages 86–91

197

tiatives, see Malachi, Prakim be-­Toldot ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan [Chapters in the history of the Old Yishuv], 191–­92. Eliav notes that “despite the opposition of R. Shmuel Salant to the purchase of land and the establishment of settlements, demonstrated by various sources, the author of Mossad ha-­Yesod did not refrain from listing him among the initiators of the plan in Jericho (Eliav, “Hevlei Bereshit shel Petah Tikva,” 8n53). See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 66–­67. 43. Eliav, “Hevlei Bereshit shel Petah Tikva,” 9. 44. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 119–­26. 45. Ibid., 124n24. 46. Ibid., 125. 47. Ibid., 127. 48. Ibid., 132. 49. Ibid., 134. 50. Ibid., 147. 51. Ibid., 151–­52. 52. Ibid., 145–­46, 152–­56. 53. Ibid., 157. On the “Rivlin plan” for building Jerusalem allegedly conceived by Yosef Yosha Rivlin, based entirely on verse hints, see 159–­60. 54. See Gat, Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi be-­Eretz Israel ba-­Shanim 1840–1881 [The Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, 1840–1881], 285. 55. See Yellin, Zichronot le-­Ben Yerushalayim, 113–­16. 56. Eulogies and appreciations that emphasize the contribution of Yosef Yosha Rivlin to the construction of the neighborhoods were assembled and edited by his son-­in-­law Alter Dov Vishnatsky. See Vishnatsky, Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rabbi Yosha, Avi Binyan ha-­ Yishuv be-­Eretz Israel [Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rabbi Yosha, father of the construction of the Yishuv in the Land of Israel], 3–­23; see also chapter 12. 57. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 181. 58. Yehuda Tura, a Jewish philanthropist from New Orleans, bequeathed $50,000 for the poor of Jerusalem and entrusted the execution of the bequest to Moses Montefiore. In the summer of 1855 Montefiore purchased a plot of land west of the Old City with the intention of building a hospital there. When it became clear that there was no need for an additional hospital beyond the one built with the funds of the Rothschild family, he decided to assign use of the land to a residential neighborhood for the poor of Jerusalem. The first buildings were built in 1860, and these were populated in the first months of 1861. See Halevy, “He’arot la-­Yetziah min ha-­Homot” [Remarks on the departure from the walls]. 59. Shoshana Halevy has remarked in this regard, “The historical reconstructionists of the last generation, with the clear goal of depriving the residents of Mishkenot Sha’ananim of first rights to the departure from the walls and reassigning them to the founders of Nahalat Shiv’a in particular, describe things in a way that suits their intention, even if it is contrary to reality” (Halevy, “He’arot la-­Yetziah min ha-­Homot,” 152). 60. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, Reshit ha-­Yishuv Mihutz le-­Homot Yerushalayim [Beginnings of settlement outside the walls of Jerusalem], 5–­6. 61. Ibid, 5–­6. 62. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 181–­82. 63. See Halevy, “He’arot la-­Yetziah min ha-­Homot,” 148. 64. Moses Montefiore initiated the construction of a weaving factory in 1854, a year

198

Notes to Pages 91–101

before he purchased the land on which Mishkenot Sha’ananim was built and six years before that neighborhood’s houses were built. The factory was located within the walls of the Old City. After it shut down, the machines were stored in a warehouse in Mishkenot Sha’ananim. See Luntz, Yerushalayim [Jerusalem], 118. 65. Ibid., 127. 66. Ibid., 127–­28; Gat, Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi be-­Eretz Israel ba-­Shanim, 288; Halevy, “He’arot la-­Yetziah min ha-­Homot,” 149–­50; Meisel, Eleh Toldot Keren Mazkeret ha-­Sar Moshe Montefiore [History of the foundation in memory of Sir Moses Montefiore], 23; Malachi, Prakim be-­Toldot ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan, 123. 67. Ben Aryeh, Ir be-­Re’ i Tkufa [City as viewed by contemporaries], 145–­48; Schiller, 120 Shana le-Nahalat Shiv’a, 15–­16. The information that the Mahane Israel neighborhood preceded Nahalat Shiv’a was displeasing to Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, who therefore claims that this neighborhood went up “many years after the foundation of Nahalat Shiv’a” and the other first neighborhoods (Mossad ha-­Yesod, 182n3). However, this denial is without any basis. 68. Asher A. Rivlin, Nahalat Shiv’a Bat Meah [A century to Nahalat Shiv’a]. 69. Ibid., 14. 70. Ibid., 34n22. 71. Luntz, Luach Eretz Israel la-Shanim 1915–­1916 [Land of Israel calendar for 1915–­ 1916], 128, 131–­32. See also Grayevsky, Pinchas. Sefer ha-­Yishuv [The Book of the Yishuv], 4. 72. Asher A. Rivlin, Nahalat Shiv’a, 34n22. 73. Cohen-­Reis, Mi-­Zichronot Ish Yerushalayim [Memoirs of a Jerusalemite], 29–­30. 74. See Yellin, Zichronot le-­Ben Yerushalayim, 113. 75. See Salomon, Shloshah Dorot, 150–­54. 76. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, Reshit ha-­Yishuv Mihutz le-­Homot Yerushalayim, 12. 77. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 185–­87. 78. See Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Kitvei R. Yosef Rivlin Z”L al Yerusahlim ve-­Koroteha [Writings of the late R. Yosef Rivlin on Jerusalem and its history], 28. Chapter 10: Midrash Shlomo and the Department for Training Young Orators 1. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo [Sermons of Shlomo]. 2. Ibid., 4. 3. Ibid., 7. 4. Ibid., author’s introduction, 9. 5. An extensive discussion of R. Moshe Maggid will appear in chapter 11. 6. See chapter 14, text accompanying notes 22–­24. 7. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 19. 8. Ibid., 94. 9. Ibid., author’s introduction, 5. 10. Ibid., 7–­9. These long headings of sermons in Hebrew will be provided henceforth in translation, without transliteration. 11. From the Birkat ha-­Mazon, the prayer after a meal. 12. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 8. 13. Ibid, 8. 14. Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah 16A-­B. 15. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 70–­73.

Notes to Pages 101–109

199

16. See Numbers, ch. 13. 17. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 73. 18. Ibid., 26–­46. 19. The subject of this book will be discussed in chapter 12. 20. Ibid., 36. 21. Ibid., 125–­55. 22. These include statements by R. Israel ben Shmuel mi-­Shklov in his foreword to Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan, statements by R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov in his introduction to the Gaon’s commentary on tractate Avot, statements by R. Baruch of Shklov in his introduction to the book Euclidus, and the testimony of the sons of the Vilna Gaon in their introduction to Aderet Eliyahu. For a discussion of the position the Gaon in regard to the study of “external wisdoms,” see Etkes, Gaon of Vilna, 37–­72. 23. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 126–­28. 24. Ibid., 130–­38. To avoid all doubt, it is worth clarifying that in none of the sources known to us is there any basis for the claim that the Gaon of Vilna attributed a Messianic significance to the study of science. 25. Ibid., 144. 26. Ibid., 150–­51. 27. On the battle waged by the leaders of the Ashkenazi Old Yishuv against attempts to modernize education, see Elboim-­Dror, Ha-­Hinuch ha-­Ivri be-­Eretz Israel [Hebrew education in the Land of Israel], A:82–­89. 28. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 183–­206. 29. Ibid., 183. 30. Ibid., 201. 31. Ibid., 204–­205. 32. I expand on this subject in chapter 14. 33. A footnote to a lecture on the Hazon Zion movement reads, “Each lecturer can also include in the body of the lecture statements cited in the notes as he sees fit, in accordance with the place and timing in the lecture. . . . The lecturer must take into account that the lecture itself, without added notes, takes an hour and a quarter at a moderate speaking rate.” This suggests that all the sermons contained in the book were meant to be read in public. Chapter 11: Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion 1. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion. 2. See Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews. 3. See Luntz, Luach Eretz Israel la-Shanim 1915–­1916, 197–­210. On the strife within the Prushim community, see Morgenstern, Ha-­Shiva li-­Yerushalaym, 202–­27. 4. Luntz, Luach Eretz Israel le-­ha 1915–­1916, 205–­7. 5. On the meeting with Moses Montefiore, I expand later in this chapter. 6. See Morgenstern, Ha-­Shiva li-­Yerushalaym, 230–­35; he also discusses R. Moshe’s handling of the episode of conversion to Christianity that occurred in the Prushim community in the early 1840s (232–­34). On R. Moshe’s success in repaying the debts burdening the Prushim community, see also Michlin, Ha-­Tsfira, May 12, 1889. For R. Moshe’s work in administering the Prushim community, see also Gat, Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi be-­Eretz Israel ba-­Shanim 1840–1881, 105, 203; Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 1–­2. 7. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 1–­2.

200

Notes to Pages 110–117

8. Ibid., 7–­8. 9. About the preacher-­proselytizers during the Hibat Zion period, see Kloisner, Mi-­ Katovice le-­Bazel [From Katovice to Basel], 287–­96. 10. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 3. 11. Ibid., 5. 12. Ibid., 10. 13. Ibid., 12. 14. Ibid., 15–­16. 15. On the meeting itself, see Montefiore, Sippur Moshe vi-­Yerushalayim [The story of Moses and Jerusalem], 41. For indirect evidence of the meeting see Morgenstern, Ha-­ Shiva li-­Yerushalaym, 474n225. 16. Luntz, Luach Eretz Israel la-Shanim 1915–­1916, 202–­3. 17. Montefiore, Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore. 18. Ibid., 266–­80. 19. Ibid., 270. 20. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 25. 21. Ibid., 25–­26. 22. Ibid., 27. 23. Arie Morgenstern embraced as authentic Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s fabricated tale about the encounter between R. Moshe Maggid and Moses Montefiore. He maintains that R. Moshe “strengthened [Montefiore’s] sense of Messianic destiny by means of Talmudic quotations and gematriot alluding to his name” (Morgenstern, Ha-­Shiva li-­ Yerushalaym, 229–­30). 24. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 30. 25. Ibid., 31. 26. Ibid., 42. 27. See Kaniel, Ba-­Maʿavar [In transition], 139. 28. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 49–­50. 29. See Frumkin, Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim, 3:224–­25; see also what is added by Eliezer Rivlin, the scholar of the Old Yishuv (225n1.) 30. Moshe (Maggid) Rivlin, Sefer Beit Midrash, 1861. The book was brought to print by R. Moshe’s grandson, R. Binyamin Rivlin, who served as a rabbi in the Tallinn community, and it also includes a composition of his called Beit Binyamin, a commentary on Midrash Rabbah, as well as innovations penned by R. Yitzhak Isaac Rivlin, son of R. Moshe, who likewise served as a maggid meisharim in the Shklov community. 31. Moshe Rivlin, Sefer Beit Midrash, introduction by the author’s son, on the unnumbered page following the haskamot (letters of approval) at the beginning of the book. 32. See, for example, ibid., 10A, passage beginning “vekeivan shemasru,” 12A, passage beginning “marbeh tzedaka.” 33. Arie Morgenstern adopted the Messianic characterization of R. Moshe Maggid, based among other things on the sermons that Shlomo Zalman Rivlin attributed to R. Moshe, even though these were penned by Shlomo Zalman himself. For some reason Morgenstern did not bother to examine the book Sefer Beit Midrash, which contains the authentic sermons of R. Moshe and shows no trace of messianism (see Morgenstern, Ha-­ Shiva li-­Yerushalaym, 236–­37). 34. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, 57–­74. 35. Ibid., 57.

Notes to Pages 118–124

201

36. Ibid., 75. 37. Ibid., 76–­77. He lists the names of fourteen disciples of the Gaon of Vilna who immigrated to the Land of Israel in the first two convoys and includes R. Hillel Rivlin, although the latter only immigrated in 1832. 38. Ibid., 79–­83. 39. Ibid., 79–­80. 40. Ibid., 80. 41. Ibid., 81–­82. 42. Ibid., 83–­86. 43. Ibid., 84. 44. Ibid., 48. 45. Ibid., 120. 46. Ibid, 120. 47. Ibid., author’s introduction at the beginning of the book, page unnumbered. Chapter 12: Sefer ha-­Pizmonim 1. The term pizmonim is used here to mean what is commonly called piutim [poetry], in this case poetry in the style of High Holidays liturgy. The Ibn Shoshan Dictionary notes that the use of the term pizmon in the meaning of piyut (liturgical poetry) was customary during the Geonic period, and was also used for the poetry of the Jews of Yemen. 2. The remarks are taken from the booklet Zichron R. Yosha [In memory of R. Yosha] and are presented in Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim [Book of liturgical poems], 3. Similar statements are in Vishnatsky, Megillat Yosef [Scroll of Yosef], 3. 3. Vishnatsky, Megillat Yosef, 28–­29. There is no doubt that these “citations” of statements by Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin are products of the mind and pen of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin. 4. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 14. 5. Ibid., p. 7. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s remarks here describe R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s composition of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim as beginning in 1853, but most of his writings state that the year was 1855. 6. [Shlomo Zalman Rivlin], Ha-­R av ha-­Gaon Hillel Rivlin mi-­Shklov. For this pamphlet, see chapter 5. 7. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, Reshit ha-­Yishuv Mihutz le-­Homot Yerushalayim, 43–­46. 8. Winograd, Otzar Sifrei ha-­GRA [Comprehensive bibliography of the GRA], 95. Winograd possesses a copy of this edition and says there are only a few copies left of it. The collection of the National Library of Jerusalem does not have a copy of the book in this edition. Yosef Rivlin, the editor, writes that there were several first editions of various sizes. Binyamin Rivlin writes (Zecher Av, 5) that the first time a passage was published by Yosef Yoel was in 1939, and “from 1943 onward, initially in a very limited distribution, for individuals only, other parts of these pizmonim were published.” Evidently the fuller edition printed in 1947 was the one that came into Winograd’s hands. 9. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Hazon Zion, 32–­33, 92–­93, 105, and more. Many of the excerpts from Sefer ha-­Pizmonim were also included in Mossad ha-­Yesod. 10. Yosef Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim. This edition contains pizmonim that were not printed in the 1st edition; the editor found them among his grandfather’s writings (7–­8). 11. Ibid., 7. 12. Ibid., 7–­8, n4. 13. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Yosha Rivlin edition), 1; Winograd,

202

Notes to Pages 124–135

Otzar Sifrei ha-­GRA [Comprehensive bibliography of the GRA], 195, and see 193n1. 14. Hurwitz, Elazar. “Ha-­Hazan Ba’al ha-­Hazon” [The cantor with the vision]. 15. Two main factors are being alluded to here which were in the background of the initiative to build neighborhoods outside the walls of the Old City: the high rents being demanded by the Muslim owners of the courtyards and the poor sanitary conditions. 16. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 52–­53. 17. All these “facts” are without basis. At the end of the eighteenth century, no Messianic Zionist movement arose in Shklov; R. Hillel Rivlin did not head a group of students of the Vilna Gaon who immigrated to the Land of Israel between 1800 and 1808, for he immigrated only in 1832. Clearly he was also not one of the founders of the Prushim settlement in Jerusalem in 1816. Nor is there any evidence of R. Hillel’s involvement in organizing the fundraising project for the Prushim immigrants or for his financial contribution to the purchase of courtyards in Jerusalem. 18. For how the image of R. Moshe Maggid was shaped, see chapter 11. 19. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 121–­22. 20. Ibid., 159. 21. On the rivalry between Yosef Yosha Rivlin and Israel Dov Frumkin, son-­in-­law of Israel Bek and editor of Ha-­Habazeleth, see Malachi, Mi-­Neged Tir’eh [From outside you shall see], 275–­78. 22. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 259. 23. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin tells of leaflets accusing his father of “getting rich off the ruin of poor people.” See Mossad ha-­Yesod, 29n37, and Vishnatsky, Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, 30–­31. 24. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 260. 25. Ibid., 261. 26. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 173–­74. 27. As said above, the Rivlinian tradition dates the composition of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim to 1855–­58. 28. A few of the articles were collected and printed by Pinchas Grayevsky in 1949 (see Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Kitvei R. Yosef Rivlin Z”L al Yerushalayim ve-Koreteha). Separately, some sixty-­five articles were published in Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Megillat Yosef. 29. See for example Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Megillat Yosef, 109–­97. 30. Ibid., 51–­59. 31. Ibid., 61–­63, 135–­38. 32. Ibid., 219–­25. 33. Ibid., 221–­22. 34. See for example Vishnatsky, Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rishon ha-­Bonim [Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, first of the builders], 22–­28. See also Vishnitsky, Megillat Yosef, 7–­15. 35. Ha-­Havazelet, issue 47, 28 Ellul, September 9, 1896. 36. Ha-­Melitz, 29 Tishrei, October 6, 1896. 37. Michlin, Ha-­Tsfira, 6 Kislev, November 12, 1896. 38. Tikotzynsky, Yechiel Michal, Ha-­Havazelet, 2 Mar-­Heshvan, October 9, 1896; Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 10n8. 39. Vishnatzky, Alter Dov. (ed.). Megillat Yosef, 18. 40. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 11. 41. See Meir, Rehovot ha-­Nahar [Roads of the river], 74–­87. 42. Horowitz, Kol Mevaser [Voice of the herald], introduction, 1–­2 (unnumbered). 43. Michlin, Be-­Rei ha-­Dorot.

Notes to Pages 136–146

203

44. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 11–­12; note 12 there says that “the statements were made at the memorial held for R. Yosha . . . in the month of Elul, 1921.” 45. Michlin, Ha-­Tsfira, 6 Kislev, November 11, 1896; signed Ha-­Nehlami. 46. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, 12. 47. Haaretz, 29 Ellul, October 2 1921. 48. An extract of R. Kook’s statements, which likewise makes no reference to Sefer ha-­Pizmonim, is in Vishnatsky, Megillat Yosef, 16. 49. Cited in Vishnatsky, Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rishon ha-­Bonim, 59–­61. 50. Ibid., 59. 51. See above, at the beginning of the chapter. 52. Vishnatsky, Megillat Yosef, 5. 53. Winograd, Otzar Sifrei ha-­GRA, 195. Chapter 13: Who was the author of Kol ha-­Tor? 1. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor, introduction (Committee for the Dissemination of Kol ha-­Tor edition), 14; Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 143n51. 2. Kasher, Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah, 123–­74. R. Kasher fell into the trap set by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin when he incorporated excerpts from Kol ha-­Tor into the sermons he attributed to his ancestors. However, as has emerged in chapter 11 among others, these were sermons composed by Shlomo Zalman himself. 3. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Committee for the Dissemination of Kol ha-­ Tor edition), publisher’s foreword, 3–­9. 4. Ibid., 7. 5. Morgenstern, Geula be-­Derech ha-­Teva be-­Kitvei ha-­GRA ve-­Talmidav, 50n91. 6. Morgenstern, Ha-­Shiva li-­Yerushalayim, 479n273. Morgenstern adopted the Messianic Zionist depiction of R. Moshe Maggid, relying on the sermons preached by R. Moshe printed in the book Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion. Yet as it turned out, these sermons were written by Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, just as the Messianic Zionist image of R. Moshe was a product of his imagination. 7. Shuchat, Olam Nistar be-Memadei ha-Zman, 286. The assessment that the Rivlin family had traditions regarding Redemption that were passed down from generation to generation is largely based on the parallelism between Sefer ha-­Pizmonim and Kol ha-­ Tor, and the assumption that the author of Sefer ha-­Pizmonim was Yosef Yosha Rivlin (282–­86). As has emerged, Yosef Yosha was not the author of those poems. This assertion receives further support precisely in light of what Shuchat seeks to see as support for his position. He notes that “a few of Yosef Yosha’s poems” were printed in the periodical Ha-­ Havazelet (issue 22, 3 Av 1871). What was printed there is a text of a poetic nature that deals with the mournfulness of the approaching day of Tisha Be-­Av. A perusal of this text leaves no doubt that there is nothing that connects it with Sefer ha-­Pizmonim either in terms of style or in terms of content. 8. Shuchat believed that Kol ha-­Tor was first mentioned in a “memorial assembly” that took place in 1921 (see Shuchat, Olam Nistar be-Memadei ha-Zman, 262). However as has emerged in the previous chapter, the description of the speeches given at this event comes from Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, who assigned to the speakers statements that he had concocted. Megillat Yosef, the book edited by Vishnatsky in which these speeches were printed, was published only in 1953. 9. See chapter 1.

204

Notes to Pages 146–152

10. See chapter 3. 11. Cited in chapter 5 and again in chapter 12. 12. See chapter 8. 13. See Frumkin, Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim, 3:175–­76n1. 14. See [Shlomo Zalman Rivlin], Ha-­R av ha-­Gaon Hillel Rivlin mi-­Shklov [The rabbi and gaon Hillel Rivlin of Shklov]. 15. See Winograd, Otzar Sifrei ha-­GRA, 193n271. 16. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Yosha Rivlin edition), introduction by Yosef Rivlin, 1. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s son relates, “My father regularly had a young man who served as his private secretary. He copied text from the scriptures or took dictation from Dad.” (Asher A. Rivlin, “Beit Aba,” 28). Elazar Hurwitz relates that Shlomo Zalman used to dictate his compositions because his eyesight was poor (Hurwitz, “Ha-­ Hazan Ba’al ha-­Hazon,” 359). 17. Miller, Mordi. “Mi Yig’al et Kol ha-­Tor?” [Who will redeem Kol-­ha-­Tor?]. 18. See Hurwitz, “Ha-­Hazan Ba’al ha-­Hazon,” 359. 19. The statements by Yosef Avivi may be found on the website Otzar ha-­Chochmah in the thread dealing with Kol ha-­Tor: http:​/​​/​forum​.otzar​.org​/​forums​/​viewtopic​.php​?​f​=​ 7&t​=​943. His name on this site is Bariveshama. 20. Liebes, Mi-­Shabbetai Zvi el ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna [From Shabbetai Zvi to the Gaon of Vilna]. 21. Ibid., 121–­282. 22. Liebes accepted the assumption that the immigration of the students of the Vilna Gaon to the Land of Israel was driven by a Messianic ideology, based on the studies of Shuchat and Morgenstern (Liebes, Mi-­Shabbetai Zvi el ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna, 126n15, 171n310). However, it can be assumed that if he had been aware of the critical discussion of this issue as presented above, including the criticism of Shuchat and Morgenstern’s research, he would have avoided relying on them on this topic. 23. The subtitle to Kol ha-­Tor on the opening page translates as “A precis of the seven chapters on Redemption” in all editions. See also Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 7, starred comment; Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion, Introduction. 24. Shlomo Zalman attributes to Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin a work called “Ha-­Zionut ha-­ GRAit” [Zionism as per the Gaon of Vilna] and quotes from it. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 21n23. In Mossad ha-­Yesod, 31n47, Shlomo Zalman writes that the book Mesilat Merhavia contains many sources that prove that the General Committee was the initiator of the founding of Petah Tikva. These books were products of the imagination of Shlomo Zalman. 25. See for example Vishnatsky, Megillat Yosef, 3, 28 note. 26. This subject is discussed in chapter 1. 27. See chapter 9. 28. See chapter 10. 29. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 121–­22. 30. Ibid., 123. 31. Ibid., 95. 32. Ibid., 96. 33. Ibid. 34. Shuchat, Olam Nistar be-Memadei ha-Zman, 281n86.

Notes to Pages 152–159

205

35. Asher A. Rivlin, “Beit Aba,” 30. 36. These notes were printed in the Kol ha-­Tor edition that was published as an appendix to Kasher, Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah (461–­62). Chapter 14: Shlomo Zalman Rivlin 1. For a comprehensive review of the reception of the Zohar over the generations and its status in the research literature, see Dan, Toldot Torat ha-­Sod ha-­Ivrit, Sefer ha-­Zohar [History of Jewish mysticism and esotericism, the Zohar] 11, 107–­11. 2. Cited in Tishbi, Mishnat ha-­Zohar [Wisdom of the Zohar], 1, 30. 3. The prevailing opinion among researchers today is that the book of Zohar was composed by a Kabbalist circle of which R. Moshe de Leon was a part. 4. See Bartal, “Yishuv Yashan ve-­Yishuv Hadash” [Old Yishuv and New Yishuv]. 5. See for example Yellin, Zichronot le-­Ben Yerushalayim, 129–­34. 6. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, “Mishpachat Rivlin be-Eretz Israel” [The Rivlin family in the Land of Israel], 75. 7. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, Zichronot. 8. See Asher A. Rivlin, “Beit Aba,” 30. 9. See Gafni, Tahat Kipat ha-­Leom [Under the skullcap of the nation], 218–­25. For a detailed description of Shlomo Zalman Rivlin’s activity as a cantor, choirmaster, and cantorial teacher, see Hurwitz, “Ha-­Hazan Ba’al ha-­Hazon.” 10. Asher A. Rivlin, “Beit Aba,” 26–­27. 11. See Friedman, Hevrah ve-­Dat, 33–­86. 12. Yosef Yoel Rivlin, Zichronot. 13. See Asher A. Rivlin, “Beit Aba,” 22. 14. See Friedman, Hevrah be-­Mashber Legitimatsia [Society in crisis of legitimacy], 2–­13; Bartal, “Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan be-­Eretz Israel” [The Old Yishuv in the Land of Israel], 57–­59. 15. See Graetz, “Tazkir Al Matsav ha-­Kehilot be-­Eretz Israel” [On the state of the communities in the Land of Israel]. 16. A Hebrew translation of the report written by Samuel Montague following his visit to the Land of Israel was printed in Ha-­Levanon 19 (December 21,1975) and in Ha-­ Levanon 20 (December 29, 1975). 17. See Eliav, Eretz Israel ve-­Yishuvah ba-­Meah ha-­19, 140–­41. 18. Graetz, “Tazkir Al Matsav ha-­Kehilot be-­Eretz Israel” [On the state of the communities in the Land of Israel], 280–­82. For a comprehensive overview of the educational institutions of the Ashkenazi community, see Yosef Salmon, “Ha-­Hinuch ha-­Ashkenazi be-­Eretz Israel, bein ‘Yashan’ le-­‘Hadash’ (1840–­1906)” [Ashkenazic education in the Land of Israel, between “old” and “new”]. 19. See Kaniel, Hemshech ve-­Tmurah [Continuity and change], 69–­70. 20. Ibid., 89. 21. For articles on the delegation’s visit to Jerusalem, see Michlin, Be-­Re’ i ha-­Dorot [In the mirror of the ages], 56–­62. On Michlin, see ibid., 7–­13. 22. Michlin, Be-­Re’ i ha-­Dorot, 58. 23. A description of Yosef Yosha Rivlin’s sermon is included among the articles published by Michlin in Ha-­Tsfira, issues 122 and 123 (1889). 24. On the heralds of Zionism R. Kalisher and R. Alkalai, see Jacob Katz, Leumiyut

206

Notes to Pages 160–168

Yehudit [Jewish nationalism], 263–­56. On the views of the rabbis who supported Hibat Zion, see Slutsky, Shivat Zion. 25. See Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Mossad ha-­Yesod, 6–­9. 26. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Lehasir Michshol Mikerev Israel [To remove an obstacle from among the Jewish people]. 27. Ibid., 3. 28. Ibid., 16. 29. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 14. 30. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, foreword in Kol ha-­Tor (Committee for the Dissemination of Kol ha-­Tor edition), 16. 31. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Midrash Shlomo, 17. Chapter 15: The embrace of the Rivlinian myth and Kol ha-­Tor in Religious Zionist circles 1. Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah was reprinted in 1972; a third edition was published in 2001. 2. See Ravitzky, Ha-­Ketz ha-­Meguleh ve-­Medinat ha-­Yehudim [The revealed end and the state of the Jews], 111–­200; Aron, Kookism. 3. Ahituv, “Me-­Herzl el ha-­GRA” [From Herzl to the GRA], 356. 4. Kiel, Israel ve-­Geulato [The Jewish people and its Redemption]. 5. Ibid., 19. 6. Ibid., 77–­78. 7. Har Etzion yeshiva, Mi-­Vilna ad Har Etzion [From Vilna to Mount Etzion]. 8. Ibid., 8. 9. Hesder is an Israeli yeshiva program that combines advanced Talmudic studies with military service in the Israel Defense Forces, usually within a Religious Zionist framework. 10. Ibid., 23–­57. 11. Aviner, Berurim be-­Inyan Shelo Ya’alu ba-­Homa [Inquiry regarding the prohibition of mass immigration]. 12. The most explicit expression of this claim is at the center of R. Yoel Teitelbaum’s book Va-­Yoel Moshe. 13. Aviner, Berurim be-­Inyan Shelo Ya’alu ba-­Homa, 107n5. 14. Ibid., 120n171, reference to Kol ha-­Tor and Hazon Zion. 15. Ibid., 101n88. 16. Ibid., 105n116. 17. Ibid., 105–­106n117, reference to Kol ha-­Tor. 18. Baruch Zalman Melamed, La-­Zman ha-­Zeh [To the present time], 135–­41. 19. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), chapter 5, 113–­14. 20. Melamed, La-­Zman ha-­Zeh, 136. 21. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 127. 22. Melamed, La-­Zman ha-­Zeh, 137. 23. Baruch Zalman Melamed, Nekuda 119 (March 1988). 24. Ahituv, “Me-­Herzl el ha-­GRA.” 25. For further examples of historiography of this sort, see ibid., 357n43. 26. Ibid., 348. 27. Ibid., 347. 28. See ibid., 365–­75, especially 369–­71.

Notes to Pages 169–174

207

29. Or Hadash 4 (Menachem-­Av 2009), Or ha-­Orot, www​.yeshiva​.org​.il​/​midrash​/​pdf​ /​pdf135​/​hadash9​.pdf​. The first page of the issue has an article by R. Yitzhak Dadon. The article that deals with the Gaon of Vilna appears without an author’s name, but it is nearly certain also to have been written by R. Dadon, who studied for many years at the Mercaz ha-­R av yeshiva, is a member of the Halacha Brura Institute, and teaches in the Talmud Torah in Sanhedria. 30. On R. Yitzhak Dadon, see my previous note. For more of R. Dadon’s reliance on Kol ha-­Tor as an authentic expression of the Gaon’s teaching, see Dadon, Athalta Hie [A beginning it is], 23. 31. See chapter 12. For another attempt to create a continuous link between the Rivlinian myth and Rav Kook, see Yosef Yosha Rivlin, Binyan Yosef [Building of Yosef], R. Yosef Rivlin’s selected letters with added articles by R. Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook on the construction of the Holy Land. 32. He likewise recommends books by Arie Morgenstern and Raphael Shuchat that support the Rivlinian myth. 33. R. Tzipori is active in the field of Torah education. Among other things, he founded and heads a movement called Torah After the Army, which maintains frameworks for Torah study for military graduates. 34. Tzipori, “Ha Torah ha-­Meshichit shel ha-­GRA be-­Sefer Kol ha-­Tor” [The Messianic doctrine of the GRA in Kol ha-­Tor], 89 onward. 35. “Merkaz Yeshivot ve-­Ulpanot Bnei Akiva” (“About Yeshivot Bnei Akiva—­ Educating Israel’s Future”), Shavuot 2009, https:​/​​/​yba​.org​.il. 36. Yitzhak ben Yosef is a neighborhood rabbi and head of a midrasha in Ramat Gan. Formerly he was rabbi of the IDF Land Forces and head of the beit midrash of the military rabbinate. 37. Moreshet, “Sh’al et ha-­R av, She’elot u-­Tshuvot be-­Yahadut ve-­ba-­Halacha” [Ask the rabbi: Questions and answers in Judaism and halacha], R. Yitzhak ben Yosef, 24 Nissan 2018, www​.moreshet​.co​.il. 38. R. Elyakim Krumbein immigrated to Israel from the United States in 1973 and teaches Talmud at the Har Etzion yeshiva. 39. See Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna, 44–­83. 40. Elyakim Krumbein, rabbi at Har Etzion yeshiva, a series of lessons on the heritage of the Gaon of Vilna (Hebrew). The Israel Koshitzky virtual beit midrash, lesson 16, “Heavenly Wisdom and Terrestrial Wisdom.” 41. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin, Kol ha-­Tor (Yosef Rivlin edition), 115–­28. 42. See Fin, Kirya Ne’emana, 271–­72. 43. See Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews, 22–­45. 44. Ibid., “Zeitlin, Yehoshua,” index entries. 45. See Barzilay, Menashe of Ilya. 46. See Yaari, Igrot Eretz Israel, 328–­41. 47. See Stampfer, Ha-­Yeshiva ha-­Lita’ it be-­Hithavuta [The Lithuanian yeshiva], 55–­57. 48. Sternbuch, Be’ayot ha-­Zman be-­Hashkafat ha-­Torah [Problems of the period from a Torah perspective], 31–­40. 49. Ibid., 33. 50. The term erev rav appears in Exodus 12:38 in reference to Egyptians and other peoples who accompanied the Israelites when they left Egypt. According to the Midrash, it was these people who caused the Israelites to sin during their travels through the Sinai

208

Notes to Pages 174–182

desert. In modern Hebrew, this concept is used to mean a rabble, a social stratum of uncultured people. R. Sternbuch is undoubtedly referring to the secular sector of Israeli society. 51. Sternbuch, Be’ayot ha-­Zman be-­Hashkafat ha-­Torah, 32. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid., 32–­33. 54. Ibid., 33. 55. Ibid., 33–­34. 56. Ibid., 39, emphasis in the original. 57. For a scathing critique from a Haredi perspective that attacks the reliance of Religious Zionist circles on Kol ha-­Tor and includes the claim that the book is fake, see Weintraub, Ha-­Tkufah be-­Se’arat Eliyahu [The era of the storm of Eliyahu], 31. 58. Kipa, “Ask the Rabbi,” https:​/​​/​w ww​.kipa​.co​.il. 59. The answer was given by rabbis of the Or Etzion yeshiva, May 17, 2006. 60. “Sefer Kol ha-­Tor,” Shiurei [Lessons by] Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, Responsa, www​ .meirtv​.co​.il​/​site​/​rabbis​.asp​?​rabbi​=​3775​. 61. For my critique of Shuchat’s Olam Nistar be-­Memadei ha-­Zman, see chapter 7. 62. Elyakim Krumbein, rabbi at Har Etzion yeshiva, a series of lessons on the heritage of the Gaon of Vilna (Hebrew). The Israel Koshitzky virtual beit midrash, lesson 16, “Heavenly Wisdom and Terrestrial Wisdom.” 63. Another rabbi with a central position in Religious Zionist circles who naively adopted the Rivlinian myth is R. She’ar Yashuv Hacohen, “Ha-­GRA ve-­Talmidav” [The Vilna Gaon and his disciples], 237–­49. Conclusion 1. Transcripts of sessions of the 14th Knesset, booklet 30, meeting 99, agenda proposals. 2. Ibid., 6233. 3. Ibid., 6233. 4. Ibid., 6234–­35.

Bibliography

Ahituv, Yosef. “Me-­Herzl el ha-­GRA” [From Herzl to the GRA]. In Yosef Da’at: Mehkarim be-­Historia Yehudit Modernit [Adding knowledge: Studies in modern Jewish history], ed. Yossi Goldstein, 347–­75. Be’er Sheva: Ben-­Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2010. Aran, Gidon. Kookism: Shorshei Gush Emunim, Tarbut ha-­Mitnahalim, Teologia Zionit, Meshichiyut be-­Yameinu [Kookism: Roots of Gush Emunim, settler culture, Zionist theology, contemporary messianism]. Jerusalem: Carmel Press, 2013. Assaf, David. “She-­Yatza Shmua She-­Ba Mashiach ben David: Or Hadash al Aliyat ha-­ Hasidim bi-­Shnat 1777” [A rumor was heard that Messiah ben David was coming: New light on the aliyah of the Hasidim in 1777]. Zion 61 (1996): 319–­46. Aviner, Shlomo. Berurim be-­Inyan Shelo Ya’alu ba-­Homa: Hilchot Mashiach le-­ha-­ Rambam [Inquiry regarding the prohibition of mass immigration to the Land of Israel: Maimonides’s laws relating to the Messiah]. Jerusalem: publisher unknown, 2003. Barnai, Jacob. Historiographia ve-­Leumiut, Megamot be-­Heker Eretz Israel ve-­Yishuvah ha-­Yehudi [Historiography and nationalism: Trends in the study of the Land of Israel and its Jewish settlement]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995. Bartal, Israel. Galut ba-­Aretz: Yishuv Eretz Israel be-­Terem Tziyonut [Exile in the homeland: Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel before Zionism]. Jerusalem: Zionist Library Press, 1995. ———. “Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan be-­Eretz Israel (1777–­1914)” [The Old Yishuv in the Land of Israel (1777–­1914)]. In Galut ba-­Aretz, 49–­63. ———. “Tochniyot Hityashvut mi-­Yemei Masa’o ha-­Sheni shel Montefiore le-­Eretz Israel (1839)” [Plans of settlement from the days of Montefiore’s second voyage to the Land of Israel (1839)]. In Galut ba-­Aretz, 100–­60. ———. “Yishuv Yashan ve-­Yishuv Hadash” [Old Yishuv and New Yishuv]. In Galut ba-­ Aretz, 74–­89. 209

210

Bibliography

Barzilay, Issac. Menashe of Ilya: Precursor of Modernity among the Jews of Eastern Europe. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999. Ben Aryeh, Yehoshua. Ir be-­Re’ i Tkufah: Yerushalayim ha-­Hadasha be-­Reshita [City as viewed by contemporaries: New Jerusalem in its beginnings]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1979. Cohen-­Reis, Ephraim. Mi-­Zichronot Ish Yerushalayim [Memoirs of a Jerusalemite]. Jerusalem: Shoshani Press, 1967. Dadon, Yitzhak. Athalta Hie: Yahasam shel Gdolei Sefarad ve-­Ashkenaz la-­Zionut u-­le-­ Hakamat ha-­Medina [A beginning it is: The attitude of leading Sephardic and Ashkenazic rabbis to Zionism and to the creation of the State]. Jerusalem: self-­published, 2007. Dan, Yosef. Toldot Torat ha-­Sod ha-­Ivrit, Sefer ha-­Zohar [History of Jewish mysticism and esotericism, the Zohar: The book of splendor] 11. Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar Press, 2015. Diskin, Yoel. Mishnat Yoel: Toldot Rabbi Shneur Zalman mi-­Liady, Shitato ba-­Hasidut, Takanotav ve-­Hanhagotav [Teaching of Yoel: History of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, his ideas on Hasidism, rulings, and guidance]. Jerusalem: Zuckerman Press, 1941. Droyanov, Alter, ed. Ktavim le-­Toldot Hibat Zion [Writings on the history of Hibat Zion]. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv Press, 1982. Dubnov, Shimon. Toldot ha-­Hasidut [History of Hasidism]. Tel Aviv: Dvir Press, 1960. Elboim-­Dror, Rachel. Ha-­Hinuch ha-­Ivri be-­Eretz Israel [Hebrew education in the Land of Israel]. Vol. A. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1986. Eliav, Mordechai. Eretz Israel ve-­Yishuvah ba-­Meah ha-­19, 1777–­1917 [The Land of Israel and its settlement in the nineteenth century, 1777–­1917]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1978. ———. “Hevlei Bereshit shel Petah Tikva” [Birth pangs of Petah Tikva]. Cathedra 9 (Tishrei 1978), 3–­24. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman (Ha-GRA). Alim li-­Trufa [Pages for healing]. Sha’alvim: Sha’alvim Press, 2002. ———. Sefer Maginei Eretz, Orach Hayyim [Book of defenders of the land, lifestyle]. Shklov: Arieh Ben Menahem Press, 1803. Etkes, Immanuel. “Al ha-­Meni’im le-­A liyot ha-­Hasidim le-­Eretz Israel” [The motivations for the aliyot of the Hasidim to the Land of Israel]. Zion 76 (2011), 127–­38. ———. The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and His Image. Translated by Jeffrey Green. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. ———. “Ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna ve-­Talmidav ka-­‘ Zionim ha-­R ishonim’: Gilgulav shel Mitos” [The Gaon of Vilna and his disciples as the “first Zionists”: Evolution of a myth]. Zion 80 (2015), 69–­114. ———. Lita bi-­Yerushalayim [Lithuania in Jerusalem]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1992. ———. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of Chabad Hasidism. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2015. Fin, Shmuel Yosef. Kirya Ne’emana [Faithful City]. Vilna: Rom Press, 1860. ———. Hevrah ve-­Dat: Ha-­Ortodoksia ha-­Lo Zionit be-­Eretz Israel 1918–­1937 [Society and religion: The non-­Zionist Orthodoxy in the Land of Israel 1918–­1937]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, 1978.

Bibliography

211

Fishman, David. Russia’s First Modern Jews: The Jews of Shklov. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Friedman, Menahem. Hevrah be-­Mashber Legitimatsia: Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan ha-­ Ashkenazi 1900–­1917 [Society in crisis of legitimacy: The Ashkenazi Old Yishuv, 1900–­1917]. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Press, 2001. Frumkin, Aryeh Leib. Toldot Hachmei Yerushalayim [A history of the sages of Jerusalem]. Jerusalem: publisher unknown, 1922. Gafni, Reuven. “Hinuch, Tfila ve-­Darshanut: Mifalav ha-­Hinuchi’yim shel R. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin be-­Yerusahlayim ba-­Mahazit ha-­R ishona shel ha-­Meah ha-­Esrim” [Education, prayer and preaching: The educational enterprises of R. Shlomo Zalman Rivlin in Jerusalem in the first half of the twentieth century]. In Talmidei ha-­GRA be-­Eretz Israel [Students of the GRA in the Land of Israel], edited by Israel Rosenson and Yosef Rivlin, 73–­86. Jerusalem: Ephrata College Press, 2010. ———. Tahat Kipat ha-­Leom: Batei Knesset ve-­Leumiyut be-­Tkufat ha-­Mandat [Under the skullcap of the nation: Synagogues and nationalism in the British Mandate period]. Sde Boker: Ben-­Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2017. Gat, Ben Zion. Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi be-­Eretz Israel ba-­Shanim 1840–­1881 [The Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, 1840–­1881]. Jerusalem: Association of the Friends of the Hebrew Gymnasia, 1963. Goldstein, Yosef, ed. Yosef Da’at: Mehkarim be-­Historia Yehudit Modernit [Adding knowledge: Studies in modern Jewish history]. Beer Sheva: Ben-­Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2010. Graetz, Zvi. “Tazkir Al Matsav ha-­Kehilot be-­Eretz Israel” [On the state of the communities in the Land of Israel]. In Darchei ha-­Historiya ha-­Yehudit [Paths of Jewish history], 277–­85. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Press, 1969. Grayevsky, Pinchas. Sefer ha-­Yishuv [Book of the Yishuv]. Jerusalem: Salomon Press, 1939. Hacohen, She’ar Yashuv. “Ha-­GRA ve-­Talmidav: Meyasdei ha-­Yishuv ha-­Hadash be-­Eretz Israel” [The Vilna Gaon and his disciples: The founders of the New Settlement in the Land of Israel]. In Prakim be-­Toldot ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi be-­Yerushalayim [Chapters in the history of the Jewish settlement in Jerusalem], edited by Yehuda ben Porat, Ben-­ Zion Yehoshua, and Aharon Kedar, 237–­49. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 1973. Halevy, Shoshana. “He’arot la-­Yetsiah min ha-­Homot” [Remarks on the departure from the walls]. In Prakim be-­Toldot ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi bi-­Yerushalayim [Chapters of the history of the Jewish settlement in Jerusalem], edited by Yehuda ben Porat, Ben-­Zion Yehoshua, and Aharon Kedar, 141–­53. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1973. Har Etzion yeshiva. Mi-­Vilna ad Har Etzion: Giluyei Eliyahu ba-­Torah uba-­Geula [From Vilna to Har Etzion: The discoveries of Eliyahu in Torah and Redemption]. Alon Shvut: Har Etzion yeshiva, 2011. Exhibition catalog. Hershkovitz, Yitzhak, “Kivunim Hadashim le-­Heker Kol ha-­Tor” [New directions in the research on Kol ha-­Tor]. Daʿat 79–­80 (2015), 163–­82. Horowitz, Shimon Zvi. Kol Mevaser [Voice of the herald]. Jerusalem: Salomon Press, 1923. Hurwitz, Elazar. “Ha-­Hazan Ba’al ha-­Hazon” [The cantor with a vision]. Yediot ha-­ Machon ha-­Israeli le-­Musica Datit [Newsletter of the Israeli Institute for Religious Music] 4 (1963), 354–­60. Israel ben Shmuel mi-­Shklov. Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan [Table’s edge]. Jerusalem: Pardes Press, 1958.

212

Bibliography

Kaniel, Yehoshua. Ba-­Maʿavar: Ha-­Yehudim be-­Eretz Israel ba-­Meah ha-­19, Bein Yashan ve-­Hadash ve-­Bein Yishuv Eretz ha-­Kodesh veBein Zionut [In transition: Jews in the Land of Israel in the nineteenth century, between old and new and between settlement of the Holy Land and Zionism]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 2000. ———. Hemshech ve-­Tmurah: Ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan veha-­Yishuv ha-­Hadash be-­Tkufat ha-­Aliyah ha-­Rishona veha-­Shniya [Continuity and change: The Old Yishuv and the New Yishuv in the period of the First and Second Aliyot]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1982. Kasher, Menahem M. Ha-­Tkufah ha-­Gdolah: Pirkei Hitbonenut be-­Matzav ha-­Uma ve-­Artzenu ha-­Kdosha be-­Sha’a Zo u-­Berur Mekif al Darkei ha-­Geula ve-­Simaneha, al Yesod Divrei Hazal, Sifrei ha-­Rishonim ve-­ha-­Aharonim [The great era: Chapters of observations on the nation, our Holy Land, at the present time and a thorough examination of the ways of Redemption and its signs, based on statements of the sages, books by the early and late rabbinic commentators]. Jerusalem: Machon Torah Shlema Press, 1968. Katz, Ben-­Zion. Rabanut, Hasidut, Haskalah [Rabbinate, Hasidism, enlightenment]. Tel Aviv: Dvir Press, 1959. Katz, Jacob, Leumiyut Yehudit: Masot u-­Mehkarim [Jewish nationalism: Essays and studies]. Jerusalem: Zionist Library Press, 1979. Kiel, Yehuda, ed. Israel ve-­Geulato: Yalkut Mekorot [The Jewish people and its Redemption: Anthology of source materials]. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Religious Education, 1975. Kloisner, Israel. Mi-­K atovice le-­Bazel: Ha-­Tnuah le-­Zion be-­Rusia [From Katovice to Basel: The Movement for Zion in Russia]. Jerusalem: Zionist Library Press, 1965. Kressel, Gezel. Pothei ha-­Tikva: mi-­Yerushalayim le-­Petah Tikva, Bichurei ha-­Nisyonot [Pioneers of hope: From Jerusalem to Petah Tikva, first fruits of experiments, 1839–­ 1878]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1976. Levin, Mordechai. Hevrah ve-­Kalkala ba Idealogia shel Tkufat ha-­Haskalah [Society and economic values in the ideology of the Haskalah period]. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Press, 1975. Levin, Yehoshua Heschel. Aliyot Eliyahu: Toldot ha-­Adam ha-­Gadol ba-­Anakim [Eliyahu’s ascensions: History of the man who was greatest of the giants]. Vilna: Yosef Reuven Rom Press, 1855. Liebes, Yehuda. Mi-­Shabbetai Zvi el ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna [From Shabbetai Zvi to the Gaon of Vilna]. Tel Aviv: Idra Press, 2017. Luntz, Avraham Moshe. Luach Eretz Israel la-shanim 1915–­1916 [Land of Israel calendar for 1915–­1916]. No publication data. ———. Yerushalayim: Kvutzat Maamarim be-­Hakirat Eretz Ha-­Kdosha, Matzavah, Koroteha, be-­she-­kvar Ha-­Yamim u-­be-­Yameinu [Jerusalem: Articles studying the Holy Land, its condition and history, in past times and in our day]. Jerusalem: 1882–­1919. Malachi, Eliezer Raphael. Mi-­Neged Tir’eh: Asufa me-­Maamarei Eliezer Raphael Malachi [From outside you shall see: Selected articles of Eliezer Raphael Malachi], edited by Elhanan Reiner and Hagai Ben Shamai. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 2001. ———. Prakim be-­Toldot ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan [Chapters in the history of the Old Yishuv]. Tel Aviv: Ha-­K ibbutz ha-­Meuhad Press, 1971.

Bibliography

213

Meir, Yonatan. Rehovot ha-­Nahar: Kabalah ve’Ekzoteriut be-­Yerushalayim 1948–­1996 [Roads of the river: Kabbalah and exoterica in Jerusalem, 1948–­1996]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 2011. Meisel, Yosef. Eleh Toldot Keren Mazkeret ha-­Sar Moshe Montefiore [History of the foundation in memory of Sir Moses Montefiore]. Jerusalem: Reuven Mas Press, 1939. Melamed, Baruch Zalman. La-­Zman ha-­Zeh: Sihot ve-­Sheurim le-­Yom ha-­Atzmaut [To the present time: Conversations and lessons for Independence Day]. Beit El: Me-­ Avnei ha-­Makom Press, 2014. Menashe mi-­I lya. Alfei Menashe [Menashe’s thousands]. Vilna: Ha-­Meshutafim Press, 1822. Michlin, Hayyim Michal. Be-­Re’ i ha-­Dorot: Osef Ma’amarim, Zichronot ve-­Reshimot al Yerushalayim [In the mirror of the ages: Collected articles, memoirs and accounts of Jerusalem]. Tel Aviv: Z. Lineman Press, 1950. Miller, Mordi. “Mi Yig’al et Kol ha-­Tor?” [Who will redeem Kol-­ha-­Tor?]. Olam Katan 595 (2 Iyar), 2017. Mintz, Benjamin. Introduction to Sefer Pe’at ha-­Shulkhan, by Israel ben Shmuel mi-­ Shklov. Jerusalem: Pardes Press, 1958. Montefiore, Moses. Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore. Edited by Louis Loewe. London: Jewish Historical Society of England, 1983. ———. Sippur Moshe vi-­Yerushalayim [The story of Moshe and Jerusalem]. Warsaw: Israel Alafin Press, 1879. Morgenstern, Arie. Geula be-­Derech ha-­Teva be-­Kitvei ha-­GRA ve-­Talmidav: Kovetz Mehkarim [Redemption by natural means in the writings of the GRA and his students: Collected articles]. Elkana: Orot College Press, 1989. ———. Geula be-­Derech ha-­Teva: Talmidei ha-­GRA be-­Eretz Israel, 1800–­1840 [Redemption by natural means: Disciples of the GRA in the Land of Israel, 1800–­1840]. Jerusalem: Maor Press, 1997. ———. Ha-­Gaon mi-­Vilna ve-­Hashpa’ato al Tahalich ha-­Geula [The Gaon of Vilna and his influence on the process of Redemption]. Jerusalem: Maor Press, 2018. ———. Ha-­Shiva li-­Yerushalayim: Hidush ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yehudi be-­Eretz Israel be-­Reshit ha-­Meah ha-­19 [The return to Jerusalem: Renewal of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century]. Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2007. ———. Meshihiyut ve-­Yishuv Eretz Israel [Messianism and the settlement of the Land of Israel]. Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, Jerusalem 1985. ———. “Shtei Masorot al Reshit Aliyat Talmidei ha-­GRA” [Two traditions on the beginnings of the aliyah of the disciples of the GRA]. Shalem 6 (1992), 195–­222. Parush, Menahem. Betoch ha-­Homot [Within the walls]. Jerusalem: Verker Press, 1948. Peles, Hayyim. “Yahasam shel Bnei ha-­Yishuv ha-­Yashan le-­Hityashvut be-­Eretz Israel ba-­Meah ha-­19” [The attitude of the Old Yishuv in the nineteenth century toward settlement]. Zion 41 (1976), 148–­62. Plongian, Mordechai. Ben Porat [Son of Porat]. Vilna: Yosef Reuven Rom Press, 1958. Ravitzky, Aviezer. Ha-­Ketz ha-­Meguleh ve-­Medinat ha-­Yehudim [The revealed end and the state of the Jews]. Tel Aviv: Am-­Oved Press, 1993. Reiner, Elhanan. “Aliyah la-­Regel le-­Eretz Israel 1099–­1517” [Aliyah to the Land of Israel 1099–­1517]. PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988. Rephael, Geula. Ish ha-­Meorot: Rabbi Yitzhak Yaakov Reines [Man of illuminations: Rabbi Yitzhak Yaakov Reines]. Jerusalem: Mossad ha-­R av Kook Press, 1985.

214

Bibliography

Rivlin, Asher A. “Beit Aba” [Father’s home]. In Yad Yosef Yitzhak Rivlin, memorial book, edited by Hayyim Zeev Hirschberg, 18–­31. Ramat Gan: Bar-­Ilan University Press, 1964. ———. Nahalat Shiv’a Bat Meah: Toldot Yisudah shel Nahalat Shiv’a—­Hathalat Binyanah shel Yerushalayim ha-­Hadashah [A century to Nahalat Shiv’a: The history of the founding of Nahalat Shiv’a—­the start of the building of New Jerusalem]. Ramat Gan: Bar-­I lan University Press, 1972. Rivlin, Binyamin (ben Shlomo Zalman). Gvi’ei Gavia Kesef [Goblets of silver]. Shklov, 1804 (2nd ed., Warsaw, 1898; further editions 1983, 1992, 2015). Rivlin, Binyamin. Ha-­R av Yizhak Zvi Rivlin [Rabbi Yitzhak Zvi Rivlin]. Jerusalem: Sivan Press, 1992. ———. Zecher Av [In memory of Father]. Jerusalem: self-­published, 1992. Rivlin, Moshe (Maggid). Sefer Beit Midrash, le-­ha-­R av ha-­Darshan ha-­Mefursam Morenu ha-­R av Moshe Z”L Maggid Meisharim de-­Kehila Kedosha Shklov [Sefer Beit Midrash, a book by the famous rabbi and preacher, our late teacher Rabbi Moshe, of blessed memory, of the Shklov community]. Vilna: Yosef Reuven Rom Press, 1861. Rivlin, Shlomo Zalman. Ha-­Maggid Doresh Zion: Toldotav ve-­Peulotav shel ha-­R av ha-­Gaon ha-­Mekubal R. Moshe ha-­Maggid mi-­Shklov Z”L ve-­Kovetz me Drashotav Be’ad Yishuv Eretz Israel [The maggid who preaches for Zion: History and activities of the rabbi, gaon, and Kabbalist R. Moshe, the late preacher from Shklov, and a selection of his sermons for the settlement of the Land of Israel]. Jerusalem: self-­ published, 1960. ———. Ha-­R av ha-­Gaon Hillel Rivlin mi-­Shklov [The rabbi and gaon Hillel Rivlin of Shklov]. Jerusalem: self-­published, 1935. ———. Hazon Zion, Shklov ve-­Yerushalayim: Toldot Aliyat Talmidei ha-­GRA ve-­ Mifaleihem be-­Yisud ha-­Yishuv be-­Eretz Israel [Hazon Zion, Shklov and Jerusalem: History of the aliyah of the disciples of the GRA and their enterprises in the founding of the settlement in the Land of Israel]. Jerusalem: self-­published (facsimile edition), 2002. ———. Kol ha-­Tor, ve-­hu Shitat ha-­Gaon, Rabenu Eliyahu (ha-­GRA) mi-­Vilna ZC”L ve-­ Giluyav al Tkufat ha-­Athalta de-­Geula, Hibro ha-­Mekubal Rabbi Hillel ben Rabbi Binyamin mi-­Shklov al pi Rabenu ha-­GRA [Voice of the turtledove, or, Method of the Gaon, our Rabbi Eliyahu (the GRA) of Vilna, of blessed and righteous memory, and his revelations on the period of the beginnings of Redemption, authored by the Kabbalist Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Binyamin of Shklov, according to our rabbi the GRA]. Bnei Brak: Committee for the Dissemination of Kol ha-­Tor, 1969. ———. Kol ha-­Tor. . . . Yosef Rivlin edition. Jerusalem, 1994. ———. Lehasir Michshol Mikerev Israel [To remove an obstacle from among the Jewish people]. Jerusalem: self-­published, 1961. ———. Midrash Shlomo: Drashot [Sermons of Shlomo]. Jerusalem: Committee for the Publication of Midrash Shlomo, 1953. ———. Mossad ha-­Yesod: Tamzit Mitoch Toldot Vaad ha-­Klali Knesset, Israel Yerushalayim [The foundational institution: A precis of the history of the General Committee of Knesset-­Israel]. Expanded 2nd edition. Jerusalem: General Committee of the Knesset-­Israel, 1958. ———. Mossad ha-­Yesod: Toldot ha-­Vaad ha-­Klali Knesset Israel. [The foundational institution: The history of the General Committee of Knesset-­Israel]. Jerusalem: self-­ published, 1951.

Bibliography

215

Rivlin, Yosef Yoel. “Mishpachat Rivlin be-­Eretz Israel” [The Rivlin family in the Land of Israel]. In Yad Yosef Yitzhak Rivlin: Sefer Zikaron [Memory book], edited by Hayyim Zeev Hirschberg, 47–­77. Bar-­I lan University Press, 1964. ———. Reshit ha-­Yishuv Mihutz le-­Homot Yerushalayim:li-­Mlot Shiv’ im Shanah le-­ Hanukat ha-­Bayit ha-­Rishon beit Rabi Yosef Rivlin Z”L be-­Shchunat Nahalat Shiv’a [The beginnings of settlement outside the walls of Jerusalem: Seventy years since the inauguration of the first house, the house of the late Rabbi Yosef Rivlin in the Nahalat Shiv’a neighborhood]. Jerusalem: Megilat Yosef committee for publication of the works of Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, 1939. ———. Zichronot [Memoirs]. Ben Yehuda Project. https://benyehuda.org/rivlin_yy/zixronot.html. Rivlin, Yosef Yosha. Binyan Yosef: Divrei Zikaron me’et Gdolei Yerushalayim le-­Dmuto shel Rosh Bonei Yerushalayim [Building of Yosef: Memorial statements from leading Jerusalem rabbis on the head of the builders of Jerusalem]. R. Yosef Rivlin’s selected letters with added articles by Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook on the construction of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Or Haorot, 2011. ———. Kitvei R. Yosef Rivlin Z”L al Yerusahlim ve-­Koroteha [Writings of the late R. Yosef Rivlin on Jerusalem and its history], edited by Pinchas Grayevsky. Jerusalem: Zion Press, 1930. ———. Megillat Yosef: Mivhar Maamarim ve-­Reshimot shel R. Yosef Yosha Rivlin, 1866–­ 1896 [Scroll of Yosef: Selected articles and writings of Yosef Yosha Rivlin, 1866–­1896], edited by Netanel Kazburg. Ramat-­Gan: Bar-­I lan University Press, 1966. ———, ed. Sefer ha-­Pizmonim [Book of liturgical poems], or Pizmonei R. Yosha Rivlin: Brit Avot be-­Se’arat Eliyahu, Pirkei Geula al Pi Torat ha-­GRA [Poems of R. Yosha Rivlin: The covenant of the patriarchs in the storm of Eliyahu, chapters on Redemption according to the doctrine of the GRA], with an introduction, contents, explanations, and comments by Yosef Rivlin. Jerusalem: Orhot Press, 2004. ———. “Yehudei Yerushalayim ve-­ha-­Mission” [The Jews of Jerusalem and the missionaries]. Ha-­Tzvi, October 16, 1885. Reprinted in Megillat Yosef, 71–­72. Rothschild, Meir. Ha-­Halukah [The haluka]. Jerusalem: Reuven Mas Press, 1986. Salmon, Joseph. “Enlightened Rabbis as Reformers in Russian Jewish Society,” New Perspectives on the Haskalah, edited by Shmuel Feiner and David Sorkin, 166–­83. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2001. Salmon, Yosef. “Ha-­Hinuch ha-­A shkenazi be-­Eretz Israel, bein ‘Yashan’ le-­‘Hadash’ (1840–­1906)” [Ashkenazic education in the Land of Israel, between “old” and “new”]. Shalem 6, 1992, 281–­301. ———. “Haluka ve-­ Kollelim: Hebetim Hevratiim ve-­ K alkaliyim ba-­ Kehila ha-­ Ashkenazit be-­Eretz Israel be-­Sof ha-­Meah ha-­19” [Haluka and kolels: Social and economic aspects of the Ashkenazi community in the Land of Israel in the late nineteenth century]. In Yehudim ba-­K alkala [Jews in the economy], edited by Nahum Gross, 333–­46. Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar Press, 1985. ———. Ortodoksya be-­Mezarei ha-­Leumiyut [Orthodoxy in the confines of nationalism]. Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar Press, 2006. Salomon, Mordechai. Shloshah Dorot [Three generations]. Jerusalem: Salomon Press, 1951. Schiller, Eli, ed. 120 Shana le-­Nahalat Shiv’a [120 years to Nahalat Shiv’a]. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Municipality, 1989.

216

Bibliography

Shuchat, Raphael B. Olam Nistar be-­Memadei ha-­Zman: Torat ha-­Geula shel ha-­GRA mi-­Vilna [A world hidden in the dimensions of time: The doctrine of Redemption in the writings of the GRA of Vilna]. Ramat-­Gan: Bar-­I lan University, 2008. Slutsky, Avraham Yaakov, ed. Shivat Zion: Kovetz Ma’amarei Geonei ha-­Dor be-­Shevach Yishuv Eretz Israel [Return to Zion: Selected articles from the period’s great geonim in praise of the settlement of the Land of Israel]. Introduction by Yosef Salmon. Jerusalem: Dinur Center Publications, 1998. Stampfer, Shaul. Ha-­Yeshiva ha-­Lita’ it be-­Hithavuta [The Lithuanian yeshiva]. Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar Press, 2005. Sternbuch, Moshe. Be’ayot ha-­Zman be-­Hashkafat ha-­Torah [Problems of the period from a Torah perspective]. Jerusalem: publisher unknown, 1969. Stiman-­Katz, Hayah. Reshitan shel Aliyot ha-­Hasidim, 1747–1819 [The beginnings of the aliyot of the Hasidim, 1747–1819]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1986. Tishbi, Yesha’aya. Mishnat ha-­Zohar [Wisdom of the Zohar]. Vol. A. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Press, 1957. Tzipori, Ilan. “Ha Torah ha-­Meshichit shel ha-­GRA be-­Sefer Kol ha-­Tor” [The Messianic doctrine of the GRA in Kol ha-­Tor]. In Bati Levakesh Mikem: Ha-­GRA mi-­Vilna, Eru’ im, Ta’arichim u-­Mekorot le-­Toldotav, Peninim mi-­Torato u-­Minhagav [I came to ask of you: The GRA of Vilna, events, dates and sources of his history, gems from his teaching and customs], edited by Yossi Carmel. Karnei Shomron: Carmel Press, 1998. Vishnatsky, Alter Dov, ed. Megillat Yosef: Tamzit Mitoch Skira Klallit al Dmuto ve-­ Mifalav shel ha-­Boneh ve-­ha-­Manhig R. Yosef Yehoshua Rivlin [Scroll of Yosef: A precis from a general survey of the image and enterprises of the builder and leader R. Yosef Yehoshua Rivlin]. Bound with Midrash Shlomo. Jerusalem: Midrash Shlomo Committee, 1953. ———. Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rabbi Yosha, Avi Binyan ha-­Yishuv be-­Eretz Israel [Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rabbi Yosha, father of the construction of the Yishuv in the Land of Israel]. Jerusalem: self-­published, 1946. ———, ed. Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, Rishon ha-­Bonim [Rabbi Yosef Rivlin, first of the builders]. Jerusalem: self-­published, 1947. Weintraub, Israel Eliyahu. Ha-­Tkufah be-­Se’arat Eliyahu [The era in the storm of Eliyahu]. Beit Shemesh: publisher unknown, 2007. Wilensky, Mordechai. Hasidim u-­Mitnagdim: Le-­Toldot ha-­Pulmus Beineihem [Hasidim and Mitnagdim: On the history of the contention between them]. Vols. A–­B. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Press, 1970. Winograd, Yesha’ayahu. Otzar Sifrei ha-­GRA [Comprehensive bibliography of the GRA]. Jerusalem: Kerem Eliyahu Press, 2003. Yaari, Avraham. Igrot Eretz Israel [Letters from the Land of Israel]. Ramat-­Gan: Massada Press, 1971. Yellin, Yehoshua. Zichronot le-­Ben Yerushalayim [Memoirs of a Jerusalemite]. Jerusalem: family of the author, 1924. Zar, Pnina. Lohamim ba-­Layla: Sippuro shel Orde Wingate [Warriors at night: The story of Orde Wingate]. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi Press, 1971.

Index of Names

Ahad Ha’am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), 168 Ahituv, Yosef, 164, 168 Alkalai, Yehuda Hai, 62, 160, 181 Amsterdam, 44, 107, 196n35 Ari (Yitzhak Ashkenazy Luria), 61 Auerbach, Meir, 82, 85, 86 Aviner, Shlomo, 166–67, 176 Avivi, Yosef, 147, 194n8 Avraham of Kalisk, 2 Avraham, son of the Gaon, 21, 25 Ba’al ha-Tanya, see Shneur Zalman of Liady Ba’al Shem Tov, see Israel Ba’al Shem Tov Balakim, 127 Bardacki, Yeshayahu, 107 Barnai, Yaakov, 57, 193n20 Bartal, Israel, 58–59, 84, 193n21 Baruch (Shik) of Shklov, 150–51, 172, 173, 199n22 Basel, 15 Bek family, 127, 171, 207n36 Ben-Gurion, David, 168 Ben-Tzur, Shmaryahu, 182 Berlin, Naftali Zvi Yehuda, 62 Besht, see Israel Ba’al Shem Tov Burnett, Zerach, 86

Catherine II, 58 Cherikov (Cherykaw), 15, 16 Cohen, Hayyim, 39 Cohen-Reis, Ephraim, 92 Constantinople, 108, 112, 113 Cyrus, 18, 50, 62, 148 Dadon, Yitzhak, 170, 207n29 Damascus, 186 David ben Shimon, 91 Dnieper (river), 16 Efrat, Dov, 77 Eisenstein, Avraham, 38 Eliasberg, Mordechai, 62 Eliav, Mordechai, 50–51, 197n42 Even Israel, 88, 131, 132 Frenkel, Ludwig August, 5 Friedlander, Hayyim, 145 Frumkin, Aryeh Leib, 29, 40, 185, 190n6 Fürth, 52 Galilee, 2, 64, 111, 125, 143 Gelber, Michael, 58 Graetz, Zvi, 158 Grayevsky, Pinchas, 202n28 217

218

Index of Names

Grigert, Nathan, 86 Gush Katif, 169 Gutman, David, 86 Hacohen, Shear Yashuv, 208n63 Hafetz Hayyim, 167 Halevi, Yehuda, 71 Halevy, Eliezer, 112 Halevy, Shoshana, 197n59 Hamburg, Wolf, 52 Harlap, Yaakov Moshe, 138–39 Hayyim of Volozhin, 4, 21, 22, 25, 107, 144, 171, 173 Hazan, Hayyim David, 85 Hebron, 5, 77, 78, 83 Hershkovitz, Yitzhak, 63–67 Herzl, Theodor, 1, 15, 59, 157, 168 Hillel of Kovno, 53, 58 Horowitz (Lieder), Shimon Zvi, 133–36 Hurwitz, Elazar, 124, 140, 146–47, 204n16 Ibrahim Pasha, 64, 196n37 Idelson, Avraham Zvi, 156, 185 Israel Ba’al Shem Tov (Besht), 7, 36, 76, 88, 104, 118, 130, 168 Israel of Polotsk, 2 Israel (ben Shmuel) of Shklov, 4, 25, 29, 31–33, 44, 55, 60, 107, 144, 171, 173, 179, 199n22 Jaffa, 83, 114 Jericho, 83, 85, 132, 197n42 Jerusalem, 14,19, 30, 76, 83, 86–93, 100–102, 111, 118, 125–128, 148 Jordan Valley, 85–86 Kalisher, Zvi Hirsch, 52, 62, 160, 181 Kasher, Menachem Mendel, 47, 48, 144, 164, 173–77, 203n2 Katz, Hayyim (son of Tuvia, of Pakrai), 31, 33, 34, 36, 173 Kiel, Yehuda, 164–65 Kook, Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen, 137, 138, 169, 170, 207n31 Kook, Zvi Yehuda, 49, 164, 176 Korah, 127 Krumbein, Elyakim, 171–72, 177, 207n38

Leon, Ben-Zion, 85 Levin, Yehoshua Heschel, 22 Liebes, Yehuda, 149, 204n18 Lilienblum, Moshe Leib, 168 London, 44, 92, 158 Luntz, Avraham, 91–92 Luria, David of Bihov, 22, 189n3 Luria, Shmarya, 22, 183 Mahane Israel, 91, 198n66 Mazkeret Moshe, 138, 159, 185 Mea She’arim, 88, 131, 132, 184 Melamed, Baruch Zalman, 167–68 Menachem Mendel of Shklov, 21, 22, 29–32, 34, 41, 44, 45, 56, 57, 60, 87, 144, 171, 173, 199n22 Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, 2 Menachen Mendel of Rimanov, 52 Menashe of Ilya, 55–57, 173 Messiah ben David, 20 Messiah ben Yosef, 13, 18–20, 62, 77, 78, 126–28, 148, 150, 152, 160, 166 Michlin, Hayyim Michal, 39, 45, 132, 136, 137, 159, 191nn3–4 Mishkenot Israel, 131, 132, 138, 184 Mishkenot Sha’ananim, 89, 91, 92, 197n59, 198n64 Mohilev (Mogilev), 16, 183 Mohilver, Shmuel, 159 Montague, Shmuel (Samuel), 92, 158, 205n16 Montefiore, Moses, 44, 45, 83–86, 89–92, 108, 109, 112–14, 196n26, 197n58, 197n64, 200n23 Montefiore, Yehudit, 84 Morgenstern, Arie, 17, 51–60, 66, 145, 165, 180, 189n26, 192n3, 193nn20–21, 193nn28–29, 193n33, 200n23, 200n33, 203n6, 204n18, 207n32 Moscow, 44 Moshe de Leon, 154, 155, 205n3 Musrara, 88 Nahalat Shiv’a, 88–92, 131, 132, 184, 198n66 Nahman ben Yitzhak, 30 Napoleon Bonaparte, 15, 183

Index of Names Nathansohn, Mordechai, 15, 16, 188n21 Navon, Eliyahu, 91 Neeman, Aryeh Leib, 84 Neta (son of Menachem Mendel of Shklov), 107 Neta (son of Saadia), 107 Netanyahu, Binyamin, 182 Nicholas I, 54, 119 Notkin, Neta, 150, 151 Parush, Menachem, 71 Petah Tikva, 82, 83, 86, 93, 143, 159, 184, 204n24 Pines, Yechiel Michal, 81, 131, 132, 196n27 Pinsker, Yehuda Leib, 168 Ponivezh (Yeshiva), 145 Rama (north of Jerusalem), 44 RamHal (Moshe Hayyim Luzzato), 61 Ratser, Hayyim, 195n12 Reines, Yitzhak Yaakov, 191n15 Rivlin, Asher, 91, 92, 152 Rivlin, Binyamin, 183 Rivlin, Avraham Binyamin (the son of Moshe Magid), 99 Rivlin, (Riveles) Binyamin of Shklov, 6, 11–17, 21, 22, 43, 44, 48, 51, 68, 99, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 118, 125, 143, 146, 150, 151, 171, 173, 188n21,188n23, 189n23, 192n3, 201n8 Rivlin, Binyamin of Talinn (grandson of Moshe Maggid), 200n30 Rivlin, Binyamin (son of Eliezer Rivlin), 189n26 Rivlin, David, 123, 124, 139 Rivlin, Eliezer, 40, 41, 45, 146, 200n29 Rivlin, Hadasa, 157 Rivlin, Hayyim Hillel, 188n3 Rivlin, Hillel of Shklov, 6, 12–14, 17, 18, 20–24, 39, 41, 43–45, 48, 51, 66, 68, 69, 87, 97–99, 106, 108, 110, 111, 118, 125, 144–46, 149, 150, 155, 161, 171, 176, 180, 189n26, 191n3, 191n17, 193n28, 201n37, 202n17 Rivlin, Moshe (grandson of Moshe Maggid), 120 Rivlin, Moshe Maggid of Shklov, 40 ,46, 66, 68, 88, 92, 97, 99, 106–120, 125, 131,

219

143, 145, 146, 149, 150, 198n5, 199n6, 200n23, 200n33, 203n6 Rivlin, Reuven (father of Yosef Yoel), 155 Rivlin, Reuven (Ruvi), 1, 182 Rivlin, Shmuel, 152 Rivlin, Yitzhak Isaac (son of Moshe Maggid), 107, 115, 116, 200n30 Rivlin, Yitzhak Zvi, 42–46, 68–71, 97, 120, 122, 139, 144, 146, 150, 157, 191n17, 194n10, 195n12, 201n3, 204n24 Rivlin, Yosef (grandson of Shlomo Zalman), 123, 124, 139, 201n8 Rivlin, Yosef Yoel, 71, 89, 90, 92, 155, 157, 201n8 Rivlin, Yosef Yosha, 38–40, 45, 66, 67, 75, 81–83, 86, 89, 90, 92–94, 98–101, 106, 121–34, 136–40, 143, 146, 149, 150, 159, 162, 170, 188n3, 189n2, 196n27, 197n56, 201n5, 203n7, 205n23 Rivlin, Zalman Chaim, 120 Rothschild, Asher Anshel, 52 Rothschild, family, 114, 197n58 Rozenthal, Yitzhak, 91 Russian compound, 88 Saadia (disciple of the Gaon), 21, 31, 33, 107, 171, 173 Safed, 2, 4, 5, 30–33, 36, 39, 44, 107, 111, 129 Salant, Benjamin Binoche, 85 Salant, Shmuel, 82, 85, 86, 112, 196n42, 197n42 Salomon, Yoel Moshe, 85, 86, 92 Samuel, prophet, 41 Shaarei Zedek, 184 Shabbetai Zvi, 52, 53, 149 Shik, Baruch, see Baruch of Shklov Shilo, Avigdor, 176 Shimon bar Yochai, 154 Shklov, 6, 11–14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 43, 50, 51, 97, 98, 106–109, 111, 115, 118, 119, 125, 143, 145, 150, 160, 184, 191n12, 200n30, 202n17 Shlomo of Vilkomir, 21 Shlomo Zalman of Volozhin, 21 Shneor Zalman of Liady, 3, 76, 78, 88, 104, 118, 150

220

Index of Names

Shuchat, Raphael, 59–63, 66, 145, 152, 176, 180, 193n33, 203nn7–8, 204n18, 207n32 Simcha Bunim of Shklov, 21 Sinai, Elyakim, 52 Slonim, Shneur, 77 Sofer, Moshe, 52 Stampfer, Yehoshua, 86 Sternbuch, Moshe, 173–76, 208n50 Tcherikov, 188n18 Tiberias, 2, 5 Tikotzynsky, Yechiel Michal, 132 Tulachin, 41, 184 Tura, Yehuda, 90, 197n58 Tzipori, Ilan, 171, 207n33 Tzoref, Mordechai, 84 Tzoref, Shlomo Zalman, 107 Ustye, 15, 183, 188n18 Vilna, 13, 21, 22, 50, 77, 107, 111, 115, 192n5

Vishnatsky, Alter Dov, 162, 197n56 Volozhin, 41, 108, 184 Weizmann, Chaim, 59, 168 Wexler, Moshe Zvi, 171 Wingate, Orde, 81 Yaari, Avraham, 191n12 Yehoshua bin Nun, 101 Yehuda he-Hasid (Hurva), 30, 37, 40, 44, 87, 125, 139 Yehuda Leib, son of the Gaon of Vilna, 21, 25 Yellin, David, 131, 132 Yellin, Yehuda, 85 Yitzhak of Acre, 154 Yitzhak of Volozhin, 107 Zeitlin, Yehoshua, 11, 15, 16, 150, 151, 172, 173, 183, 188n18 Zichron Tuvia, 184 Zilberman, Ytzhak Shlomo, 145

STANFORD STUDIES IN JEWISH HISTORY AND CULTURE David Biale and Sarah Abrevaya Stein, Editors Th is series features novel approaches to examining the Jewish past in the form of innovative work that brings the field into productive dialogue with the newest scholarly concepts and methods. Open to a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, from history to cultural studies, this series publishes exceptional scholarship balanced by an accessible tone, illustrating histories of difference and addressing issues of current urgency. Books in this list push the boundaries of Jewish Studies and speak compellingly to a wide audience of scholars and students. Susan Rubin Suleiman, Daughter of History: Traces of an Immigrant Girlhood 2023 Sandra Fox, The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America 2023 David Biale, Jewish Culture Between Canon and Heresy 2023 Alan Verskin, Diary of a Black Jewish Messiah: The Sixteenth-Century Journey of David Reubeni through Africa, the Middle East, and Europe 2023 Aomar Boum, Illustrated by Nadjib Berber, Undesirables: A Holocaust Journey to North Africa 2023 Dina Porat, Nakam: The Holocaust Survivors Who Sought Full-Scale Revenge 2023 Christian Bailey, German Jews in Love: A History 2023 Matthias B. Lehmann, The Baron: Maurice de Hirsch and the Jewish Nineteenth Century 2022 Liora R. Halperin, The Oldest Guard: Forging the Zionist Settler Past 2021 Samuel J. Spinner, Jewish Primitivism 2021 Sonia Gollance, It Could Lead to Dancing: Mixed-Sex Dancing and Jewish Modernity 2021

Julia Elsky, Writing Occupation: Jewish Émigré Voices in Wartime France 2020 Alma Rachel Heckman, The Sultan’s Communists: Moroccan Jews and the Politics of Belonging 2020 Golan Y. Moskowitz, Wild Visionary: Maurice Sendak in Queer Jewish Context 2020 Devi Mays, Forging Ties, Forging Passports: Migration and the Modern Sephardi Diaspora 2020 Clémence Boulouque, Another Modernity: Elia Benamozegh’s Jewish Universalism 2020 Dalia Kandiyoti, The Converso’s Return: Conversion and Sephardi History in Contemporary Literature and Culture 2020 Natan M. Meir, Stepchildren of the Shtetl: The Destitute, Disabled, and Mad of Jewish Eastern Europe, 1800-1939 2020 Marc Volovici, German as a Jewish Problem: The Language Politics of Jewish Nationalism 2020 Dina Danon, The Jews of Ottoman Izmir: A Modern History 2019 Omri Asscher, Reading Israel, Reading America: The Politics of Translation between Jews 2019 Yael Zerubavel, Desert in the Promised Land 2018 Sunny S. Yudkoff, Tubercular Capital: Illness and the Conditions of Modern Jewish Writing 2018 Sarah Wobick-Segev, Homes Away from Home: Jewish Belonging in Twentieth-Century Paris, Berlin, and St. Petersburg 2018

For a complete listing of titles in this series, visit the Stanford University Press website, www.sup.org.