Rationalism, Romanticism,
Rabbis and Rebbes
Inauwral kccure of
DR.ALMW NADLER
Director of Resmh.
Y IVO Inslimre for Jewish Research
YNO Institute for Jewish Research
New YorE;.1 992
Introduction by Leon Wieselticr
1 \ i l l begin with a poem, then pmceed ro a fm-dtural and hislori a l propitims broached by rhe pmm. and then prorsed to zhe
pmisc of our lsct umr.
The Poem is by lrsik Fcfcr:
John Hol!ander has ably transla~cdFcfcrasPoem i n this \<.a!:
Capyrighl Q 1992. by ).c 17VO lnsotute far Jewish R-arrh.
J048 F i A~mu:, New York. VY lW
Prhrrd in rhc LirifedStd~~i
of AmEr~co
k.
In A1 my rho= hapm Id:. l'rc nebser
%tn MLoot rorg~ltcnrhc uav 1 c a m e
1 Laugh lo myself ahen 1 rmenlrer
Tbsl 1 cam mmc kmous ?ahbj's r m c .
Thc n m l : k k . my pmdl'atbcr wanted Cor mc
Was thc Hcly Rcb lr~ildof Sk\.ira's.
T h r 1 might lay $a: and wcaf 3 u!u
And do my singing of pmyers azd Zrirfi.
T I ~1Lmight bc h e ricbut man in [OUR
A n d m) wifc*s h o e k ~ p l n ke
g the best.
So da)m$ and ru@ugave m y LO each a d a .
And ach y s r camc !o follow thc rat
Tbc sun has b1-y
bronzed my body.
My Iik is all batdes and f6nm of fame
i t r a l l y hicaks mr up to rmembcr
Tkal 1 c a y nsorrc ramo-lr rabbi's name.
I have brought chis particular lext to Allan Nadlcr's ltclure for IW
reasons The f i r is anecdotal. It i s that thz grcal figure in whose
shadow h e p e t iayghs, or rather groans and laughs, the mbbi whose
tmchim fi11 him with a robust feeling of h n y , Ibe "Holy Reb
[tsikl' who has irnprintcd hmself on lhc \-e? uwabbinic consciousness of rhe poet was a rabbi tiom Chernobyl by the name ofYitzhab
Twzrsky. Maoy yea- laier, in another center of Jmish learning
anorber Y iwbk T w m k y alsa c a s ~a shsdou4upon men who remain
a m u d by rhc magnitude and lhc oddity of ~ b c i dc'br
r
to him. One
o f tbme men is our lecrurer, and another of them is the man --ha
has t h e g e a r privilege of iovodvcing our laclurer to you. The scars
of4'Reb Itrikt" continue to btsr unexpecred and delicious fnril.
h1)- sccund rmon ror addacing Fcfcr's poem is more subs~acrrial.
The gocm seems to mc rcrn2rkable irr 11s glad and gracious mbcrcorning of rhe internecine bineness b a t chamclerked the Russian Jwis&cornmudicy of its time, in its nantrd feeling of m t b toward a
lwcv bv- whish rbe poet no longcr lives. in the depth of its affixtion
For what ir has rejcacd. Fefcr. rc~cmber,was on& of r he g a l antag
onisis o f the religious tradition in Modcro Yiddish Iiierarure. H e w s
a devour communist, a leading reprcmtative of 'So\~et Culture" id
Yiddish - none of which incidentally, sdvcd h m Tmm the Soviet
execlurioncr in A u g u s ~1 932.
One o f tbc most striking characlerislics of Jewish cullurc of h l em Europe iP rbe baunred years tbar concluded wiih the win hkurbns
of N a i s m and Communism was, I think rbe mamirude o f its
aggression agansl itself. AU of rbc great idalagier. a!] of the great
allempu a1 the transformation of Jewish fate - socialism, Ziaaism,
#
religious refom assimilarion. even irJlmigrzlioa - urnere partly or
wholly sdf-immolations, l o w aud p h f i d and sometimes c m l cxcrcisg i n an m u r e of the tradition, particularly the religious tradition, by the sons and dzughters of the tradition thmelvos. T'bcre
were, of course, p o w d l m n s for rhe u n l d n g of rbese snetgics
within. S d l , 1t is imponant to realize tha~thcse rtiroluti6ns had a
bcanbreaking quality of elf-impoverishmcnl and sclfdcpleuon.
Now we are at the end of this ceatury of feuds; or at least we
should declare ourselks to be at tbe 2nd This is not the l a s t
because hisrary has k e n exwrnel y unkind ro the ammilies who
fought Lhese feuds, Whilc the leauswcrc busy eliminatiag pans o i
their pat rirnony. thcir enernin were bus? eliminating tbe Jews rhemgives. And they, 1 mean our enernifi. did heir work v q we[]- Tbe
g a t Jv
&at escaped the ph>tsical cunsequeaeiw of rhc d e s r n r ~
uon Ammican Jcwry mna~nlydid not escape irs c u l r d o o w quences. We are i n no position at this late daic to continue lhe work
o f rejection and repudialion. O ~ i n gto our dun eft%and owing
to the elTom of our enemies. we ha1.e been lefi bereft of t m maay
of the resources o f our spitirual and culrural development
Tbc icnpuJse in FcIcr's pocm t b a ~1 find so hooorable is thc
impulse of reconciliarion. the sympathy ~ h aisl Iarge enough to mnLain the c o n d c t i o n s . and some of h e most painful cuntrsdictions.
of Jewish idenlits. And il is &rattly this imp& that I m i z e in
YlVO's cnlis~mcotof Allan Nadler as Rcscarcb Director, and Ln Lhc
theme of U a n Nadlefs lecture ionifit.
.41h Nadler is ooe oFrhe lucky bur suenuous ones of his add my
genemiion, rhe generatian h t has fallen heir LO the 105% who have
shown b y example bow t o r e ~ c i v crbc rradition uithout m i \ l i n g its
feuds. His knowledge oTRabbinic Judaism, of Eastern Europc's oarm t i \ = ecommuniy, of wbar Fefer might have called 'aclually exining Judaism". was the e n w of all of w who studied aith hurr morr
tban a decade ago a1 Hanard under -Reb ltsikla Twtrsky. I have
countcd myself for many y ~ ~not
i ronly
~ as his friend. but alsa as his
-
srudenr.
-
Still. his extraordinay leaning is not precixly Alan Nadlcr's distinction, For what happened io his case i s that the trove of the tradi-
rlon fell inro an unrradirional mind; into a mordaar skeptical, ribald
mind In a ward. into an e=nlially Yiddish mind Nadtcr is &c
unusual rcprrsc~raiivcof a vcq- rich coUision; [hat is lo say, hc is a
ieprseniatjvt of a kirld of reconciliarion.
But not of an empty reconciliation. do no1 mean to say that all
tlre qucvrions are gone and all tbe ansu1mhave b m given. ?.hat
c\-cry~hjngJLW ish is as t-aluablt as c v q other Jnvhh Wrlg h r we
should all become consumers o f our pas1 or pasticheurs of ow own
identip. Obviously philsophjrral and political difk-enm will
remain. and the same stadud of intellectua) and political rigbur
should kc applied to the all. Bur tension i s a f i e , nutrilidm thmp,
It is the condition of rwl atation. A n p a y , ii was o m jdcological
forefa~bers.no1 ulc, who found tcnsion jrnpossibit. 10 bear. We must
n o t It t hmfore dwz, me uncommon satisfac~ionto introduce wbst
hi1 cerlaialy be a truly inaugural disc.ussion of thc tensions in East
Eumptan S~H-ish
lctrccs pro\10kcd by basidism. by a scholar who bas
managed ra rransform tension inro a;l innrumeot or knowledge
Dr. Alan Nadler.
-
-
Rationalism, Romanticism,
Rabbis and Rebbes
Inaugural Lecture of Dr, Allan
L.Nadler
Director of Research, Y IVO Institute for
Jewish Resarch
Feb. 6th 1992
This evening we sbaU explore a major mntroversy which
took place among the leading Jewish lilerar). and intcllcctual
figutes of Eastcm Ewopc a[ rbe turn of thc twntieth cenruql.
The question which ignited this controversy was, put most
simply, whar i s modem. enligbrensd J e w y to make of
Haddisrn ? what is its authentic m e s q e . historical significance and c m n r relevance ? Whar. if any, are rhe ments of
Hasidisrn when contrasted lo rhe Rabbinic Judaism which it
came ro challenge. and to the enlightenment which i t so forcefully reusred 7 .md.most peninenrly, was Hasidism a progressive force which helped pave rhe way for ~e Iiberarion of thc
Jcwisb na~ionfrom rhe ghet ro ? Did Hasidism contribute r heologjc-i[ly to the modernization of Judaism, or socially to the
emancipation o f rhe Jewish people ? Or was it. quite rhe contrary, a regressive, superstitious, m i - m i o n a l and thoroughly
anti-modem r n o v m e n r w bich served only to reinforce ~ h c
ghe~towalls and to keep the Jews all the more isohred from
the wider European society ?
These questions fomented a protracred dcbate among many
of the leading Hebrew and Yiddish intellecsuals and literary
figures of Easrern Europe a1 rhe very beginning ofrhis century.
That dcbare was canrinued well pasr the middle of the cenluqP
in thc Form of the rmolls euchanga on Hasidism betwvecn
hlanin B u b ~ rand Gershom Scholern.1
To rhis v e day,
~ the confusion over the m e nature and historical impact of Hasidism bas still not been definhively
rmJilcd. It is true rhat almost no scrious oontcmporary hislorian gives credence to Buber's in~erpretationor Hasidism. A
good illustration of rhis is the fact that in the article by Y w f
D m on Hasidism which appeared in the EncycIupdia ojR$rgion
(flew4 York. 1987), h c only refcrcnce to Buber's prolific work
on rhe subject is limited 10 a seaion enritlcd 'misconceprions
abour Hasidism". Ne\rertheless there are srill scholars. such as
Storen Kepnes2 and Laurence Silberstein3 who today rise to
dcfend he legitimare place o f what they now call Bubm's
'hermcneut ical' exposition of Hasidism.
The continuing dispule over ihe historical significance and
c o r n ( ~urerpretationof Hasidism notwirhuanding, there ate
c a i n basics upon which almost aJl Jewish scholars today
agrcc. Whet her viewed as pmgccssive or ~'gressive,the em-gence of the hasidic movement was one of ihe grcal spirirual
re\rolurionsin the hislory of Judaism. Wasidism suddenly and
radically shined the emphasis of Jewish relgous life from
'
B u W s cosl u n p o m r sralcrncnt on lhc n$pificaoct or Hasidism u
Jiaw?km wd .~fdm
hfm I'Nw York. I OS8h and Schol~m'sdelia:.jvc aitiquc of
B u k r ' s rnlaprc:azion of Hcsidua is his essay. 'Slarm B&r's lnkrpnwtion
~THar~dism".
Cs.w.-nmtar ?2(196 1). r c - p n n d in Schoic~'ab ~ kTkA!i:'l,r:r:?
,
I d s i n J d & ~W;Y. YO& 1471). p p 2 7 - 2 5 0 .
2 Soc SInw. D. K C P ~ U"A H ~ C C S C L Aoprnsh
IC
:O !!kc Bilb~r.SChd)cm
COOCTO:.L'X,~~'".~I~
rc=; c-G<u.i4 S d i t i . fro!. 38 (1 S
E'). R: 'Bub:;
a, n Hmmcvl:
Rclo1:ons Lo Dtirhe)' and Gadrmcr", hkrr9.d T~G!,IS!CO!
IL-..*_:w,V d SI !1988).
3 See L a m c c J. Sitbemein. . ~ ~ r t Buirr.3
in
Socia: crid RtiiEicw<-rjl~;~$;:
fXer8
Yo& 1987). & -Modes of Disrourac in h i d m Jlrdzlsm: %c Buba-S:ide-n
D e b l c Recornid&',
Sown&n-~. 1'01. 71 (198%).
.
saber schalatship 10 an impassioned spiriluality. At the plnnacle of the hierarchy of Judaism's reLigious values Hasidism
replaced the detached and unemotional nudy o f Torah with
jolful p q e r and enthusiastic mystical cornmudim with the
Divine, througb it5 popularized lechniques for h t k l r r k , or mi0
~ n y s t i c ~Hasidism
.
supplaotcd rhc pcsshhric a d m l i c dualism of medieval Judaism with a mystical monism which
instructed tbat God can be f o u ~ din. and sewed thmugh. the
material universe. The hasidic manem insisted &at God can
also bt discoverd oulside of the B ~ MedraR,
J
or Rabbinic
nudy-hall, and thal holiness need not be a~tainedonly through
the m m i d ' s , the diligent Rabbinical mdent's, quarantined life
of study. contempla~or,and self denial. God's immanence
must be discovered in rhe fullness of human experienceHasidism rtjecled the momsc mcdicval conception of man as
a hopelessly divided and spiritually alienated being by insisting on ibe hannony of body and soul, and by joyously f i r m ing thc intimacy with h o b m which is available LO ever?. man.
Hasidism taught rhar the corruptible malerial unh-ersc was
merely' an appari~ion,a veil delikmtely masking the divine,
and challenging man to penetrate it. I t instructed that dl physical d i r y was bur an illusion of the senses, merely eclipsing
the omnipresence of Gad from our perception.
It was espccjally in thcsc farum af tad!: hasidic thought
that Buber and the neehasidic mmanlicists who prtceded him
perceived an snlightelned aestbelic and uniwxsal spirit in
Hasidism. The movement's immanentism md panicularly its
panemheistic idcntifica~ionof G6d with creation was misinterpreted and misappropriared by ihem to signifl a worldliness
and an incipient modernity in Hasidism nlhich were simply
nor there. For, as Scbolern bas correclly noled these mystical
doctrines actually connote the very opposite - namely a rnysrid denial of rhe signifiance far the spiritual man of the temporal, physical world
The emergence o f [his revolutionary spiri~ua!moverncni.
and particularly irs separation from tbe es~ablishedJenrisb
community and tbe inhcren~challeqgc ro irs religious aurhorilies, gave t~sc.in Lbc last dcmdes of the eighteenth oentury, lo
one of the rnosi painful and divisive conflicts in all of Jewish
histar?;-$ The Rabbinic war on Hasidism waged by the
mrunugdi~xreachd its peak with the farnous kcrzm, or letter o l
excommuaication, of R. Elijab, the Gaon o i V i b of 1796, in
which he condemned Hasidisrn as a paniheisric hcr6y.s Thc
hasidirn wem henceforth oficially banned. their dirribclrk h, or
s d l prayer houses, deemed lo be remples of idolatry. their
d : ~ h : ~A,i l ~or ritual animal slaughter, proclaimed unkosher, and
1heir daughters forbidden.
Yet,despire its inrensity in the last ycars of (he erateenth
enturv, Ihe rabbinic rage againsr Hasidism w a s rather quickly
spenl; within a genem~ioa.rbe bans were almost universally
ignored.‘ For a new and far more menacing speclre was now
haunting the ~raditional ~ r l d
of East Europead Rabbinic
Judaism - the hkdlt?o r Jeulsh enlightenment. The spread of
* M ~ r d e c h g i\Vilms;y. the editor sf ;LC mosr irn~orlanrrclk~t~on
of prim-,
H c b r w arid k':dd:sh lr\'.s ef ~ h c HE^-!!kc opwsLr:cr. tc ! ~ ~ d k r rHu;Lim
..
~ & f i t k a ~ J i m2
. wi&.~'Jeruzalcm.
I $71)I. is also rhe a:;t hor o i a g6rd. gcncral
English midt absrrar-:kg 15e basic sul>smnm oi tht massiw ear:, nhhw&c
polcmid literatux. ''II;rs1d1c-31it~a~djc
Pnlc.rn1~5in Lhc Jewish Corn?i~!;,rkits of LISI- E u s w Th:: Hosslc Phrse'. k jrchw~crra d ?,ffirCrncr* ~ . P C , ' ! ( L ~
D k c r :r: .&&m
h r c ' p , cd. 8th K. h t d j (New l'btk !g?j). Samuel Drcsw's
a-tide. 'Hasidism and irs Opponmis~.in G:w: S L Z ; ? ~ :ri-!eOLi:i:
;
H d o y . ed. R
Jcispc & S. W~lgr~cr
iI>Lcni.l'r. 1 4 6 1 ) displcr!~2 dti~e"C[~pro-basidic pcrsp~Ljrme
in i~ prtsmla~ionof some of Ihc theobgid issues which ori@nall! divided
milhaagdlrn from ha5iC:ra For J &ai!d a ~ ! ! ~ s i~i f. r h 4 itn u a stc my Ibmwrni~g
bock. ,iRr.'<i?:l:.;fLimi:.r Tk: i;-~:k cf::rr
.'.frrnrngdjeFeu. York: Y&im
L. 1993 1.
' The k x l o f ihr s Hcrern I:as brcn ioirodumd, rtgtiatd anC mmutcd by
blon.bxl:a~ W Uilcskh. Hesidirr. -1-!4!~9n&gEirn.VGI- I,pp 187a 19C.
6 On Ih ~ simnsiiioo tw,::ds
peaccfcll coexisic:t :c bc.t~tccokis~itm end
misr?a&irn see the m y by S o m a n h m m . T k e Yhac OF Dalogue azd Reconl-.1;:31:r12', in T&adur drd' ?hic.!wa~
9,j'Krhg::-w Urrc&cl iti &a-rnFwqcqcmi.
Bela K. K i d y (New Yo* 1975).
the Iwkdle to Eastern Europc in the ~%rlydecades of thc ninereenrb century was deemed so dangerous and considered so
subversive a rhrea~ to Rabbinic Judaism [hat i t managed
m~bzr quickly 10 !random hasidirn and misnagdim from mortal enemies to taoical allies. in a new, jointly wagled battle
between the forces of lrad ition and modernit>-.'
But while the Rabbinic aar on Hasidisrn was, in the coufie
of the nineteenth century, rapidly eclipsed by lhis u ~ i f i e dreligi0u5 resistance to rhe bask&,
a major conl7rontation about
Hasidisrn emccgcd witbin enlightened Jewish chlcs almost a
full century later. Rather ~hana war between the panies themselves, this was a slruggle among the liberal Jewish hisrorians,
essayisrs and intellactuals of late imperial Russia elver rhe true
mcaning and legacy of Hasidism.
T h i s twentieth ctntury reincarnation or thc hasidi~
misnagdic controversy was then a feud among historians and
inrellectuals, noz Rabbis. They argued over whether it mas rhe
hasidim or the misnagdim who wert rhe spiritual f o r b m r s of
the Jcwisb passage fmm the reslrictivc l i f t of Ihe gbelto
towards greater spiritual freedom and national autonomy ? Is
today's modern Jew, they upondered,he spiritual child of the
Baal Sbem Tov or oftbe Vilnm Gaon? fbe conflicting answers
ro his basic quarion gave rise to scores of romantic essays.
polemical anicles. neo-basidic short srories and poems which
fdled the pages of tbc enligh~enedEastern European Jervlsb
press in &e earl:, years of his century. In fm, during the first
decade of tbe twentieth cenrury, hardly a single issue of such
enlightenrncnt and Zionist publicalioas as !f~-ohm,
HeSl;ilocdr, and H c - ~ t i ddid nor contain several anicles tach
devoted to the 'Hasidic Problem", mosrly wilten by national--.
'
--
The boi sin& \ria& an rhe w-ar W e n h ~ i and
h ~ hb
c ~ . k o is
k Raph
at! M a l e . Hrc.~Aisrna d &uJc~~i,b
,'ici;~klcnmrn!: T j ~ t i r~~L,'~JI:(LL--~*I
k CpIctia d d
Pabe; w ~-bj:;.A-t.gf rbt Kn;c;em~h&wy.
[Ptiladclphia, 19SSI.
kranslatd by Eugnc Orrrtrlein
ists whose true ultimare warp w
a
s
, of course, Russia's 'Jmvish
Problem'. The most celebrated Hebrew uvritcrs and essayists
of the day, such as Reuven Brainin, Shrnuel Abba Homdersky,
hloshe Leib Lillienblum Shai Ish Hurwitz, and N c h a Y osef
Berdichevsky, argued pasionaicly on the pages of these
haskolle joumak about the relative merits of Hasidism and
hlisnagdism.
k
t US remrlmber that for most of Ihe preceding century rhe
m d i l l i t h had been unanimous in their uncompmrnising hosLility to Hasidism. VirtuaIl y wirhollt exception, h e y pcrccived
the hasidirn to be zhe rnonal enemies of tdightenment. as caricatures of all that was most offensive and unenlightened in
rhc mwlieval J~wiiihcivilization to which h e y mugbz, in the
rather lafamous words of Morirt Srei ndschneider, to give a
decent burial.
The non-rational nature of Hasidic rn)rsticism, its denial o f
mhry to rbe world, tbc superstitious behaliour and bizarre
rituals of rhe hasidim, and cspccially their slavish devodon to
the Rebbe - all of these were viewed by tbe m;lctilim as the
very antithesis of reason, and as a perilous obstacle to the
social and intellectma1 progress, as well as the amhetic refinernc~tor rhe Jcwc; to which thc haskdle %as so singularly dedicated.
Just as I he Rabbinic polemics and r he writs of exmrnmuaication of he Vilna Gaon and his f ~ l l o ~ ~were
m s dissipating.
tbc! were being replaced by rhe biting an~i-hasidicsatires of
enlighrenrrrent writers much as Joseph Pwl, Isaac Enm, Abraham D o v Gottlobet. Tsaac Baer Levinsohn and Shlomo
Yehuda Rappapon (Shir)."
*
For an excellrnl c~m-viea-or the a-ritimgs of t h e Htbrrwr lilmq riguw
m d ~bcirzari-basids w r i t i w ,
brat! Zinbcrg. A H i c q 9'1cvr~k Liw~u.74
tramla~cdby Bemafd blariio. (Cirremnlti. 1972-78). V d s , 9-1 0, Thc English
vtraion 01Zinbq's work is rupplanrnted wrtr a \ t r y helpful bbiblibgz~h:~by
winslator B. hbnin.
For m a t of the ninctcenth cenlury, tbere were precious fcw
who dissented from the haskolle's ulter disdain for Hasidism.
And those who dared ro express any appreciation for ils spiritual message, such as the Galician maskit, Yaakov Shmuel Bik
(1772-1831) WIT roundly condemned and disassocia~cdby
their conrernporaries.
The firs1 haskolle wri~erto challenge seriously this uncompromising hostility towards Hasidim was the enlightened Talmudic scholar, Eliezr Z ~ e i f f e lIn
. ~ his rambling, four-volume
defense of Hasidism, Sltdl~mAI Y h e l ( 1 868- 1 8?3), Zwciffel
endeavoured to dcrnonstra~cthat rhere w a s merit, s p i r i t 4
depth and cvrn beau~yto be found in many of Hasidism's doctrines, and that here wras consequently no sense in waging an
all out war an the haddim- S1:dom -41 YkrarJ is panicularly significant in that it w;rs rcally 15.leFirst ~ o r kin modem Jc~isb
literature to make rhe argument for a pluralistic perspeai1.c
on deuish life. Zit-eiffel insisted hat the teachings of the Gaon
of Vilna, thc Baal Shern Tov and MOD Mendelsobn, if
appreciated in rhe proper historical and social con text, aU had
merit. Rather than viewing thc movemenis which they generated as mutually exclusive. Zweifell implored his readers to
appreciate that Hasidirm and rh Haskcllc could each thrive side
bv side, and conuibutc, in complemenrary fashion, to the spkitual and social progress of the Jeuish puoplt.
Zwveifkl did not h m e r limir himself to pleading for tolerance of the h a s i b and for pluralism in Jewish life. He was
also thc firs1 to sugges~ at tbere was ac.tually to be found in
Hasidism's mystical doctrines the kemcls of tnc Jmish
enlightenment. Zaeiffel argued that Hasidism's radical all+
marion of the immaaente of God in the material univewz
helped pave the way for the secular immanentism of the
9 On Zwcipcl 2nd his magnum o p u set the invsduct~on
r6 his c r i u d mn6
wrad adi~ionof S h k .41 Y w d by A h &
Rubmsbm (Jmsdm.1412)pp. 7-33.
Ediplltenmeat. Zw~iflelplawd Hasidism tlirbin the tradition
of Spinoza's pantheism and he mainuined that, like Spin*
ism, Hasidism had helped ro break d m n tbe Rabbinic \wlI
which h~rhenohad kept rhe Jews isolated from the natural
worId and from modernity. Though Zweiffcl then eamesdy
tried to remain true 10 Lhe title 01 h i 5 work, Skalom Al Y G : ~ ,
by finding merit in all o f rhe factions of Judaism o f his day, it
is c.leat t bat he viewed Hasidism as an lrnprovernen~over the
arid and cLitis1 Rabbinism which it had come lo challmgt, So.
for csamplc, afier describing Hasidism's radically mystical
affirmation of divine immanence, Zweiffel comments:
1
I
P
I t was r
k GR4 who first c r c ~ t c dlkr: omniic~.lisc Lhr eye of a needk. for thc
c r i ~ i drcslual slud:; -of c . 5 ~ Tztmud. \sh:c?~t:: a ~ ~ lrcsulicd
h
in Ixl.ay'5 r l r i ol,litera- schohnjip.
I t 1 s :ke GK4. locg k i o Zuzlz
~ and Gmex ~ m r alow
e
-who al!owed himecJftt~m c n C Rzbbin~crc.tis cril:dl!,. And ccminly :kc GK4's c r 5 d ICXILIIL!
insifh~xw r r r far morz su;hori;aiive ~ I i a n(ha* of :he fouaders of \Vissfcs:flaft
dtr J u d c ~ ~ u n ~
The G R A was 3 L r a i l ' b ~in~~ h ?fie12 of Jewish ducztion: he e1irnihNd the
Rgbbinic C ~ S ~ ~ I[p?lpd).
I C S
m d WYLS C ~ Cfir^! i O c ~ w b l ~ zahI+-!
mwgi~al
order CJFstudq wllercby Jmiachild:rn a ~ l ; l dbc-in w i t h Bihlc and Hebrtumm,f ~ l l w t dbv M i s h d . ~ n conly
!
rhcl begin ~ h cstudy d Tzlmud - a
p r o m r/ hich ==%;ztcr c h t m ~ i o a e db! a!: ot'ihc nnikill~rn.I n p n i d a r by
lsaac Bacr Lcr.:nsohn
Who b o w s :I aij of :he hiler's (i.c, fllas'kibm) ctidi?s TO? rhc i r n p m ~ c m ~ t
of Jewish ebuci~ronw u l d h a w d m roDa hed ii no[ bttn for the p i o o m a g
work of tllc GR,A9
3s i l is today. ]:as a c l n r c r undclstandiv of r a t Urc :!un the TBIm~d;c~nimaedismoi the T m h faitkful masss ,a-bo m j ~ all
i .>I
&c j q s a3d
plezsurcs oi iJ:..s ~ r c f l d c b o l :!osc which 3:e ptmtssiblc. . h d i~ IS :a (his
s e w that Hs5id:srn.s w o f i d ~ ~iswlo alipnrnerrt will: rbat of :he nsaslull!m.
Hariclyr?.
-
Tllis ~herncwas! 1wo dccadts ia~cr,l a bc rakrn up by the
hasidic ramantidsrs, such as M Y . Bcrdichevsky. S.A.
Horodeisky and Y.L. Perttz. But in his own day. Z=eiffel
rtmaincd \firtually isolated among the rnaskillim in his preferences for ~ h Btsht
c
and 1h.e hasidim over the Gaon of Vilna
and thc misnagdim, For though rhrrmseives aljcnarrd from the
legalistic rigidity of Rabbinic .Tvdajsm. almosr zll o f the EZTern European maskillirn were more comfortable with the
scholarly and intellectual lwcy of the Gaon of Vilna than h e y
w t r c with nasidism's mysrical picty.
Indeed, many of the early pioneers of the Jewish enligh teomen1 in t h e Easr were fond of viewing the Gaon and the
misilagdirn as genuine precursors of the haskol!c- B e p i n g
wit11 Isnar Bacr Levinsohn's attribution of cnlightcnment tendencies to "koI Itcbaruk kadisha talmidei hc-C;U " (rbc entire holy
assembly of disciples of the vilner Gaon), as he pur i~ in Texiuh
~ L ~ Y ~ Tthe
~ ~Gaon
O .
was deliberately cash by the early
maskilirn, as well as their sympa&eric chroniclers of rbe
W-iwnschafi des Judenturns rnovemeot as, to quote Max Raisin. he originator of the movement' of Jcuish enlighrenmait
in the Easr.I1
In his remarkable anti-hasidic essay. 'Hz-Hasiduth ve-haHa~kaLla,"~~
Shai Ish H u r w i ~ z :ifi
~ ired Ihe fallowing, rather
typical, rnaskillic apprecialion o f the Gaon of Vilna as a precursor of rhe enlighttnment:
1'
I
Set J.S. Raisin. f%c H ~ G Z Ah--r
!~
irl
RN:J: {Phikdclphi;~)91;): Chap-
tm 2. Set ako. for rufihtr cxamp:cs irf ?his rppnissl of :'lie G M 5 rdatiarnr;bip
LO rhe 3,ukmlJe. LH. W
e -Rqs.k.1~1 Zrmihzr* ha-::&la
bc-R-lssia'. Ln
I-~~:+SPII
h b : v Li:j,h>.h:r
?mi-V~!rt&~;,.,i
!.j~..h{i:r,fh
j~--r!-,&f,;cr~,. Val 1- Pka-e!::-r;iL.-kramaLb ~ k o & k . w ~.k&~s
&
zwttr.xn.!. ;LOUU 64537 i t J m sh
R~*ulc.-Tk S1cytk
[email protected] H n v t o 194541 Pp- 11-23.
See tht rt-bje* and mitical evdualion of i b i s Ijteraturc &-llrprrunuel Elks in
hit wa!., ' H & U
V c - ~ - H ~ k a l T:drr.it
a;
u.Mczruth'. La Prrlrhidn disT?itA!l:
L - H m z b ira-Ychdilk E!>rrnci Hd!qr;d;'m r - ~ r - +bh-:ij;:=
s
- ?,frkhJIk !r-Pi+~c>r
Y d d . h me,
( J e w l e r n , 19QO), Pp. 1U2-217.
See also. on &c b e n i n g of b l o l l t smr@
lhc hMinical d:rt Eezlrrn
Ecrropc, lnrtr aliq lsracl K h m e r . Vdrs B!:ck@ J~a-Cgslg p a d ) ; B . 2 btl,
R a k l i ~ t hH ~ l i d d hI Y - H ~ (Trl
W ~A x i - , 1936-5s). k'01.l. PD. 1GO- 14s: VOL 11 Pp.
fcr
;or
L22- 139.
1 2 Hr-A:d, 1909. pp. 29-99.
1) X lhdrWgh study of Hunujz' g~8p
is Stadq i\:&. lr: k r r b 9 6 j ' H b m S h i H w w r c md and hhtmiu crt i!!t H ~ MPrey7
I ~ {Lcidm. 1980).
X?oreovcr. rhc GRA was 2 scientific sckotsr ihc !:?a
of which had not bcsu
seer_ in tsr;nd s i n e ~c days ofrhe grcal Gaonin of Babylcnia a>d Norh X f t i ~
A1 his hchesi. Joslus Zel:lir: cskblisbed bis e n t n for Icwirh srico4JJ~c
xhdarsh~p,..m.d 21 his ccmrnmd did Bzrck\ or Shklov dxidc lo lranr!are E ~ l i into
d
Hebrcw ... A3d ( t ~aU of Lhrs bc IKS ;I s h n q m p l e h r b many d r w ~ p l u
The G K s s:l;dmts came inio :ksc crtntacr w i rhe~ Biblical s c k o ; and
~
pi&
n m s of tht cdighiciuccr.: who ucrc a w m k l t d lo tbos: days ia Bu:ib ucdcr
rhc @ircaiorrof StX ~ ~ n d e l s s o ;in
~ . e jcinr eKon re find sr3y-s in invhic3 to
h p r a v c &e spjniwal conddon md tduca~opof rhz I&
pmp!el"
1
i
I
This idyllic porrrayal o f tbe Gaon of Vilna was. I belime. a
dinm response ta the very unflattering depiction of him by the
ne+hasidic romanticist, Shmuel Abba Horodsrsky, in an article wbicb had appeared in the Hebmw journal, S ~ S h i l less
~k
than two years ~ a r I i c r . But
~ ~ Hunkirz' highly cxa~erated
degic~ionof the Gaon as a ve+irable rnaskil senred merely as
a fail far his smthing atuck on what he calls 'ha-hasidim
ha-hadashim", u:hich is his main [heme. Reponding aqgrily
to ine sympa~hclicrevisionist interpretations of Hasidism
which were ar the time being advanced by the Jes~rhncoromanticists such as Horode.tsky. Berdichevs!q- and Buber,
Wunviu' polcrnic is e l f e e bit as merciless in its rritique of
Hasidisrn as were the class~cal rnisnagdic polemics and
haskolle satires o f the previous two cenruries.
H m n ''Ha-Hasiduth ire-ba-Haskalla" \vas a m a i o n to a
major wend in Jewish lctters at the zurn of ~ century; a sympathetic reappraisal of Hasidisrn irrspired by the influence of
European mmanticism. in panicular the umritingsof Schopenhauer and Nieuche. For Eliezer Zwei Rel's perception of rhe
seeds of enlightenmml in hasidic rheology wzs now being
crxrended by some of
-rest
fin-dc-siklc Hcbrew and
Yiddish romantic writers.
Disillusioned by he early haskollc's alrnosr exclusive
emphasis on reason and undersranding, and disachan ted with
European idealism, rhe 3ev;ish romanticists - many o f them
passionate Zionists - longed to recover the h a t e , primitive
essence of ancient Israel and cIairncd to have found ir in
Hasidism. I n contrast to the watrivcd genius of the Talmudists and the mificialIy imposed legislation of the Rabbis liewzd as the unnatural produc?s of the Jewish exile Hasidism represented, in thc minds of these idealisrs. a
re-birth of the natural, subconscious spbit of the Jews. The primal nalure o f I-Iasidism's religious enthusiasm, and 11s rejacc
tion of the sophisticated, scholarly religion of the Talmudists,
heralded an almost miraculous reincarna~ionof the spirir of
ancient Israel, a rclurn fmm rbe shackits of mile symbalkcd
by the restriaions of Halakha. to Jewish authenucity, and the
W n n i n g oi&e difficult trek back ro E m YisrutiBy far the most enthusiaslic champion. of Hasidism among
the ranks of these Russian Zionist his~oriansand cssayisrs was
Shmuel Abba Horodeuky. X proli Fiq if not perfectly crilid,
b istorian of Jewish mj.sticism. Homdetsky viewed Hasidism
in the larger coarexr of his schematic add bifurcated view of
rhe enlire hisop of Jcwisb spirituali~yfrom Bibliml times
until bis own day, which is most forcefully and systemaucaliy
expressed in his collectiorl of essays en titled Ydkadxlh I i ~ d t k J l t f
w-Yakabitrk ka-Reg~:l;.'~As thiS title s u g g e ~Harocletsky
~~
simplistically artempted to characrerize all uf the various higorical fonns of the Jewish religious experience scbernarically
under wosweepingly broad rubrics
- "sekheP and % p k " ( ~ a -
son and emorion). R ~ e r kconnotes the authent~c,prirnilive
spirituality of tbe Jews; m p k is the true religion of ancieot
Israel; i~ breathes the frcc spiri~of the land of Israel, its proph-
.--
-'
'HE-Hasidutb vcrlrz-Hnslcllla', Heri.2, 1909. p ~ ;
.1-32
r s S.A.
Horodc&y. -&-Gr;l
pp. 358156.
Vc-h-BeJht'. H+SS:kir, VCL 17 (1907). $1 00,
I
I6Td Aviv, JQ47. Of parrimfar rclet-nce to tbc DRSrnl discunion of
llgsidirrn h rbc rial chap~erof HarodcisQfa book. eol~lled-ha-Zaddk'. pp.
1 59- 191.
'+
els and holy men. SrCkb, b~ contrasr, exemplifies the exilic
religion of reason and lau: ir s teflmed in the afiificially
imposed regimen of tbe Talmud: a work which is, as
Horodmky reminds us
ha-pl~~fk'':the product of exilic
banishment and Jewish sclf-alienation, Harocletsky maintains
thar the spirit of ~ a ; ~ d d u tI hJ U - T ~ Psubordinare
S:~:
lhough ir was
to Yakadtirl~ka.~&irdduring rhe long years of Israel's homelessness and Rabbinic domination, never i.aaished entirely. Even
the Talmud - that demrcd "pTi Ii~-$~l?'riii:"renters, in its very
composite rraturc. the constan1 dia!cclical tension belu4ecn
~rizi:~!and rc'gclr.;~.represented in its respcrctive components o f
Irrhkjrc and a ~ a d d k . a d the spirit of r v k managed to sunive
rbe Jzwisi-! dark ages only among zht small and elite circles of
thc kabbalists.
Horodetsky cri~icizes the obsession or 1he Eastern European
Rabbis u i t h Torah scholarship and intellec~ualal~ainrnent,
charaaerizing it as a sad reflec~ionof he dominar~onof Judaism by ~c,i.!:r!.i t was anly rhe revolt against Ra bbinisrn wrought
by ~ h Baal
c
Shern Tov which iniriated the difljcult struggle of
the Jews iinaUy to hberate thcm sell-es from the domination of
~ t k h t and
:
to become emancipalxl from the shackles of gol~llr.
The hasidic masters. about !(-horn Horodcrsky W T ~ SQ
E pmlifia l l y and rcvtrcntly, WCJ-P follotving in the mi tradition of
the prophe~sOC ancient Israei. thc bc!c.i ica-u~~adahand the
kabbalisrs Jn this scheme, Hasidism w s more than merely a
prccumr to thc haskoUe; for h restoring the p r o p s emphasis
io Judaism ra rqerh. UI [urnkg the Jews back 10 thc primal.
natural iairh of their ancienr homeland, Hasidism also marked
the true narting point of modem Jmish nadonalism.
Horodetsky's enthusiasm for Wasidisrn as the mimculous
re-flo~veriogof he naiivc and aurhentic Jewish spiritual genius, exercised him to produce many impressive sludies of
I
I
Hasidism, mosr significan~l~~
his extensive biographical scries
on the great hasidic masters.''
But it was his series of pmvacative m y s in which he not
only championed Hasidisrn as the barb~ngerof a great renaissance of the Jewish national spiriq bur mercilessly criticized
the misnagdim and espcciaJly rheis ltadcr, the Vilaa Gaon, as
blind and archaic reactionaries, which most outraged his cribia, such as Shai Humit2.
In the most idlammat ory of Homdersky 's essays, I he aforernentioncd "HE-Giu ve-!w-BsIr:*. he mntrastixi these two great
men in bold and sharp tcrms, characterizing the Gaan o f Vilna
as a s t ! fish. egotistical scholar \vho remained hemeticall y
sealed in his study and cared n o w for his peol>le. and gave
nothing of himself to *em. His sale concern w a s the advancement OC his own schoiarship. The B s h t by conlrast, though
nor a great scholar. was a trulq great popuiist Icader. who gave
his Life to tbe betterment of his people. and dedicated his wisdom and spiritual insight lo them Ar the wnclusion o f his
respectit-c portraits of the Gaon and ihe Bmhl be evaluated
their true legacy thus:
Hurwitz mponded with outrase. HOW
dare any one minimize rhe centrali~yof scholarship io the spin1 and genius of
the Jeuish people. T h e Jews are, and always have been. the
"am Iu-sPCvD:Lhc people of the book. -4 legacy oi sludy is not
ro be snkercd ar; for scholarship is the defining characteristic
of thc Jcnish nalion, and has. since ancienr time. bmn its Ltue
vocation. X life dedicated to the adh-anccrntnt ofJeuish lcarn-
return ro genuine haskolle, to a lifc guided by rtasan and
xbolarship, rather than the prirnltiw and superstitious mystickm wbich had so enricad ~ h romanricists.
t
ing, such as that of rhe Gaon of Vilna, rcprcsenls thc greatat
possible contribution 10 the adwcernenr of the nazion's
spirit
As for the ''arlaslri~~"
which fie Besbr s u p g o s d y created, far
fmm liberating thc J e w rrom their exilc. the mystical nonsenst u4hichthe Besht inculated in his followrrrs send onIy
to reinforce the ghetto, and ro deepen ~e squalor of wemodern Jewish existence. Hasidism was not: as Horodewky
portrays it. a movl-men1 of f d o m in l-hc form of a rebellion
against Rabbinic law. bur merely a rcbellion against schoIarship. rcsulring frrlally
something far worse than Rabbinic
authorimriani sm: namely, a mindless religious behakjorisrn.AS for Harodctskv's claim that basidirn sup plantcd the
oppressive oligarchy of medieval Rabbinic Judaism with a
kind o f populisr freedom. Huwirz iosists that it i s precisely
Judaism'sveneration of scholarship which consrirutes its rnosr
democratic impulse. Recalling the mtshnah which inslructs
thal a bastard who has bccomc a scholar rakes precedence over
a high priest who has remained an i g n o r a r n ~ .Hurwitz
)~
maintains that in Rabbinic culture any Jew can rise ta the rank of
a T~!~r.id
Hchk~n:.Bat, of c o m e . rhe same carlaot be said of
hasidic culturc; for not every hasid can k o r n e a Rcbbe. 11 is
then Wasidism which is truly elitin, for i t supplants \he open
and democratic world of Rabbinic scbolallship with what
Hunviu colorfully rerms "lur-apifi.or~th ~ - ~ ~ h ~ (the
c & i Jewish
i~
papacv) - namely, ihc subjugation of ihs hasid to ibe contra1
of thc all-powtrful Zaddik, a regal figut ~vhosepower and
prestige are inherited, no1 earned.
H w i u places Homdetsky's courtship of Hasidisrn in the
oanrext of be finde-siMe rcjtx~ionbf the rationalism, characterizing rhe nco-hasidim as decadent rehk against the original
values of the Age of Reason. And he passionarely pleads for a
YU 13 n-ym.' .-,an
7-1 a m bn 11-ny .a5>wfi.l5~U W
nb.
own n? w, ~hl7n1I p . I ~ Nn-n~71r.n
3 wail ?it UZIZ wwil m a
.am f 3 ?non
*.amn.) arn
rm tm
I
I
H d c r s k y responded vigorously to Hurwiu' polernic in an
article publishad that same y a y , which he begins by accusing
Hurwlu of rekindling the flames of hatred which had oncc
raged between rhe hasidirn and mithnagdim in the days o f rhe
&on:
It i s importan( ro note [hat in the courx of supporting his
argument thar Hasidisrn was a regression from modemi t y,
rather iban a tumhg towards it, Hurwltz focused esptcidly on
[he hasidic tales, particularly the Sltivhzi ~ - B u ~ uUsing
.
the
fantaslic hasidic Ir.gcnds oi 1he Bcshl's mirzculous powers ro
demonstrate rbe fundamental irrationality of Hasidism and in
order to hold its naive true believsrs up to ridicule. Humitz
oomplctely rejected the suggrstian ha^ Hasidism is anyrhhg
less than a torai rtgrssion to tbe darkcsr moments of the middle ages. Horodersky. oil thc other hand, like Zweiffel before
him, depended primarily an the pailenrheistic doctrines found
in the beoretical writings of early Hasidism, such as To!cd?:lr
YCC~J
Y093j
Y ZB/Mlh Pdf:t?ai;l, :Waggid Dmrav It-Yadkov add
\
I
Z a r r d ~ ~ HQ-R:~JZ~,
h
In order lo suppon bis appreciation of
Hasidism- Of course, in Lhc case of thc l a w dispute over
Hasidism bctwcun Scholem and Bubtr: we w l l n m fhe vtry
0ppOSil~phenomenon; a dramatic illustration, J believe, of
just haw ver?: subjecrive thc reading of myiaical literature has
bmn i11 Jcwish historiography. Ler me also add at rhis point
that rhe echocs of this cznturyatd dispute about the c a m
under3tanding of Hasidisrn can be toda?. h a r d in the revisianaqFwork oof scholars like h.fo5be Idel. -And the connection.
dmwr? one hundred years ago by romanticists Like Horodetsky
and Bcrdichcvsky, betwccn ecstatic mysticism and Ihs q u s t
for the natutal. primal religon of ancien~Isracl are sometimes
today repeated in the most uncxpec~edcontcxts for example,
Harold Bloom's b i m dedia~zonof T ~3mk
E q f j to the Israeli
scnolar of Kabbala Moshc: 1GdOnc panicular leg-nd which H u w i l t used to illustrate
Hasidism's backwardness and ro demonstrate that Hasidisrn
was the funhcsi thing fmm a progressive. universal r n ~ \ ~ e r n e n t
was the remarkable slor): of the Baal Shem Tov and rbe old
celibate priesl- Due m i t s imponana in the prcrenl context, L
sball rcad !he entire rest of ihc tale:
-
Onct. un [he ficgiog a t Y ~ r nKi?pur, kfu:: Ko: YlJte, UK: cnngre@:i~n mtbewd ir [he ~ I F ~ - W ~ T & . . Tbe &~1?: srcx~dilp. b u ~
5:' did vat begin lo pray. I: %as
cvldeot tlral br wzs grmr;: ppcrple;rrrd The:: was a :03g delay, and the edlirr
congrcwiion b e g 1 :a
k?.cn;~
thcl;
u rra!i7cd !bar ~ 3 i x
r u col an crcplr W I T&. Y3cn ? h 3bl?1
~
16olcd ~!r-wg); (he W Y C ~ G P a d uu.an old p n t s umalljrg
bcforc *C ky-#:r?rrr::. 31:d b ~WWII
'
OJI !Q ws him. Tbc Rabbi bcg;v: to Wli;
~wvhI!!m. He asJ;ed iim h ~ hc
w uqs. and t h q j a a r n o K> engmscd in mt-emaliibn :ha[ l..c scco!~p2niedhim bomc. Tht R13b: L(15iu:ucid
W I I b?m
~
~ h hej h d
not lake a wife-,.. Tht priesr artwxrcd him tha: ht uas not percilicd to m a p .
Thc r ~ b k
argutd ullh him a 9s.: dczl a b u t i t 3od u m d Sirn rb r&gn his
~ees:CobC znd 3cr;%nnthe mirzvih of pwp3uLian ~t !tzn in his old a@, The
p r u : ~ : !ha!
d ac;rofctng rc 1I;a ranli he ~ ~ ' cr[t d~ axy
r
a w m 2 n ofrhe !swcr
c i s anc a ~ 0 r r t 2 02 f 3 \ ~ a r i h yfam:l) uvu:d a3t ayce Lo nmarrk h ~ mT. o ? rabbi
said hat a c c m governor had a beau~iiddac@rm and be uwdd c r m h l y b t
wiUing lo G1-chcr to hiw 3s r milt. Hc LWL talking re bim u:II hc qmcd (Tbc
rboughi ol) her be3tlry sa wccited him lhdr he had an srshdcnral semcdal m&
r i m Crom cbe hcar 3C h:s d&m t'cl: her. T n c d b i ~rnrnrdla~:!y
to &c
!rp~ndd
aad - x:D pray
~ KO: S l d x
~ C r e ilrc
r prayCrs hs f o l ~ o un m t ro him md be told lhtm tht rlary. A
great ~mllszt2ar.in 3eauen had blocked aJ1 rhe prayers From e n d ~ n hxzuse
g
lhis psra bud ncwr Irad so amidcad crni%ion.
f h q ' id: "How do 3gu ;r.ow 1b2: bc had an accidcnml emision?'
He or.rwtrd: 3 - w ~ 9: WJS imm&atr.:y rnpossible to s W near him.'
A& 513 w ~ t bthe trclp oFGcd a:! of roc a ~ r w c r s
were dilhlced.::
Aficr paraphrasing his rale. H u w i t 2 mockingly wonders:
Humitz' anicle had a trcrncndous impact. It engendered a
similar attack on Horodetsky by the Zionist leadcr \loisbe
Lcib Lilienblum, in a remarkable essay published a )-tar
lalcr." h d . more significanlly. ir v e ~ clcarly
gcncrated a
change o f h e a n in a Hcbrcuqliteraq giant who had hitherto
been ont of the great romanticists of Hasidism, Micha Yosef
Btrdichevsky. The. man who had a1 one time *written tbe
classic hasidic [%ends in such a manntr 2s ro glorify Hasidisrn
and to praise its masters's suddenly dixovtred in thcse very
same legends the roost ugly and offensive material. In a siartling, revision is^ article, Berdichevsky cited this v e q same
hasidic We of how ir was only a Priest's orgaqm which allowed
the Jews' prayers L O soar to rbc hczv~ns,as a spccitic source
of his disillusionmen~lwith basidi~rn.~'
IG'hy was Berdicbevsky so disillusioned by rhis particular
tale- lo ~e point whcse he subtitled the first pan of his
"
ShIrki :'la-kCr Lalc $39. P h i s ciulion u b d on &c wmsbtion found
in the Engtish :.mion of S%iilhi&f-Bwh.hr.cntirlcd l a Praw J J r h P-ti 5br4r. MI
Jcrome M i n q P. 24%.
2J 'E?a.Hss!due.F. \r-ha-HaskaLBb-, up- d..p. 37.
Mosbe Ceib Llimblnm. -,%ha-GRA
I
~ e - h a - B E s W .HKSH!~:L.VoL 19
i 1910). pp. 213-229.
I r i ~ c 5b a s k n u-rhrcn about Berdjcht\'ws roman1:c b i d i c ~ a l s PCP
.
hzps :kt 1%: ingie IMLITIC~I of this lhemz is S b u c l \'crjes' *ha-Hngidulb
b ~ C J l a5Sel
~ o & i d i ~ h ~ ~ b.$f?i4L
'.
Val. ( 196:s. $214. 3p 565-415,
:'-h1:rha Ymci B r d i c h ~ .' M o r e t b ha-Hcrkbcu ~ucba-Zimz-um-.
Hr-Ai:I. v01.5 (I913), pp. 1151-171.
renouncemen; of Hasidism. Uirt-Ravt'~-!:;l-K;rkesm
(the Rabbi
and the Priest) ? I believe that the devastating impacf o f this
tale is related to rhc fact that i~ contesr is so slmilslr to anothzr
talc, from the sarn c h asidi c sourcc. which B~rdiche\~sky
himself had made so famous. T h a t tale, re-told in Yiddish by
Berdichevs!qi 2s "DGC
FGJ~%!c*'.
in his collection, Yiddishc Kemlcn;
j i n G ~/S)'Q.YK ~ Y dcscribs
,
how, w&r almost identical circumstances - i e , on Yorn Kippur, in thc shtiebel of the Besht,
u?th the prayen of rhc Jews not succeeding in breaking
through to [he heavens. and the master and his hasidim
despairing - it was the whistling of a nah7eand ignorant young
lad an act hala!chically forbidden an Yom Kippur. which succcedcd in reaching God whcm thc prayers of the man pious
and teamed Jews had failed.
1vn.0 .WILYJfun-b.mp nlrn crr w i r o n n l : (YW UYI rs
0 % alnn
~
u
3
p ~7 .;hmrm I ~ I Wi w a:lw wur 9 ]'M -(?I IN .)=no
ohm .o>y 1 5 fi&
~
?:N b>~rr 5 !?U ! 80 1 30 :l:,y72 rx (5 Oldli*l IIM 1~7~55
on
.qkU ~.lua
I iyl :'xo .ojLay>~py;mIIR ? w o w 7 7 0911)
I Y I ~ ~i;5
I o o : l r l w ~IT)
o:nm~nw W D O ~ ? I I,kin p* 9 ~ 5 1D&5 loby3 ruIAu p wnw w i ~
W D rg IM
,ir;lWr 5 layam u ~ i IIH
r QYW CW U13D(PD U'IU~W;O:* C
W 7m ~F 1
;
.IOYIVY
og3y .IU di'l'l'u~
p u l t u uworrmwm?
~
w t l r i m r n i p IW myua GI 'mloyt @o
I~ZIIXI
OYW PKO ,051;jyl ?O;'W
TIM ( ~Y!J?1 Iln v&?
t;rv+15 8 01)ww yo
Wo oyn 2'lyd .03"'111% j T N 3 ? 39-01- W ~ Y I " I ?S
1
U?@WD'IR
l l t O F 7 1.mIIP
, n 1 3 1 3qqx wir975 171 ~ w~ I L 5J unn i y n r h .nu?-snmp1 9 IIPI o x l w m y 71lsn
m n l : m .iwn lrc .om ~
1 *lr 3 :I>IlM DW7Y3 DN I ~ ~ ~ - ~ T'T 7'1
I x
tlx v p m 4 7 G i ~ l c l wn
~ u ~ou*)
~ Y T
.lw -m 115 w n l a om lcrt nrw 1:5
my: 3 ~ may3
7
e n w oyr ,WY Ion; nyl5 r ~ 1 1'13I ~ U IDm172
J
nyr 113 w ' r l l ~ ~ n
~ 1 . 7 . 5 n wcyltm Irn n : w 'r !w.y1gn UWI lei) JY rn .WYI
19 m , a i ~ ~ x r m
WII bynlrbpv5a OUII lrx w m n
IIN IYIIW u,: ' p ! n ~ Vm-qrl . 9 ~ 3 ~
OF1 i n 8
Zrr i y :tn n ln onu opsy y l uwm w rn ,ow (IX .W~VJB'I ~ 1 mflr
3 @I Y I ~ ~ O W ~ ~
lvlryr tnw 057 112( YM-~~E 15'1~
IXUya 1~h1U Ot$.'l V f .L3'1 IY? .lPW i F ,140 nY2b T I N
lY? ;I?llx J ~ p'
W Wlu 1 ~ 7
l ~ m 18
y I-+IL~I r x 3 3 ~ '1l y ~ 3 - WW 115
1.w ,113>n-n~> 1 > ~ )5l m - ~tmlu nm-n
I!N u:SwaS1m yr pna IWIC ~ l I:U
k ~WDZ
nryiyrl 11ni y 1.7 8 ]In un n D T T I Y W1~ ~ 2 on;?WD IIN WIIW h r n ~ 7 17'1
8 o:! vn
~3ywk
~ h l ?087 . ~ Y ; I Y I
-n~-05-r(l
w;1
+
eil
p i a y nor halakh ic obdicnce. are o l ultima~espiri~ualwordy
a sysrem of faith in which a primal shriek is mom .evaluedby
God than the m a t sophisticated formulations of he esrablished liturgy.
But hen, Berdichwsky dismvetcd, I believe thanks to
Hurwitz' article, a very similar but oh how different !
hasidic mie- For this rime ic is not tbe naive pious enthusiasm
OE an innocent boy but rather tbe violarion of the dignity and
the vows of a Catholic priest which succeeded io reconciling
God with the children of Israel. All at once, the naive myths
which Berdicbevsky had read into Hasidisrn were shattered
Hasidism, he nour discowred. was nor rhe libemins and miversa1 mo\..cment anay from thc ghcrto uphichbe had &ought
it to be: it does not represcnr a return to the nature and beauty
of ancient Israel; quire the contrary. Hasidism is an even
d e e p ?xenophobic rerrear into the darkness of medimal Jewish alienation from the u ~ r l dWhere be once felt that
Hasidism mas an cxpmsion of s p i r i t d r y and an extension of
it to the entire world, be now sensed rha~it is even more see
tanan and more limiting than ihe Judaism of the Rabbis.
Hasidism's superstitious mistrust of tbe goy and its conrempl
for his religion, as reflected ifi this aery, enslams Jews to a
parochial, irrational life of (car and lethargy. with evident
despair, Berdichevsky concludes his mssessment of
Hasidisrn with tbese words:
-
-
I
:
. ? n a - n : r 1 5 n % ~ n l r m (IP~
C l m l y Berdichashu miginally saw in lhis Hasidic tale all
&a[ he had wk'jshcd ~ a s i d i s t nto be - a return ro a primitive,
natural relsrionship wilh God, in uuhichnci~herl&ing
nor
Historians bave, natumlly enougb, mmplc~alydiweditcd
the romantic view o f Hasidism. Examined mitically and historically. Hasidism was not of course a movement for the lib-
erarion of the Jew from thc shtca or rrom rcligiaus authority
or from the exile. It did not proclaim a n end to galuth: quite
he conrrary, as tbe subsequent history of Hasidism amply
dernonsuales, it reinforced ~e galuth. .%s for thc rarionalisrs'
appropriation of rhtl Gaan af Vilna he was in actual facl a
mortal enemy b o ~ hof rationalism and of any cban~esto traditional Jewish life. There i s vlnually no historical merit in the
claim that his broad academic intsmsts, lvkich included rbe
sciences. reflect any genuine aiXniry whatsoever to the
haskolle. His interest in h e sciences l i a s medieval in -LUX;
he 1-ienredtbem as purely ancillaq- io Torah, and as norhing
more t h a n the handmaidens of faith.
For the historian, fcr the objec~i\retextual and philological
schdar of rhe literary sources of Hasidism and Misnasdism,
ihe entire disputation \(,hi& we havc been following Lhis evening is then of no Consequcncc. Borh sides were equaH). naive.
and equally m u g in thcir respccri~-eevdua~ionsof rbe Besht
and he Gra. For hasidim and misnagdim mere equally backward 2nd rnedie~~al,
and thcjr doctrines equally offensive lo
the spirit of the Enlightmmenr.
Bur 1 would like to suggest thzt it is a mistake 10 limit the
legacy of citber the Gaon or he Besht to the constricling analysis of historjd aod rcrxrual scholars. T h e full imp1 itat ions of
thc teachings o f these great men are far rnorc complex lhan
the sober histo~mUphilologica1study of their writings migbt
revc21AU of h c aso-hasidic romanricists wert forced to confess
ihat the pure Hasidisrn in whicb ~ b qrzw
- thc secds o f enlightenment did not fulfiU i l s ow- prornisc.
-45 Horodetsky wrole in his defensik-e response to Hum4tz:
-
But Horode~skyo ~ t r s i r n p ~ ethe
d subsequent hislory of
Hasjdism. Asd i t u precisely in the rullncss of Lhe hinoncal
picture that RE can, T believe, see elements o f truth in the perception of both stdes to rhis great dispure. Tbe history o f
Hasidism after &e M=id of Mmeritcb is not nearly as simple
as Horodersky. and rhcr others, would have us belicvc; il was
far more than an unmmirring decline into the depravities o f
Zaddikism. . h o o g rhe
many, diverse schools of hasidic
mysticism, there were in Eac~some in uvhich \he romanticists'
utopian glimpses of rreedom and indikidualism w r z nearly
mlized.
Some fifty years before Worodetsky and Hunvitz feuded
over the cornpering roles of law and spirit in Judaism. there
appeared a remarkable hasidic work,
i:a-Sd:i!w!:.
in which
early hasidism's radical emphasis on divine irnmmence was
taken io its extrernc logical conclusions. If. a5 t hc Rcsh~taughi,
dl of mundane existence is suffustd with the divine, argued
itr author Mordcchai Yosef of Izhbirz - a mosf unusal disciple
of the Kotzker Rcbbe - so tm rnusr the fullness af Ihe human
spirit be divinc, even when it sins. Ever). action of man must
therdo~ebe perceived as a manifestatio~o f m o l l ha-Borth,
includins his moral a ~ religious
d
failings. In his most shocking
expression of this r e l i ~ a u sdcrerminism. [he Izhbi~zerRebbe
alrcired the familiar Rabbinic statement. 'hakol biycdei
Shorna)im huz mi-sirnth Shoma\-im" ("dl i s in ihe hands of
heaven, exclepr for the fear of heaven") to read "hakol biyedei
Shornayim. a j l u yiratb Shomayim" (*all is in the bands of
h a v e n , including even rhc fear of heathen"). The actions of
man - whaler good or 0 1 1 , perminod or forbidden - are a1
a natural, legrimate reflecrion o f pewasiveness of tbe divine
in the world, a manifestation of rmly kc-brd:, or God's will.
Whik Hurwi~z had denied Horodcuky's claim that in
Hasidisrn there can be found thc seeds or thc Jcws' libcraiion
from rZle tlmnny orthe law, or yakddrrrlr Ira-sekbd, the Izhbir-ter
represenring almost eveq discipline of rhe sciences and
humanitis. And &e library was, over tbe subsequent years.
used by every element o f lrilna's Jeitrish communily, from
Bundisrs reading Marx and Engels in Yiddish translation to
Rabbinic Sages consulting the rzspons literature in order to
resolvc a vexing halakhie problem. Such an environment of
intcllectual opencss and tolerance could only b mainrained in
a Jewish comrnuniq~whose legacy was that of the allembracing scbo~arshipof the Gaon of Vilna- Tbe remarkable
oper~cssof t h i s grcat Jewish institution is captured in an essay
about the Strashun Library, by its lag libmian, Reb Haikel
Lunsky:
Rcbbe s~ruggledwitb rhe ccnfining narm of the halakha when
confron~edpith the natufal u r g e o f man. and suggsred hat
ils legal starutcs are ofien less imponant than the inoare needs
of man. I, ~ O one,
T
cannoz imagine a mare mmanric or utopian
form c\f spiritual freedom than that expressed in 15Iay
lM-$h;h h-i
.4s for the Gaon of Vilna, his legacy o f scholarship was ulrimately io transform vilna into a truly distinaive city, among
the peat Jewish centers of pre-war Europe- Although not himself receptive to philwphical rationalism. and nor a LW fore
runner of the haskolle. the Gaon established Vilna as the marest seat of Jewish scholarship i n modem history. And. in time.
it =.as precisely this ~ \ ~ e r ~ h e I r n iernpbasis
ng
in Litbuaaian
Judaism on scholarship which gave rise to an openness and to
an intdlcctual pluralism in me Orthodox community of Vilna
that was unmatched anywhere in Eastern Europe.
And it is here. in lhis Y l V 0 building. that the saxred remnants of one of the mmr poignant symbols of [hat unique
atmosphere ai intcllectual opennms ulhich is thc disrinctivc
legacy of I he. Vilner Gaon,have found their home. I am talking
about the amshun Library, wbich was both a symbol and a
real ciudel of religious and intellmtual pluralism and tolerance in pm-war Eastern Eurcpe. ?'he fullness and ampleuit).
of Jewish life in V i h were refleclcd both in the books and in
the readen of he "Strashun Bibliotek'.
examina~ionof the
very fim catalogue of this library, L i k u ~ Skoskdrlim,
i
weals the
remarkably open eclecricism of its fouader, hiattisyahu
Sh trashun. .4lrhough hirnsclf a greaL traditional Talraudic
scholar, in the school of h e vilner Gaon, he acquircd books
*
-:O On r h t ~ r ! i ~ i opw
h i l o ~ p h !of
~ R. >fordcclraI \ ' O W ~f i g Izhbilr see Mo*
LC. Fslers~ern.nil ;i~r% Han& $H?>;m - Tk Tt-crki~:: y-R&i M ~ r d e k almrph
i
Yo*
Y c ~ h ~ t z1989j.
.
SCC d~ :hc TLUC
L I ~;fi:hir;;
~,~F
W z k 'A Laie Jwcs U i ~ p i aof Religious F d o m . ' in 5 1 d s
,WMJO~WG 1 W y i 4 v m Osforb l GSS. pg. 209-248.
by J & C P ~
16
Earm E u m
I
YJVO, was forzunate enough physically lo haw inherited a
major p m of the '~trashunLibrary. But we have ool yet
become i ~ full
s and authentic heu. For YlVO to Qourishin tbe
coming becad- i~
musL capture tbc opeo and ~ l e c t i cspirit
of the Strasbun library, whose bmks it now owns. YrVO must
dedicate itsel€to r he objective audy, documentation and rehabillration of the fullnss of prewar Jewish Lfk and culmre,
without preftrcoce for any specific aspect or faction of that
culture. Y IVO must adopr char pas~uscof Jewish pluralism
and inclusion of which the Vilna KAillc and thc Strashun
Libray were such a poignant ~mbol.'We rnusr renounce any
artacbrnen~LO a particular Jcwish ideology and abandon an?;
narrow, panicularist doctrinal agenda. I view this as a major
part of my task hem. as director o f research: to decpcn YJVO's
commitment to truly Jewish scholarship. and LO bmadcn he
range of srudents and scholars wbo \.rill in the years lo come
flock to YlvO, so lhar il rnlghl one day recall the full magnificence of that reading rmrn in Vilna.