http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/92968/jewish/An-analysis-of-different-approaches-regarding-tzimtzum-the-process-of-Divine-self-limitation.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm
Transported across Europe, and inserted into a deeply complex context of social and religious upheaval, the potent depth of this distinction became the seminal bone of contention in a controversy that tore entire communities asunder
Chassidim and Mitnagdim
Title page of an early edition of Tzavaat ha-Rivash
In the early 1790s a slim volume, compiled by an unknown author, was published in Zolkva (זאלקווא, today called Zhovkva), a small city in western Ukraine, bearing the title Tzavaat ha-Rivash.13 All of the teachings included in this text had already been published in earlier works, but this was the first such book whose title page bore so authoritative an appellation; Rivash is an acronym for Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem—the founder of the chassidic movement, who had passed away in 1760—and the appearance of Tzavaat ha-Rivash helped inspire a new assault against the spiritual heirs of its namesake. In the ensuing controversy, the debate regarding the tzimtzum narrative was placed front and center.
A strong opponent of the nascent Chassidic movement, R. Avigdor served as rabbi in several communities throughout Poland-Lithuania during the 18th century. In 1785 he was famously appointed Chief Rabbi in Pinsk in place of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev who was forced out by the Mithnagdim (opponents of Chasidism.) Over time, the enmity between the two camps continued to grow and in 1794 he was deposed from his position by the Chasidim. Embittered, R. Avigdor embarked upon a vicious campaign denouncing Chasidism, indeed the complaints he lodged with the Russian government eventually led to the imprisonment of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi.
Read more at: https://www.kestenbaum.net/content.php?item=22988&pos=87&wide=true
A strong opponent of the nascent Chassidic movement, R. Avigdor served as rabbi in several communities throughout Poland-Lithuania during the 18th century. In 1785 he was famously appointed Chief Rabbi in Pinsk in place of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev who was forced out by the Mithnagdim .**
Read more at: https://www.kestenbaum.net/content.php?item=22988&pos=87&wide=true
In a letter addressed to Paul I, emperor of Russia, a certain Avigdor ben Chaim** later testified that it was he who convinced Rabbi Eliyahu, the famed Vilna Gaon, that the books of the chassidim contained “so many foolish and subversive views . . . and things that depart from the good way, that according to our law they must be burned in public.14 They brought this to fruition in Vilna, and commanded the public burning of the books of this cult in front of the synagogue.”15Another letter, penned by representatives of the Vilna congregation, confirms that “the pietist [Rabbi Eliyahu] purged the [chassidic] cult from the holy congregation of Vilna so far as he was able, and also burned Tzavaat ha-Rivash in the presence of a large gathering . . .”16
The Vilna Gaon often figures in anti-chassidic literature as the movement’s most authoritative detractor; but there are few firsthand sources in which he himself chronicled his objections. Accusations that the chassidim are ignorant, subversive, unruly and immoral are also common, but rarely are more specific and substantive objections raised. An exception to both these rules is a public letter penned by the Gaon in 1797 in which he supplemented the usual diatribe with a theological critique that does indeed drive to the core of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings.17In the words of Rabbi Avraham Cohen de Herrera (cited above), G‑d not only causes the existence of all created things but “also passes through all of them, fills them all, and is all that they are.” Taking this notion to its logical conclusion, the Baal Shem Tov taught that even the most mundane things and actions carry the absolute significance of the divine self. This does not mean that all realities should be unconditionally embraced; on the contrary, such realities normally conceal the spark of divinity that lies at their core. But when we engage a given object or situation in the service of G‑d, the external concealment is stripped away and its true nature is drawn to the fore.
Accordingly, Tzavaat ha-Rivash interprets the verse “In all your ways know G‑d”18 as an instruction to utilize even the most mundane activities to make divine transcendence immanently manifest.19 A couple of pages later, this “major principle” is reiterated: “In everything that exists in the world there are holy sparks, there is nothing empty of the sparks, even wood and stones, and even all the actions that a person executes
This last passage likely formed the basis of the Gaon’s accusation that the chassidim proclaim of every stick and every stone, “These are your gods, Israel!”, a phrase which is borrowed from the biblical episode of the golden calf,21 effectively equating chassidism with the worst example of public idolatry. “These evil evildoers,” the Gaon proclaimed, “have fabricated from their hearts a new law and a new Torah; their students who followed them have drunk it; and the name of heaven has been profaned by their hand.”22
A Seminal Schism
For the Gaon and his fellow mitnagdim, this wasn’t a mere theological quibble, but a frontal attack on the chassidic worldview.
The notion that G‑d is literally absent from the created realm (tzimtzum ki-peshuto) entails that the relationship between G‑d and man is marked by a hierarchical chasm that can be bridged only by quantitative degree. From this perspective, Holiness is not to be measured in terms of personal achievement, but by degrees of transparency to ubiquitous divinity.G‑d is qualitatively removed from the created realm; but by studying more Torah and accruing more mitzvot, a heightened degree of worthiness can be achieved. The chassidic concept of divine immanence (tzimtzum she-lo ki-peshuto)completely collapses that hierarchy. From this perspective, G‑d’s transcendent self is immanently concealed within all of created reality; via the path of Torah and mitzvot man can reveal the infinite quality of that intimacy even in the most mundane aspects of life. If used correctly, a single moment can be infused with eternal value.
From the chassidic point of view, neither the learned scholar nor the reclusive pietist can claim a monopoly on holiness. Man’s purpose, the Baal Shem Tov taught, is not to try and escape the clutches of earthly endeavor, achieving some more transcendent station. On the contrary, such mundane occupations as plying a trade, working the land or eating are to be transformed into vehicles for the revelation of divine immanence. Holiness is not to be measured in terms of personal achievement, but by degrees of transparency to ubiquitous divinity.
This brings us to another important axiom of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings. The hallmarks of holiness are transparency, selflessness and humility; the measure of unholiness is egotism, self-obsession and arrogance. In the words of the Talmud, “Of the haughty one G‑d says, ‘He and I are unable to dwell together in the world.’”23 Selfishness most effectively obscures the immanent presence of the divine self.
These ideas are powerful and empowering, and with the passing years they gained increasing momentum. The establishment of chassidic centers by such figures as Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Aaron of Karlin in the mid-1760s marked the spread of chassidism from Poland to White Russia and the borders of Lithuania. Both were disciples of Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezeritch, who had become the most prominent exponent of chassidic teaching following the Baal Shem Tov’s passing, and it was through them and their contemporaries that chassidism became widespread as a popular movement. Other disciples of the Maggid who hailed from that general region included Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk, who had previously been a student of the Vilna Gaon,24 and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi.25
Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk was a gifted scholar, a man of deep and powerful sentiment, and a charismatic leader. Upon returning from Mezeritch he established a following amongst young men of similar ability and temperament. These young men were captivated by the radical notion of divine immanence, and they strove to cultivate an ever deeper sense of humility and selflessness, combined with joy in the presence of G‑d. Their prayers were marked by deep fervor and rapturous joy, and in their most ecstatic moments they would turn somersaults in a head-over-heels gesture of utter self-effacement. Their sole intention was to breathe new life into Jewish practice and learning by promoting an increased sense of divine omnipresence. Their sincere dedication, however, was soon overcome by an excess of zeal.26
These were subversive sentiments, and while the chassidim had no intention of undermining rabbinic authority, they did want to bring about a collective change of attitude. Such an effort could succeed unopposed only if it was conducted with due care and finesse. Unfortunately, however, such delicacy seems to have been the one thing that some of Rabbi Avraham’s followers lacked. Carried away by the emotive power of their convictions, they would sometimes exhibit their uninhibited rapture and self-effacement by dancing wildly in the streets. Organized opposition to the chassidic movement began as a direct response to their open display of contempt for certain rabbinic leaders.27
Taking the notion of divine immanence to its furthest degree, the Baal Shem Tov taught that a spark of divinity lies buried even within a sinful act. Never did he suggest that sin should be encouraged or even condoned, but he did affirm that sin created a unique opportunity to “return” (teshuvah) and develop a more intimate relationship with G‑d. The very passage in Tzavaat ha-Rivash which the Gaon attacked for proclaiming that a divine spark resides even in “wood and stones” continues to assert that “even in a sin that man commits there are sparks . . . and what are the sparks in a sin? Teshuvah!”28
Nothing warrants a sinful act; indeed, such an act drags a spark of the divine self into exile.29 But once committed, a sinful act must be harnessed to inspire a process of regret and return, culminating in an even deeper degree of subjugation to the divine will than could previously have been attained. Such a process of teshuvah reveals the divine spark that is buried even within sin, elevating it and redeeming them from exile.30 These ideas were drawn directly from the teachings of Arizal,31 but for the Vilna Gaon even his authority was not enough.32
Jacob Frank
The rise of chassidism in Eastern Europe coincided with the spread of antinomian cults under the leadership of Jacob Frank, who claimed to be the reincarnation of the false messiah Shabbetai Tzvi. Like Tzvi, Frank and his followers justified their open rejection of the Talmud and halachah—along with their engagement in adultery and other profane activities—by perverting the Lurianic doctrine that fallen sparks of divinity reside even in the lowest realms. In 1759, Frank and many of his followers had converted to Christianity.
The chassidim did not reject the Talmud, nor did they downplay the central importance of halachah. But their embrace of such a radical notion of divine immanence led the chassidic movement to be misrepresented and misunderstood as a new incarnation of the Sabbatean heresy. Nothing could have been further from the truth; the entire purpose of chassidism was to promote and perpetuate the service of G‑d through Torah study and mitzvah observance. But given the context of social and religious upheaval, the potent depth of this doctrine, combined with the indelicate exhibitionism of the Kalisk chassidim, was enough to raise the ire of the rabbinic leadership in Lithuania.33
In the spring of 1772 the foremost communities of Lithuania—including Brisk, Shklov and Brody—were led by Rabbi Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaon, in a spate of public denouncements and excommunications directed at the new chassidic “cult,” sometimes referred to as “the Karliners.” Much of the relevant documentation was collected and published that same year near the town of Brody.34 Copies were disseminated far and wide and were quickly snapped up, literally adding fuel to the fires of controversy. In an anti-chassidic letter dating from the spring of 1773 it is claimed that the pamphlet, titled Zemir Aritzim (which means “Slasher of Tyrants”), was publicly burned by chassidim in the town of Grodno.35
Providence and Its Ramifications
In the wake of these events Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk was taken to task by Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezeritch, who rebuked him for the undisciplined behavior of his disciples.36 But the utter refusal of the Vilna Gaon to enter into any kind of dialogue with the chassidic leadership cannot be put down to irreverent antics alone; ultimately, his deep suspicion had more to do with belief than behavior.
As we have already noted, in taking the tzimtzum narrative to mean that G‑d’s self was literally absent from the created realm, Rabbi Immanuel Ricchi was forced to interpret various statements implying divine omnipresence as referring to the omnipresence of divine providence (hashgachah. Accordingly, The notion of hashgachah is invoked in the context of tzimtzumto justify a literal understanding of divine transcendence that utterly removes the divine self from the created realm.the notion of hashgachah is invoked in the context of tzimtzum to justify a literal understanding of divine transcendence that utterly removes the divine self from the created realm. It is noteworthy that in several instances, quite isolated from his polemic against the chassidim, the Vilna Gaon too avoided interpreting such statements as references to the immanent presence of G‑d.37 In a more direct discussion of the nature of tzimtzum, he interprets it as a statement regarding the utter infinitude and inconceivability of the divine self. But here too the Gaon is careful to describe the “line” (kav) of divinity that is extended into the created realm as “an extremely limited superintendence.”38 While he did not read the tzimtzum narrative as an event that literally unfolded in time and space, he clearly did understand it to mean that G‑d’s transcendent self was literally removed from the limited domain of creation (tzimtzum ki-peshuto).39
The Gaon’s position as spelled out in the 1779 letter cited above seems unequivocal: the belief that divine transcendence is immanently present in the most mundane—and even profane—realities of the physical realm renders even the most inoffensive and scholarly chassid a complete heretic.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi
With the passing years, it increasingly fell upon Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (who lived first in Vitebsk and later in Liozna, and moved to Liadi only in the early 1800s) to lead the chassidim of White Russia and Lithuania and to bear the brunt of the mitnagdic attacks. Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezeritch, had passed away not long after the controversy started in earnest, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk had emigrated to the Holy Land in 1777.40
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was one of the youngest of the Maggid’s disciples, but stood out among them for his unique ability to channel profound aspects of faith and feeling through the rigid faculties of the rational mind. It was on this basis that he founded the Chabad school of chassidic thought and practice.41 True sentiment, he taught, must be informed by sense and sensibility. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was also an exceptional Talmudic scholar; the Maggid had charged him to compose a new code of Jewish law, seamlessly arbitrating between the different authorities, and combining clear rulings with concise explanations.42
From the very beginning, Rabbi Schneur Zalman sought to resolve the controversy through reasoned dialogue. In the winter of 1772 he had accompanied Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk to Vilna, but the Gaon had steadfastly refused to see them, going so far as to leave the city until they departed.43 In 1787 a second wave of intensified persecution was directed against Rabbi Schneur Zalman personally, and again he beseeched his detractors to allow him the opportunity to defend himself before recognized authorities who might arbitrate between them without bias. Not surprisingly, his request was ignored, and persecution of chassidim throughout the region continued unchecked.44
When the third wave of anti-chassidic agitation began in the early to mid-1790s, Rabbi Schneur Zalman repeated his earlier exhortation that his followers not respond in kind.45 In a letter dating from 1797, he explicitly referred to the burning of Tzavaat ha-Rivash and cited the question of divine immanence as the Gaon’s most fundamental critique of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings.46 Rabbi Schneur Zalman then proposed a new resolution to the debate: “Let him clearly explain all his reservations against us regarding this belief . . . and he himself will append to it his signature, and I will follow after him . . . to respond to all his reservations, likewise written and signed in my own handwriting, and the two letters will be published together and sent to all the wise men of Israel who are near and far, so that they may offer their opinion in this matter . . . and by the majority we shall rule, and so there will be peace upon Israel, amen.”47
IIn order to articulate his point, Rabbi Schneur Zalman invoked Maimonides, who explained that it would be wrong to conceive of divine knowledge in the same way we experience human knowledge. The human experience of knowledge is comprised of three utterly distinct components; 1) the subjective self that perceives (the knower); 2) the object that is perceived (the known); and 3) what the subject perceives of the object (the knowledge). But the essential unity of the divine self does not allow for multiple components of divine knowledge.
n order to articulate his point, Rabbi Schneur Zalman invoked Maimonides, who explained that it would be wrong to conceive of divine knowledge in the same way we experience human knowledge. The human experience of knowledge is comprised of three utterly distinct components; 1) the subjective self that perceives (the knower); 2) the object that is perceived (the known); and 3) what the subject perceives of the object (the knowledge). But the essential unity of the divine self does not allow for multiple components of divine knowledge.It is logically incoherent to claim that the divine self is removed from the created realm, but yet has knowledge and jurisdiction over all created beings.We must conclude therefore, that all divine knowledge is actually self-knowledge: “He is the Knower, He is the Subject of Knowledge, and He is the Knowledge itself. All is one.”50
If divine knowledge is self-knowledge, reasons Rabbi Schneur Zalman, then divine superintendence of the created realm entails that the divine self is actually extended throughout that realm. This conclusion echoes the statement of Rabbi Avraham Cohen de Herrera (cited above) that G‑d is not only the external cause of all created things but “also passes through all of them, fills them all, and is all that they are.” In other words, the notion of divine providence is actually incompatible with the claim that the divine self is literally absent from creation.
The Maimonidean understanding of divine knowledge, explains Rabbi Schneur Zalman, reveals that those “who thought themselves clever” and interpreted the Arizal’s tzimtzum narrative literally “did not speak with understanding.” Since they themselves believe “that G‑d knows all the created beings in this lower world and exercises providence over them,” and “He knows all by knowing His self,” they too must admit that G‑d’s transcendent self is immanently present throughout all existence, for “His essence and His being and His knowledge are all one.” The literalist claim—that the divine self is removed from the created realm, and that divine superintendence is yet asserted therein All divine knowledge is actually self-knowledge: “He is the Knower, He is the Subject of Knowledge, and He is the Knowledge itself. All is one.”—is demonstrated to be logically untenable The tzimtzum narrative must therefore be interpreted in terms of concealment rather than absence.
The very principle put forth by Rabbi Immanuel Ricchi, and later by the Vilna Gaon, to buttress their rejection of the non-literal interpretation of the tzimtzumnarrative was used by Rabbi Schneur Zalman to reverse that rejection and uphold the non-literal interpretation.
The success of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s argument is best demonstrated by an examination of how Arizal’s narrative was understood by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, the Vilna Gaon’s foremost disciple. In his famous work of Jewish thought and ethics, Nefeshha-Chaim, Rabbi Chaim wrote explicitly that “tzimtzum does not mean ‘departure’ and removal,’ but ‘hiddenness’ and ‘concealment.’” Rather than describing the “line” (kav) of divinity which is extended into the created realm as “an extremely limited stewardship,” as did the Gaon, Rabbi Chaim describes it as “a limited revelation . . . that arrives by way of ordered degree and many concealments [even] to the very lowest forces.” Arizal’s intention, he explained, was not that G‑d was literally removed from the created realm, but that “G‑d’s unified self, the divine essence that fills all worlds, is withdrawn (metzumtzam) and concealed from our grasp.”51
The interpretation advocated by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin upholds the very position that his master and predecessor, the Vilna Gaon,Although the issue of divine immanence was laid to rest, a separate distinction regarding the import of tzimtzum yet remained outstanding.had censured the chassidim as heretics for asserting: that the divine self is imminently present even in the lowest of created realms, and that tzimtzum implies concealment rather than absence.52 Of course, Rabbi Chaim did not adopt the chassidic worldview and way of life in its entirety, and many differences yet remained between chassidim and mitnagdim. But, robbed of its ideological basis, the struggle against the chassidic movement lost much of its potency and power.
Although the issue of divine immanence was laid to rest, a separate distinction regarding the import of tzimtzum yet remained outstanding. Did the tzimtzum conceal the very essence of the divine self (atzmut ein sof), or only the manifestation of that essence (ohr ain sof)? If you pay close attention to the words of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin cited above, it appears that he understood tzimtzum as a concealment of the divine essence itself. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, however, taught that the essence itself is categorically beyond concealment.53 Due to its esoteric subtlety, this distinction was never cause for conflict, but it is by no means insignificant. This is an issue that penetrates to the very core of divine being, and uncovers the quintessential intimacy that lies at the epicenter of otherness.
With G‑d’s help, the question of how far the concealment of tzimtzum extended, along with its attendant consequences, will be addressed in a future article.
OOTNOTES
1.
For details of Rabbi Avraham’s life and works see Mordechai Margolis, “R. Avraham Herrera” in Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel, vol. 1 (Mosad Harav Kook, 1946), pp. 17–18, and Gershom Scholem, Avraham Cohen Herrera, Author of “The Gate of Heaven,” His Life, Works and Influence(Mosad Bialik, 1978).
5.
See Mordechai Margolis, “R. Immanuel Ricchi” in Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel, vol. 4, pp. 1200–1203.
8.
For biographical details see Mordechai Margolis, “Yosef Irgas” in Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel.
13.
The precise date of its first appearance is unknown; see Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet, introduction to the English edition of Tzavaat ha-Rivash (Kehot Publication Society, 1998).
38.
See supplementary notes in Beur ha-Gra to Sifra di-Tzeni’uta, Sod ha-Tzimtzum, p. 75 [38a in Hebrew pagination].
39.
In The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture(The John Hopkins University Press, 1997), chapter 1, Allan Nadler tries to downplay the distinction between the Gaon’s [GRA’s] understanding of tzimtzum and that of the Chassidim. According to Nadler, “Nowhere in the GRA’s writings or those of his disciples is a strictly literal understanding of tzimtzum or a strictly transcendent cosmology elucidated” (p. 16). The first part of this statement would be true if “literal” meant “spatial and temporal,” and indeed no chassid ever accused the Gaon of such a corporeal understanding of the concept. But the second part of this statement is misleading. On the very next page Nadler quotes extensively from Beur ha-Gra to Sifra di-Tzeni’uta (cited in the previous footnote), but stops short of citing the passages where the Gaon states that the line (kav) of divinity extended into the created realm is but “limited superintendence”—i.e., hashgachah, knowledge and stewardship from beyond the created realm, rather than the immanent presence of the divine self therein. This omission implies that Nadler was not sufficiently familiar with the earlier incarnations of this dispute (described above), in which it is clear that the notion of hashgachah is invoked in the context of tzimtzum to justify a literal understanding of divine transcendence that utterly removes the divine self from the creative process and the created realm. Nadler’s argument is even more difficult to uphold in the light of the Gaon’s attack on the chassidic notion of immanence (cited above, and by Nadler on page 11); surely, if the Gaon himself held a similar view, it is unlikely he would have equated the chassidic belief with idol-worship.
40.
See Igrot Kodesh Admor ha-Zaken (new edition, Kehot Publication Society, 2012), introduction, p. 41.
42.
See Systematization, Explanation and Arbitration: Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi’s Unique Legislative Style, and sources cited there.
43.
See Igrot Kodesh Admor ha-Zaken #52 (new edition, Kehot Publication Society, 2012), p. 182: the Gaon “twice locked the door before us, and when the leaders of the city spoke to him, [saying], ‘Master, their famed leader has come to debate your scholarly self, and since you will surely defeat him, with this there will be peace upon Israel,’ he pushed them off with rejections. When they began to urge him very much, he turned and departed, traveling away from the city, and remaining there until the day we departed from the city.” For a mitnagdic source verifying this account, see Zemir Aritzim, ketav 6 (republished in Chassidim u-Mitnagdim, vol. 1, p. 64).
Although he did not succeed in meeting the Gaon, Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s teachings and style of prayer did attract a small following among the local populace, resulting in the establishment of a chassidic minyan in Vilna itself. See letter of the mitnaged R. Dovid of Makov published in Chassidim u-Mitnagdim, vol. 2, p. 236.
Although he did not succeed in meeting the Gaon, Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s teachings and style of prayer did attract a small following among the local populace, resulting in the establishment of a chassidic minyan in Vilna itself. See letter of the mitnaged R. Dovid of Makov published in Chassidim u-Mitnagdim, vol. 2, p. 236.
44.
See Igrot Kodesh Admur ha-Zaken (new edition, Kehot Publication Society, 2012), introduction, pp. 50–52.
48.
See Yehoshua Mondshine, Bibliography of Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya (Kehot Publication Society, 1981), p. 15.
49.
The relevant discussion appears in Shaar ha-Yichud veha-Emunah, ch. 7, pp. 165–166 [83a–b in the Hebrew pagination].
52.
See Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 1 (Kehot Publication Society, 1987), pp. 19–21 (viewable in English translation here); ibid., vol. 3, pp. 134–135.
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/92968/jewish/An-analysis-of-different-approaches-regarding-tzimtzum-the-process-of-Divine-self-limitation.htm
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/92968/jewish/An-analysis-of-different-approaches-regarding-tzimtzum-the-process-of-Divine-self-limitation.htm
14.
This was not the first time Avigdor had acted in concert with the Vilna Gaon against the perceived iniquities of the chassidim. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, a prominent chassidic leader, had served as the chief rabbi of Pinsk and its environs since 1776. In 1784 the Vilna Gaon appended his signature to a letter addressing the community council of Pinsk exhorting them to take action against Rabbi Levi Yitzchak, “who strengthens the hands of sinners . . . the cult of suspects, the chassidim.” In the wake of this letter, the directive to “take from him the staff of rule . . . and utterly expel him” was brought to fruition. The next occupant of the Pinsk chief rabbinate was Avigdor ben Chaim. Furthermore, the very letter to the czar here cited led directly to the second imprisonment of the Chabad chassidic leader Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi.
25.
For more details regarding the spread of chassidism during the lifetime of the Maggid, see Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet, The Great Maggid: The Life and Teachings of Rabbi DovBer of Mezhirech (Kehot Publication Society, 1990).
31.
See for instance Rabbi Chaim Vital, Shemoneh She’arim, Shaar Gimmel, “Shabbat,” regarding keri and yakar.
33.
There is ample evidence of the association of chassidim with Frankists and Sabbateans in the mitnagdic literature. For a detailed account see Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Eliyahu of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism (Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 98–102.
No comments:
Post a Comment