Rationalism, Romanticism, Rabbis and Rebbes · Rationalism, Romanticism, Rabbis and Rebbes Inaugural Lecture of Dr, Allan L. Nadler Director of Research, Y IVO Institute for Jewish

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

Capyrighl Q 1992. by ).c 17VO lnsotute far Jewish R-arrh. k. J048 F i A~mu:, New York. VY lW

Prhrrd in rhc Lirifed Std~~i of AmEr~co

1 \ i l l begin with a poem, then pmceed ro a fm-dtural and hislor- i 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~cd Fcfcras Poem in this \<.a!:

In A1 my rho= hapm Id:. l'rc nebser %tn ML oot rorg~ltcn rhc uav 1 came 1 Laugh lo myself ahen 1 rmenlrer Tbsl 1 cam mmc kmous ?ahbj's r m c .

Thc nml : k k . my pmdl'atbcr wanted Cor mc Was thc Hcly Rcb lr~ild of Sk\.ira's. Thr 1 might lay $:a and wcaf 3 u!u And do my singing of pmyers azd Zrirfi.

T I ~ L 1 might bc h e ricbut man in [OUR

And m) wifc*s h o e k ~ p l n g ke the best. So da)m$ and ru@u gave 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 ral ly hicaks mr up to rmembcr Tkal 1 c a y n sorrc 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 conscious- ness 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 Twmky alsa cas~ a shsdou4 upon men who remain a m u d by rhc magnitude and lhc oddity of ~ b c i r dc'br to him. One of tbme men is our lecrurer, and another of them is the man --ha has the 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 mbcrcorn- ing of rhe internecine bineness b a t chamclerked the Russian Jw- is& 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 i r has rejcacd. Fefcr. rc~cmber, was on& of r he g a l antag onisis of the religious tradition in Modcro Yiddish Iiierarure. Hews a devour communist, a leading reprcmtative of 'So\~et Culture" id Yiddish - none of which incidentally, sdvcd hm Tmm the Soviet execlurioncr in Augus~ 1 932.

One of 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 phfid and sometimes c m l cxcr- cisg in 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 el f-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 last because hisrary has k e n exwrnel y unkind ro the ammilies who fought Lhese feuds, Whilc the leaus wcrc busy eliminatiag pans o i their pat rirnony. thcir enernin were bus? eliminating tbe Jews rhem- gives. 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 desrnr~ uon - Ammican Jcwry - mna~nly did not escape irs c u l r d oow- quences. We are i n no position at this late daic to continue lhe work o f rejection and repudialion. O ~ i n g to our dun eft%- and owing to the elTom of our enemies. we ha1.e been lefi bereft of t m maay of the resources of 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 ~hal is Iarge enough to mn- Lain the condct ions . 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~mcot of 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 by example bow to r e ~ c i v c rbc rradition uithout mi \ l ing its feuds. His knowledge oTRabbinic Judaism, of Eastern Europc's oar- mti \=e communiy, of wbar Fefer might have called 'aclually exin- ing 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 ~ ~ i r ~ not only as his friend. but alsa as his srudenr.

Still. his extraordinay leaning is not precixly Alan Nadlcr's dis- tinction, For what happened io his case is 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~raiivc of 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 ansu1m have b m given. ?.hat c\-cry~hjng JLW ish is as t-aluablt as c v q other Jnvhh Wrlg h r we should all become consumers of 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 no t It t hmfore dwz, me uncommon satisfac~ion to 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 twnt ie th 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 mesqe. historical significance and c m n r relevance ? Whar. if any, are rhe men ts 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~ion from rhe ghet ro ? Did Hasidism contribute r heo- logjc-i[ly to the modernization of Judaism, or socially to the emancipation of rhe Jewish people ? Or was it. quite rhe contrary, a regressive, superstitious, m i - m i o n a l and thoroughly anti-modem rnovmenr w bich served only to reinforce ~ h c ghe~to walls 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 ~ r and Gershom Scholern.1 To rhis v e ~ day, the confusion over the m e nature and his-

torical impact of Hasidism bas still not been definhively rmJilcd. It is true rhat almost no scrious oontcmporary hislo- rian gives credence to Buber's in~erpretation or 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 of what they now call Bubm's 'hermcneut ical' exposition of Hasidism.

The continuing dispule over ihe historical significance and corn( ~urerpretation of 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\rolurions in the hislory of Judaism. Wasidism suddenly and radically shined the emphasis of Jewish relgous life from

' B u W s cosl unpomr sralcrncnt on lhc n$pificaoct or Hasidism u Jiaw?km wd .~fdm hfm I'Nw York. I OS8h and Schol~m's delia:.jvc aitiquc of Bukr '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~'a b ~ k , TkA!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 I C Aoprnsh :O !!kc Bilb~r.SChd)cm COOCTO:.L'X,~~'".~I~ rc=; c-G<u.i4 Sdit i . fro!. 38 (1 SE'). 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 i n Buirr.3 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 plnna- cle of the hierarchy of Judaism's reLigious values Hasidism replaced the detached and unemotional nudy of 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 dual- ism of medieval Judaism with a mystical monism which instructed tbat God can be fou~d in. and sewed thmugh. the material universe. The hasidic manem insisted &at God can also bt discoverd oulside of the B ~ J MedraR, or Rabbinic nudy-hall, and thal holiness need not be a~tained only 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 experience- Hasidism rtjecled the momsc mcdicval conception of man as a hopelessly divided and spiritually alienated being by insist- ing on i be 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.

I t 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~ion of G6d with creation was misin- terpreted 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 rnysri- d denial of rhe signifiance far the spiritual man of the tem- poral, physical world

The emergence o f [his revolutionary spiri~ua! moverncni. and particularly irs separation from tbe es~ablished Jenrisb community and tbe inhcren~ challeqgc ro irs religious aurhori- lies, gave t~sc. in Lbc last dcmdes of the eighteenth oen tury, lo one of the rnosi painful and divisive conflicts in all of Jewish histar?;-$ The Rabbinic war on Hasidism waged by the mrunugdi~x reachd 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 : ~ i l ~ A, or ritual animal slaughter, proclaimed unkosher, and 1 heir daughters forbidden. Yet, despire its inrensity in the last ycars of (he erateenth

enturv, Ihe rabbinic rage againsr Hasidism was 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? or Jeulsh enlightenment. The spread of

* M~rdechg i \Vilms;y. the editor sf ;LC mosr irn~orlanr rclk~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 r . . Hu;Lim ~&f i tka~J im. 2 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 l i teratux. ' 'II;rs1d1c-31it~a~djc Pnlc.rn1~5 in Lhc Jewish Corn?i ~!;,r- kits of LISI- E u s w Th:: Hosslc Phrse'. k jrchw~crr a d ?,ffirCrncr* ~ . P C , ' ! ( L ~ D k c r :r: .&&m h r c ' p , cd. 8th K. htdj (New l'btk !g?j). Samuel Drcsw's a-tide. 'Hasidism and irs Opponmis~. in G:w: SLZ;?~; :ri-!eOLi:i: H d o y . ed. R Jcispc & S. W~lgr~cr iI>Lcni.l'r. 14 6 1 ) displcr!~ 2 dti~e"C[~ pro-basidic pcrsp~Ljrme in i~ prtsmla~ion of 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 t i n u a stc my Ibm- w r n i ~ g bock. ,i Rr.'<i?:l: .;fLimi:.r Tk: i;-~:k cf::rr .'.frrnrngdje Feu. York: Y&im L. 1993 1. ' The k x l of 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 I h ~ s imnsiiioo tw,::ds peaccfcll coexisic:t :c bc.t~tcco kis~itm end

misr?a&irn see the m y by Soman h m m . T k e Yhac OF Dalogue azd Rec- onl-.1;:31:r12', in T&adur drd' ?hic.!wa~ 9,j' Krhg::-w Urrc&cl iti &a-rn Fwqcqc mi. Bela K. K i d y (New Yo* 1975).

the Iwkdle to Eastern Europc in the ~%rly decades of thc nine- reenrb 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 d reli- gi0u5 resistance to rhe bask&, a major conl7rontation about Hasidisrn emccgcd witbin enlightened Jewish chlcs almost a full century later. Rather ~han a war between the panies them- selves, this was a slruggle among the liberal Jewish hisrorians, essayisrs and intellactuals of late imperial Russia elver rhe true mcaning and legacy of Hasidism.

This 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? f be 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~ened Eastern 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 d did 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 h and ~ h c b ~ . k o k is Raph

at! Male. Hrc.~Aisrn a d &uJc~~i,b ,'ici;~klcnmrn!: Tj~t ir ~~L,'~JI:(LL--~*I k CpIctia d d

Pabe; w ~-bj:;.- A-t.gf rbt Kn;c;em~h &wy. kranslatd by Eugnc Orrrtrlein [Ptiladclphia, 19SSI.

ists whose true ultimare warp was, 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. kt US remrlmber that for most of Ihe preceding century rhe

m d i l l i t h had been unanimous in their uncompmrnising hosLil- i ty to Hasidism. VirtuaIl y wirhollt exception, h e y pcrccived the hasidirn to be zhe rnonal enemies of tdightenment. as car- icatures of all that was most offensive and unenlightened in rhc mwlieval J~wiiih civilization 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 refine- rnc~t or rhe Jcwc; to which thc haskdle %as so singularly dedicated.

Just as I he Rabbinic polemics and r he writs of exmrnmuai- cation of he Vilna Gaon and his f ~ l l o ~ ~ m s were dissipating. tbc! were being replaced by rhe biting an~i-hasidic satires of enlighrenrrrent writers much as Joseph Pwl, Isaac Enm, Abra- ham Dov Gottlobet. Tsaac Baer Levinsohn and Shlomo Yehuda Rappapon (S hir)."

* For an excellrnl c~m-viea- or the a-ritimgs of t h e Htbrrwr lilmq riguw m d ~bcir zari-basids wr i t iw , brat! Zinbcrg. A H i c q 9'1cvr~k Liw~u.74 tramla~cd by Bemafd blari io. (Cirremnlti. 1972-78). Vds, 9-1 0, Thc English vtraion 01 Zinbq'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~cd by their conrernporaries.

The firs1 haskolle wri~er to challenge seriously this uncom- promising hostility towards Hasidim was the enlightened Tal- mudic scholar, Eliezr Z ~ e i f f e l . ~ In his rambling, four-volume defense of Hasidism, Sl td l~m AI Y h e l ( 1 868- 1 8?3), Zwciffel endeavoured to dcrnonstra~c that rhere w a s merit, spir i t4 depth and cvrn beau~y to 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 sig- nificant in that it w;rs rcally 15.le First ~ o r k in 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 gener- ated 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 spk- itual 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~ion of S h k .41 Ywd by A h & Rubmsbm (Jmsdm. 1412)- pp. 7-33.

Ediplltenmeat. Zw~iflel plawd Hasidism tlirbin the tradition of Spinoza's pantheism and he mainuined that, like Spin* ism, Hasidism had helped ro break dmn tbe Rabbinic \wlI which h~rheno had 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 of rhe factions of Judaism of his day, it is c.leat t bat he viewed Hasidism as an lrnprovernen~ over the arid and cLitis1 Rabbinism which i t had come lo challmgt, So. for csamplc, afier describing Hasidism's radically mystical affirmation of divine immanence, Zweiffel comments:

Hariclyr?. 3s i l is today. ]:as a c lnrcr undclstandiv of r a t Urc :!un the TBI- m~d;c ~nimaedism oi the T m h faitkful masss ,a-bo m j ~ i all .>I &c jq s a3d plezsurcs oi iJ:..s ~rc f ld - 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 ~ ~ w is lo alipnrnerrt wi l l : rbat of :he nsaslull!m.

Tl l is ~hernc was! 1wo dccadts ia~cr, l a bc rakrn up by the hasidic ramantidsrs, such as MY. Bcrdichevsky. S.A. Horodeisky and Y.L. Perttz. But in his own day. Z=eiffel rtmaincd \firtually isolated among the rnaskillim in his prefer- ences for ~ h c Btsht 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 of the EZT- ern 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 teo- men1 in t he 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 ten- dencies 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 ~ T ~ ~ O . the Gaon was deliberately cash by the early

maskilirn, as well as their sympa&eric chroniclers of rbe

1 W-iwnschafi des Judenturns rnovemeot as, to quote Max Rai- sin. he originator of the movement' of Jcuish enlighrenmait

I P

in the Easr.I1 In his remarkable anti-hasidic essay. 'Hz-Hasiduth ve-ha-

Ha~kaLla,"~~ Shai Ish Hurwi~z:~ ifi ired Ihe fallowing, rather typical, rnaskillic apprecialion o f the Gaon of Vilna as a pre- cursor of rhe enlighttnment:

I t was rk GR4 who first crc~tcd lkr: omniic~. lisc Lhr eye of a needk. for thc c r i ~ i d rcslual slud:; -of c .5~ Tztmud. \sh:c?~ t: : a ~ ~ l h rcsulicd 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 e alow -who al!owed him- ecJftt~ m c n C Rzbbin~c rc.tis cril:dl!,. And ccminly :kc GK4's c r 5 d ICXILIIL! insifh~x w r r r far morz su;hori;aiive ~I ian (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 C S I[p?lpd). m d WYLS C~C fir^! i O c ~ w b l ~ z h a I+-! m w g i ~ a l order CJF studq wllercby Jmia child:rn a~l; ld bc-in w i t h Bihlc and Hebrtu- mm, f ~ l l w t d bv M i s h d . ~nc! only rhcl begin ~ h c study d Tzlmud - a p r o m r/ hich ==% ;ztcr c htm~ioaed b! a!: ot' ihc nnik i l l~rn . In 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~ron w u l d haw d m roDa hed ii no[ bttn for the pioomag work of tllc GR,A9

1' 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 !.j~..h{i:r,fh j~--r!-,&f,;cr~,. Val 1- P- I-~~:+SPII h b : v Li:j,h>.h:r ?mi-V~!rt &~;,.,i

ka-e!::-r; iL.-kramaLb ~ k o & k . w ~ & .k&~s zwttr.xn.!. ; LOUU 6453- 7itJms h

I R~*ulc.- Tk S1cytk fcr Em~mpti@r. 19- 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 a ; T:drr.it u.Mczruth'. La Prrlrhidn disT?itA!l: L - H m z b ira-Ychdilk E!>rrnci Hd!qr;d;'m r - ~ r - s +bh-:ij;:= - ?,frkhJIk !r-Pi+~c>r Y d d . h me, ( J e w l e r n , 19QO), Pp. 1 U2-217. See also. on &c b e ning of b l o l l t smr@ lhc hMinical d:rt ;or 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 h H ~ l i d d h I Y - H ~ W ~ (Trl Axi - , 1936-5s). k'01.l. PD. 1 GO- 14s: VOL 11 Pp. 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 ~ M I ~ Prey7 {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 xhdar- sh~p,.. m.d 21 his ccmrnmd did Bzrck\ or Shklov dxidc lo lranr!are E ~ l i d into 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 @ircaiorr of St- X ~ ~ n d e l s s o ; ~ . in e jcinr eKon re find sr3y-s in invhic3 to hpravc &e spjniwal conddon md tduca~op of rhz I& pmp!el"

This idyllic porrrayal of 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 ~ k less than two years ~ a r I i c r . ~ ~ But Hunkirz' highly cxa~erated degic~ion of 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~hclic revisionist interpretations of Hasidism which were ar the time being advanced by the Jes~rh nco- romanticists such as Horode.tsky. Berdichevs!q- and Buber, Wunviu' polcrnic is e l fee bit as merciless in its rritique of Hasidisrn as were the class~cal rnisnagdic polemics and haskolle satires of 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 sym- pathetic reappraisal of Hasidisrn irrspired by the influence of European mmanticism. in panicular the umritings of Schopen- hauer 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.

. - - -' 'HE-Hasidutb vcrlrz-Hnslcllla', H e r i . 2 , 1909. p ~ . ; 1-32 r s S.A. Horodc&y. -&-Gr;l Vc-h-BeJht'. H+SS:kir, VCL 17 (1907). $1 00,

pp. 358156.

1 Disillusioned by he early haskollc's alrnosr exclusive

i emphasis on reason and undersranding, and disachan ted with European idealism, rhe 3ev;ish romanticists - many o f them

I passionate Zionists - longed to recover the h a t e , primitive essence of ancient Israel and cIairncd to have found ir in Hasidism. In contrast to the watrivcd genius of the Talmud- ists 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~ion of 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 Yisruti-

By far the most enthusiaslic champion. of Hasidism among the ranks of these Russian Zionist his~orians and cssayisrs was Shmuel Abba Horodeuky. X proli Fiq if not perfectly cri l id, 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~y from Bibliml times until bis own day, which is most forcefully and systemaucaliy expressed in his collectiorl of essays en titled Ydkadxlh I i~dtkJl t f

w-Yakabitrk ka-Reg~:l;.'~ As thiS title s u g g e ~ ~ ~ Harocletsky sim- plistically artempted to characrerize all uf the various higori- cal fonns of the Jewish religious experience scbernarically under wo sweepingly broad rubrics - "sekheP and % p k " ( ~ a - son and emorion). R ~ e r k connotes the authent~c, prirnilive spirituality of tbe J e w s ; mpk is the true religion of ancieot Israel; i~ breathes the frcc spiri~ of the land of Israel, its proph-

I6Td Aviv, JQ47. Of parrimfar rclet-nce to tbc DRSrnl discunion of llgsidirrn h rbc rial chap~er of HarodcisQfa book. eol~lled -ha-Zaddk'. pp.

I 1 59- 191.

els and holy men. SrCkb, b~ contrasr, exemplifies the exilic religion of reason and lau: i r 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 t h I J U - T ~ P S : ~ : subordinare lhough ir was to Yakadtirl~ ka.~&ird during rhe long years of Israel's homeless- ness 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~i cizes the obsession or 1 he Eastern European Rabbis u i th Torah scholarship and intellec~ual al~ainrnent, charaaerizing it as a sad reflec~ion of he dominar~on of Juda- ism by ~c,i.!:r!. i t was anly rhe revolt against Ra bbinisrn wrought by ~ h c Baal 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~ l l r . The hasidic masters. about !(-horn Horodcrsky W T ~ E SQ pmlifi- a l l y and rcvtrcntly, WCJ-P follotving in the mi tradition of the prophe~s OC ancient Israei. thc bc!c.i ica-u~~adah and the kabbalisrs Jn this scheme, Hasidism w s more than merely a prccumr to thc haskoUe; for h restoring the props 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~veriog of he naiivc and aurhentic Jewish spiritual genius, exercised him to produce many impressive sludies of

Hasidism, mosr significan~l~~ his extensive biographical scries I 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~nger of a great renais- sance 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 crib- ia, such as Shai Humit2.

In the most idlamma t ory of Homdersky 's essays, I he afore- rnentioncd "HE-Giu ve-!w-BsIr:*. he mntrastixi these two great men in bold and sharp tcrms, characterizing the Gaan o f Vilna as a st ! 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 advance- ment 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 wis- dom and spiritual insight lo them Ar the wnclusion o f his respectit-c portraits of the Gaon and ihe Bmhl be evaluated

I their true legacy thus:

Hurwitz mponded with outrase. HOW dare any one mini- mize rhe centrali~y of 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-

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 supgosdy created, far fmm liberating thc J e w rrom their exilc. the mystical non- senst u4hich the Besht inculated in his followrrrs send onIy to reinforce the ghetto, and ro deepen ~e squalor of we- modern 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 schoIar- ship. rcsulring frrlally something far worse than Rabbinic authorimrian i sm: namely, a mindless religious behakjoris rn- .AS for Harodctskv's claim that basidirn sup plantcd the

oppressive oligarchy of medieval Rabbinic Judaism with a kind of populisr freedom. Huwirz iosists that it i s precisely Judaism's veneration of scholarship which consriru tes 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 ignorarn~. )~ Hurwitz maintains that in Rabbinic culture any Jew can rise ta the rank of a T~!~r.id Hchk~n:. Bat, of come. 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~t h ~ - ~ ~ h ~ c & i i ~ (the Jewish papacv) - namely, ihc subjugation of ihs hasid to ibe contra1 of thc all-powtrful Zaddik, a regal figut ~vhose power and prestige are inherited, no1 earned.

H w i u places Homdetsky's courtship of Hasidisrn in the oanrext of be finde-siMe rcjtx~ion bf the rationalism, characterizing rhe nco-hasidim as decadent rehk against the original values of the Age of Reason. And he passionarely pleads for a

return ro genuine haskolle, to a lifc guided by rtasan and xbolarship, rather than the prirnltiw and superstitious mysti- ckm wbich had so enricad ~ h t romanricists.

rm tm YU 13 n-ym.' .-,an 7-1 a m bn 11- ny .a5>wfi.l5~ UW nb. own n? w, ~hl 7n1 I p . I ~ N n-n~71r.n 3 wail ?it UZIZ wwil m a .am f3 ?non

*.amn.) arn

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

I Hurwlu of rekindling the flames of hatred which had oncc raged between rhe hasidirn and mithnagdim in the days o f rhe

I &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 ~ u . Using the fantaslic hasidic Ir.gcnds oi 1 he 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 mid-

\ dle 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~JY Y093j ZB/Mlh Pdf:t?ai;l, :Waggid Dmrav It-Yadkov add

I

Z a r r d ~ ~ h HQ-R:~JZ~, 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 wllnm 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 under3 tanding of Hasidisrn can be toda?. h a r d in the revisian- aqF work 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 qust for the natutal. primal religon of ancien~ Isracl are sometimes today repeated in the most uncxpec~ed contcxts - for example, Harold Bloom's b i m dedia~zon of T ~ E 3mk q f j to the Israeli scnolar of Kabbala Moshc: 1Gd-

Onc 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 rn~ \~ernent 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 at Y ~ r n Ki?pur, kfu:: Ko: YlJte, UK: cnngre@:i~n mtb- ewd ir [he ~ I F ~ - W ~ T & . . Tbe &~1?: srcx~d ilp. 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;~u thcl; rra!i7cd !bar ~ 3 i r x u col an crcplr WI- T&. Y3cn ? h ~ 3bl?1 16olcd ~!r-wg); (he W Y C ~ G P a d uu. an old pnts umalljrg bcforc *C ky-#:r?rrr::. 31:d b ~ ' WWII OJI !Q ws him. Tbc Rabbi bcg;v: to Wli; ~wvh I!!m. He asJ;ed iim h ~ w hc uqs. and t h q j a a r n o K> engmscd in mt-ema- liibn :ha[ l..c scco!~p2nied him bomc. Tht R13b: L(15iu:ucid W I I ~ b?m ~ h j he 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 umd Sirn rb r&gn his ~ees:CobC znd 3cr;%nn the mirzvih of pwp3uLian ~t !tzn in his old a@, The pru: ~ : d !ha! ac;rofctng rc 1I;a ranli he ~ ~ ' c [ d r t ~ r axy a wm2n ofrhe !swcr c i s anc a ~0rrt20 2f 3 \ ~ a r i h y fam:l) uvu:d a3t ayce Lo nmarrk h~m. T o ? rabbi said hat a c c m governor had a beau~iid dac@rm and be uwdd c r m h l y b t wiUing lo G1-c hcr 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. Tnc d b i ~rnrnrdla~:!y to &c !rp~ndd aad - x ~ :D pray KO: Sldx

~ C r e r ilrc prayCrs hs f o l ~ o n u 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 g hxzuse 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 b the trclp oFGcd a:! of roc a~rwcrs were dilhlced.::

Aficr paraphrasing his rale. Huwi t2 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 hean in a Hcbrcuq literaq 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 siar- tling, revision is^ article, Berdichevsky cited this v e q same hasidic We of how i r was only a Priest's orgaqm which allowed the Jews' prayers LO soar to rbc hczv~ns, as a spccitic source of his disillusionmen~l with 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. -,%I ha-GRA ~e-ha-BEsW. HKSH!~:L. VoL 19

i 1910). pp. 213-229. I r i~c5 b 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 a ~ o 5Sel & 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-Rav t'~-!:;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 sou rcc. 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.Y K ~ Y , dcscribs how, w&r almost identical cir- cumstances - 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 nah7e and ignorant young lad an act hala!chically forbidden an Yom Kippur. which suc- ccedcd in reaching God whcm thc prayers of the man pious and teamed Jews had failed.

~3ywk ~ h l ? 087 .~Y; IY I 1vn.0 .WILYJ fun-b .mp nlrn crr w i r o n n l : (YW UYI rs -n~-05-r(l 0 % ~ alnn u3p ~7 .;hmrm I ~ IW i w al:w 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 o n .qk U ~ I .lua iyl :'xo .ojLay> ~py;m IIR ? w o w 7 7 0911) I Y I ~ ~ I i;5 o o : l r l w ~ IT) o:nm~ nw WD O ~ ? I I ,kin p* 9 ~ 5 1 5 D&- loby3 ruIA u p wnw w i ~ W D rg IM ,ir;lWr 5 layam u ~ i r IIH 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 'ml oyt @o I~ZIIXI OYW PKO ,051;jyl ?O;'W TIM ( ~ 1 Y!J? Iln v&? t;rv+15 8 01) ww yo Wo oyn 2'lyd .03"'1 11% j T N 3 ? 39-01- W ~ Y I " I 1 ?S U?@WD'IR l lt OF7 1- .mIIP ,n1313 qqx wir975 17 1 ~ w 5 ~ I L J unn iyn r h .nu?-snmp 1 9 IIPI o x l w m y 71 lsn m n l : m .iwn lrc .om ~ 1 3 *lr :I> IlM DW7Y3 DN I ~ ~ ~ - ~ T I x 'T 7'1 w;1

tlx v p m 4 7 G i ~ l c l ~ u ~ wn ou*) ~ Y T .lw -m 115 w n l a om lcrt nrw 1:5 my: 3 ~ 7 may3 e n w oyr ,WY Ion; nyl5 r ~ 1 1'13 I ~ U J IDm172 nyr 113 w ' r l l ~ ~ n ~ 1 . 7 . 5 n wcyltm Irn n:w 'r !w.y1gn UWI lei) JY rn .WYI eil 19 m , a i ~ ~ x r m WII bynlrbp v5a OUII lrx w m n + IIN IYIIW u,: ' p ! n ~ V m-qrl . 9 ~ 3 ~ 1 OF i n 8 - Zrr i y :tn n ln onu opsy yl uwm w rn ,ow (IX .W~VJB'I ~ 1 3 mflr @ I Y I ~ ~ O W ~ ~ lvlryr tnw 057 112( YM-~~E 15'1~ IXUya 1~h 1U Ot$.'l V f .L3'1 IY? .lP W i F ,140 nY2b T I N l ~ m y 18 I-+IL~I r x 3 3 ~ 1 ' ly~3- WW 115 lY? ;I? llx J ~ W p' Wlu 1 ~ 7 1.w ,113>n-n~> 1 > ~ 5 ) l m - ~ tmlu nm-n I: I!N u:SwaS1m yr pna IWIC ~ l k I:U ~WDZ nryiyrl 11n iy 1.7 8 ]In un n D T T I Y W ~ 1 ~ 2 on;? WD IIN WIIW hrn ~ 7 8 17'1 o!: vn

. ? n a - n : r 1 5 n % ~ n l r m ( I P ~

Clmly Berdichashu miginally saw in lhis Hasidic tale all &a[ he had wk'jshcd ~ a s i d i s t n to be - a return ro a primitive, natural relsrionship wilh God, in uuhich nci~her l&ing nor

piay nor halakh ic obdicnce. are ol ultima~e spiri~ual wordy a sysrem of faith in which a primal shriek is mom .evalued by God than the m a t sophisticated formulations of he esrab- lished 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 mi- versa1 mo\..cment anay from thc ghcrto uphich be 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 Jew- ish alienation from the u ~ r l d Where 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:

Historians bave, natumlly enougb, mmplc~aly diweditcd the romantic view of Hasidism. Examined mitically and his- torically. 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 an 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 ~ h of rationalism and of any cban~es to 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-ienred tbem as purely ancillaq- io Torah, and as norhing more than the handmaidens of faith.

For the historian, fcr the objec~i\re textual 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~-e evdua~ions of rbe Besht and he Gra. For hasidim and misnagdim mere equally back- ward 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 anal- ysis of his tor jd aod rcrxrual scholars. The full imp1 itat ions of thc teachings of these great men are far rnorc complex lhan the sober histo~mUphilologica1 study of their writings migbt revc21-

AU of h c aso-hasidic romanricists wert forced to confess ihat the pure Hasidisrn in whicb ~ b q - rzw 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~sky o ~ t r s i r n p ~ e d the 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 of 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 of 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~e be perceived as a manifestatio~ o f mol l ha-Borth, includins his moral a ~ d religious failings. In his most shocking expression of this r e l i ~ a u s dcrerminism. [he Izhbi~zer Rebbe 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 haven , 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 of 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

Rcbbe s~ruggled witb rhe ccnfining narm of the halakha when confron~ed pith 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 T one, 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 ulri- mately 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 mar- est seat of Jewish scholarship i n modem history. And. in time. it =.as precisely this ~ \ ~ e r ~ h e I r n i n g ernpbasis 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 YlV0 building. that the saxred rem-

nants 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~ion of the very fim catalogue of this library, L i k u ~ i Skoskdrlim, 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 o w phi lo~ph!~ of R. >fordcclraI \ ' O W ~ f ig Izhbilr see Mo* LC. Fslers~ern. nil ;i ~r % Han& $H?>;m - Tk Tt-crki~:: y-R&i M~rdeka i lmrph LI~~ ,~F ;fi:hir;; Yo* Y c ~ h ~ t z . 1989j. SCC d~ :hc TLUC by J & C P ~ W z k 'A Laie Jwcs U i ~ p i a of Religious F d o m . ' in 5 1 d s 16 Earm E u m ,WMJO~WG 1 W y i 4 v m Osforb l GSS. pg. 209-248.

represenring almost eveq discipline of rhe sciences and humanitis. And &e library was, over tbe subsequent years. used by every element of 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 all- embracing scbo~arship of the Gaon of Vilna- Tbe remarkable oper~css of t h i s grcat Jewish institution is captured in an essay about the Strashun Library, by its lag l ibmian, Reb Haikel Lunsky:

YJVO, was forzunate enough physically lo haw inherited a major p m of the '~trashun Library. But we have ool yet become i ~ s full and authentic heu. For YlVO to Qourish in tbe coming becad- i~ musL capture tbc opeo and ~ l e c t i c spirit of the Strasbun library, whose bmks i t now owns. YrVO must

I dedicate itsel€ to r he objective audy, documentation and reha- billration 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~usc of 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 of 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 magnifi- cence of that reading rmrn in Vilna.

Documents

Rationalism, Romanticism, Rabbis and Rebbes · Rationalism, Romanticism, Rabbis and Rebbes Inaugural Lecture of Dr, Allan L. Nadler Director of Research, Y IVO Institute for Jewish