Dovid Bashevkin - Perpetual Prophecy - An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok Ha-Kohen of Lublin on His 110th Yahrzeit

8/8/2019 Dovid Bashevkin - Perpetual Prophecy - An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok Ha-Kohen of Lublin on His 110th Yahrzeit

1/18

1

This essay originally appeared online at Dovid Bashevkin, PerpetualProphecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin onhis 110th Yahrzeit, the Seforim blog (18 August 2010), available here(http://seforim.blogspot.com/2010/08/dovid-bashevkin-perpetual-

prophecy.html)

Perpetual Prophecy:

An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit

by Dovid Bashevkin

Reb Zadok ha-Kohen Rabinowitz of Lublin (hereafter: Reb Zadok) was born in 1823

into a noted rabbinic family. From a young age, we are told, he displayed signs of astonishing

genius.1 While many of these stories are questionable, it is evident that by the time he celebratedhis bar mitzvah he was extremely thoroughly familiar with the standard rabbinic corpus and

could navigate it easily.2 By the time he turned twenty he had already written several works on

Talmudic law and showed his interest in matters historical. From studying his earlier works it

Dovid Bashevkin studied for several years at Yeshivat Shaalavim and at Ner Israel Rabbinical College,and is completing his rabbinic ordination at RIETS (Yeshiva University), and holds an MA in Jewish

philosophy the Bernard Revel Graduate School (Yeshiva University), where he focused on Polish Hasidutand the writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin and studied with Prof. Yaakov Elman. The article was

written on the occasion of the sixth yahrzeit, on 2 Ellul, of his grandmother, Zlata Golda bas GershonBinyamin ha-Levi ah. The author would like to offer a tremendous thanks to his mentor, Prof. YaakovElman, who continuously offers selflessly of his time, energy, and much saged advice to an ever inquiringand searching student, and under whose guidance this essay was privileged to have been written. Specialthanks, as well, is extended to a very dear and longtime-friend, the ever patient and indefatigableMenachem Butler, for his assistance in many of the nuances of this essay, and to the editors (and readers)ofthe Seforim blogfor their gracious consideration of this essay. Of course, any errors contained in thisessay are the responsibility of the author, who can be reached here ([email protected]).

1 For some astounding tales of genius and piety from Reb Zadoks youth, of which include recitation of ablessing on his mothers milk and the ability to count how many leaves were on a tree, see Abraham IsaacRabinovitch, Malachei Elyon (Jerusalem: Otzar HaSippurim, 1966), 19 (Hebrew). For more general

information on Reb Zadoks life, though mostly hagiographic, see ibid. 18-32; see also Shlomo ZalmanSheragai and Avraham Bick, be-Heikhal Izbica-Lublin (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1977; Hebrew)which includes some fascinating, though almost certainly apocryphal, tales about Reb Zadoks initialmeeting with R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner. Also see the more recent work, Sefer ha-Kohen (Bnei Brak:Mekhon Shem Olam, 2004), 11-24 (Hebrew).2 The sermon delivered at his bar mitzvah has been subsequently published in Collected Writings of Reb

Zadok of Lublin, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mekor ha-Seforim, 2001), Meishev Tzedek, 69-78 (Hebrew), and bears the mark of a mature and erudite scholar. Additionally see Reb Zadok, Or Zaruah, 53, whichcontains some remarks he wrote at the age of thirteen.


2/18

2

becomes abundantly clear that even prior to his later Hasidic transformation he was quite an

original thinker. Though many of his works are in the form of traditional rabbinic writing, there

is much that is truly striking, both in terms of the topics which he broached, which included

historiography, chronology,3 and astronomy, and the manner in which they were discussed. From

an early age he was quite fond of amalgamating the normally distinct worlds of legal Talmudic

discussion and aggadah.

During the mid-twentieth-century, Reb Zadoks thought was first taught in America by R.

Shraga Feivel Mendowitz, who gave classes on his works during his tenure as administrator and

Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshivas Torah VDaas.4 The works of Reb Zadok also deeply influenced the

works of R. Eliyahu Dessler,5 R. Gedaliah Shor,6 and R. Yitzchak Hutner.7 These roshei yeshiva

brought Reb Zadoks works to American yeshivot. Often unknown to those studying the works

of these aforementioned rabbis, some of who rarely, if at all, cite Reb Zadok by name, thethought and influence of Reb Zadok is manifest in their work. It is fair to say that the resurgence

3 See Reb Zadok,Kuntres Zikeron la-Rishonim printed in Sinai 21 (Nisan, 1947) andKuntres Shemot ba-Aretz which discuss, respectively, the history and chronology of the prophets and the post-Talmudicsages. Reb Zadok himself dates Zikeron la-Rishonim as being written in 5597 (1837), thus placing thisastounding work under the pen of a thirteen year old!4 This was reported to me by several students who attended these classes. See, as well, Aharon Suraski,Sheluha de-Rahmana (New York: Feldheim 1992), 126. I am especially grateful to Prof. Shnayer Z.Leiman for his assistance in locating this source.5 For example see Mikhtav me-Eliyahu, vol. 3 (Bnei Brak: Committee for the Publication of the Writings

of E.L. Dessler, 1964), 277-278 (Hebrew).6 For example see Or Gedalyahu: Sihot uMamarim al Moadim (Brooklyn, 1981), esp. the talks onHanukkah.7 R. Hutners relationship with Reb Zadoks work is particularly mysterious. Nowhere in Pahad Yitzhakdoes R. Hutner mention Reb Zadok explicitly by name, though those familiar with Reb Zadoks work cansense his influence throughout. The only explicit reference to Reb Zadok can be found in an introductoryletter to the publication of workAlfasi Zuta , later republished in his collected letters #80, where R. Hutnercites a passage from Reb Zadoks Sefer Zichronot, one of his lesser studied works, explaining the

permissibility to learn the works of the students of the R. Yisrael Sarug, despite the ban imposed by R.Hayyim Vital on learning Kabbalah of the Arizal from any sources other than his own. R. Hutnerscitation of this obscure passage in R. Zadoks works definitely betrays his intimate familiarity with hisworks. Why Reb Zadok is never cited by name in Pahad Yitzhakis a matter which must be considered

and see Steven S. Schwarzschild, An Introduction to the Thought of R. Isaac Hutner, Modern Judaism5:3 (October 1985): 235-277, who discussed some of the influences of Reb Zadoks Rebbe, R. MordechaiYosef Leiner of Izbica on the thought of R. Hutner, and noted (in 264n27) that R. Hutner occasionallycites R. Zadok, in a heavily chassidic, messianic context: cf. e.g. This Weeks Biblical Lesson(Yiddish), Algemeiner Journal, Dec. 23, 1977, p. 5, col. 5, and see also Yaakov Elman, R. ZadokHakohen on the History of Halakah, Tradition 21:4 (Fall 1985): 20-22 (Addendum). Surprisingly, therecent exhaustive and important work by Shlomo Kasirer, Repentance in the Thought of R. IsaacHutner, (PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2009; Hebrew) does not consider the influence of RebZadok on R. Hutner.


3/18

3

of the study of what has become known as mahshava in contemporary yeshivot truly owes a

great deal of credit to the works of Reb Zadok.

The academic study of Reb Zadok is surely in debt to Prof. Yaakov Elman, who brought

the thought of Reb Zadok to the English speaking academic world in a series of articles

published over the past twenty-five years.8 His analysis of many of the central themes

simultaneously charted new grounds in Hasidic scholarship and remain the standard from which

subsequent scholarship on Reb Zadok is measured.9

Recently, Reb Zadok has begun to receive much deserved attention from the academic

community. Historians, theologians, and sociologists have begun to explore the works of The

Kohen, as he is often referred to colloquially, for his timeless and penetrating approach to

Jewish thought. On the occasion of Reb Zadoks 110th yahrzeit, a brief history of Reb Zadoks

thought, as expounded in the last few generations and a never-before-published original essay(The World as a Book: Religious Polemic, Hasidei Ashkenaz, and the Thought of Reb Zadok),

is presented for the readers of the Seforim blog.

8 Shai Hadari should certainly be given due credit for his Hebrew works on Reb Zadok, the firstacademic presentation of R. Zadoks works, in Shai Hadari, Roshei Hodashim be-Mishnei R. Zadok ha-Kohen, Sinai 56:1-2 (1965): 84-99 (Hebrew); idem, Purim be-Mishnato shel R. Zadok ha-Kohen mi-Lublin, Sinai 46:6 (1960): 333-369 (Hebrew); idem, Shir Shel Yom, Sinai 53:1-6 (1963): 75-91(Hebrew). In addition, an excellent biographical portrait can be found in Alan Brill, Thinking God: TheMysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2002), 15-51, though (todate) the most comprehensive analysis of Reb Zadoks overall works and thought remains Amira Liwer,Oral Torah in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin, (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University,2006; Hebrew), and see, as well, her earlier work in Amira Liwer, Paradoxical Themes in the Writingsof Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin, (MA thesis, Touro College, 1992; Hebrew). Those interested incomparative theology would certainly enjoy Chaim Hirsch, Ahavat Tzedek(Jerusalem, 2002; Hebrew),which compares the thought of Reb Zadok to that of R. Kook. In a similar vein, see Bezalel Naor,Zedonot Naaseh ki-Zekhuyot be-Mishnato shel ha-Rav Kook, Sinai 97 (1983): 78-87 (Hebrew); andsee also idem, Hashpat Nefesh ha-Hayyim al Reb Zadok ha-Kohein mi-Lublin, Sinai 104 (1989): 186-188 (Hebrew). Much can be learned from the overlap and nuanced differences of these innovativethinkers. For a comprehensive bibliography of Reb Zadoks works, and secondary works discussing RebZadoks life and scholarship, see Gershon Kitsis, ed., Meat Latzadik(Jerusalem: Beis Publications, 2000;

Hebrew), and Alan Brill, Thinking God, 378-390 (Appendix I).9 See Yaakov Elman, R. Zadok Hakohen on the History of Halakah, Tradition 21:4 (Fall 1985): 1-26;idem, Reb Zadok Hakohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process, Jewish Law AssociationStudies 1 (1985): 1-16; idem, The History of Gentile Wisdom According to R. Zadok ha-Kohen ofLublin,Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 3:1 (1993): 153-187; idem, Progressive Derash andRetrospective Peshat: Nonhalakhic Considerations in Talmud Torah, in Shalom Carmy, ed., ModernScholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996),227-87; and idem, The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the Nineteenth and TwentiethCenturies,Jewish Studies Internet Journal2 (2003): 199-249.


4/18

4

The turning point in Reb Zadoks life was his divorce from his first wife. At the age of

twenty-one, after getting married in his mid-teens, he decided to seek a divorce. The reasons for

his insistence on a divorce are not clear, though it seems that Reb Zadok was led to believe that

his wife had not maintained the level of piety that was required for him, as a Rav and Kohen. His

wife, however, refused to accept a bill of divorce, forcing Reb Zadok to travel as an itinerant

scholar throughout Europe in order to obtain a heter meah rabbanan.10 Of the many rabbinic

personalities he met during the trip, it was R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica who would

completely transform Reb Zadoks life.11

After his encounter with the Rebbe of Izbica, Reb Zadok decided to begin living as a

Hasid. Though such a transition, as pointed out by Alan Brill, was certainly not as dramatic as it

would have been several generations earlier, when the Hasidic-Mitnaggedic feud was in its

fullest thrust, the cultural change was still quite significant. Reb Zadok spent nearly a decade atthe court of R. Leiner after which he left to remarry and settle near Lublin. His second marriage,

sadly, did not produce any children. For the remainder of his life, Reb Zadok remained immersed

in study and contemplation from which he produced volumes of writings, none of which were

published in his lifetime. He spent thirty-four years, from 1854 until 1888, in seclusion. It was

10 A heter meah rabbanan is a document signed by one hundred rabbis which allows one to take a secondwife in the event that the current wife refuses to willingly accept a divorce. The specific Halakhic detailsof this document, while fascinating, are beyond the scope of this paper. For more on the issues

surrounding this document see Herem de-Rabbeinu Gershom, Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. 17, cols.378-454, esp. 447-452 (Hebrew).11 See Alan Brill, Thinking God, 24, for an impressive list of some of the personalities encountered duringhis travels. Notably, Reb Zadok is mentioned in R. Joseph Shaul Nathensons Shoel u-Meshiv 6th ed., no.54.

R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner, originally a student of R. Simcha Bunim of Prysucha, and afterwardsof R. Menachem Mendal of Kotzk, famously departed Koztk in 1840 to establish his own Hasidic court.For more details on the life of R. Leiner and the reasons for his schism with R. Menachem Mendel, seeMorris M. Fairstein, All is in the Hands of Heaven: The Teaching of Rabbi Mordechai Joseph Liener of

Izbica (New York, 1989), and, more recently, in idem, Kotsk-Izbica Dispute: Theological or Personal?Kabbalah 17 (2008): 75-79. A more detailed discussion of Izbicas radical philosophy of determinism andsin can be found in Aviezer Cohen, Self-Consciousness in Mei haa-Shiloah As the Nexus Between God

and Man (PhD dissertation, Ben-G - 4 -urion University of the Negev, 2006; Hebrew), and AviezerCohen, Capability as a Criterion for Observance and Non-Observance of the Mitzvot: ReligiousExistentialism in the Thought of Franz Rosenzweig and Rabbi Mordechai Leiner of Izbica, in HavivaPedaya and Ephraim Meir, eds.,Judaism, Topics, Fragments, Faces, Identities: Jubilee Volume in Honorof Rivka (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2007), 525-575 (Hebrew). See also theimportant work by Shaul Magid, Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, andMessianism in Izbica/Radzin Hasidism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), and DonSeeman, Martyrdom, Emotion and the Work of Ritual in R. Mordecai Joseph Leiners Mei ha-Shiloah,

AJS Review 27:2 (November 2003): 253-280.


5/18

5

only during the final thirteen years of his life, following the death of his dear friend R. Leible

Eiger (who had succeeded R. Leiner after his death in 1854), that Reb Zadok functioned as a

traditional Hasidic Rebbe.12 On the ninth of Elul (Monday, 3 September 1900), in the seventy-

seventh year of his life, Reb Zadok passed away.

Reb Zadok incorporated his own life struggles and frustrations into his own work. Over

the course of his life there were two struggles that loomed large: his divorce and subsequent

wandering through Europe, and his childlessness. Regarding the former, it is difficult to find

even an allusion to the emotional toll which this difficulty took on Reb Zadoks life. However

with regard to the latter, it is quite clear that his childlessness was a major theme in his works.

The title of Reb Zadoks sermon collection, Pri Tzadik, is an allusion to his own perception of

his children (referred to Rabbinic literature as pri [fruits] of an individual) being the Torah

teachings imparted to his students.13 Additionally, Reb Zadok dedicated an entire work, entitledPoked Akarim (The Visiting of the Barren), first printed in 1922, for this theme to be made

apparent.

The only source of directly autobiographical information from Reb Zadok is his

fascinating work, Divrei Halomot (The Message of Dreams), first printed in 1903, of his own

documentation of his dreams. The dreams, which are dated starting in 1845 and end in 1883, are

mostly theological or Talmudic in nature, but many autobiographical insights can be gleaned

12 R. Leible Eiger was the grandson of the pre-eminent Rav, R. Akiva Eiger and the son of R. ShlomoEiger, a major rabbinic figure in his own right. Similar to Reb Zadok, he also left his Lithuanianupbringing for the world of Hasidut. Initially he began as a student of R. Menachem MendelMorgenstern, the Rebbe of Kotzk, however he left in 1840 with the court of R. Mordechai Yosef Leinerto Izbica. Reb Zadoks and R. Leibles similar life trajectories made them natural friends and theyremained as such their entire lives. For more on the life of R. Leible, see the three volume workYehudahleKasho (Tel Aviv, 1999) and for a letter from Reb Zadok to R. Leible, responding to the formers legal

query regarding the laws of circumcision, see Collected Writings of Reb Zadok of Lublin, vol. 5(Jerusalem: Mekor ha-Seforim, 2001), Levushei Tzedakah, 34-35 (Hebrew). R. Leibles works, Torat

Emetand Imrei Emet, have not received any attention in the academic community and a complete studyon the intellectual oeuvre remains a scholarly desideratum.13 See Elchanan Dovs biographical sketch appended to Reb Zadok, Otzar ha-Melekh (Bnei Brak:Yahadut, 1968), 3, who cited Midrash Tanhuma, Noah 3, which reads: When a person leaves the worldwithout children he is pained and tearful. God says to him: Why are you crying? Because you did notgrow any fruits in this world? There is a fruit more beautiful than childrenthe Torah of which it iswritten, The fruits of the Righteous is the Tree of Life.


6/18

6

from them as well.14 Particularly, as been noted by several scholars, the third dream recorded,

dated 1843, has provided particularly rich insight into Reb Zadoks self-perception:

I dreamt a dream [when I was present in Izbica] in which certain ideas were reveled to

me from the roots of my soul. And among the ideas which were told to me is that the

generation of Messiah will consist of those souls of the Generation of the Wilderness

whom are in turn comprised of the souls of the Flood and they (the Generations of the

Flood) corrupted their ways and sinned in what is known in rabbinic works as the sin of

youth15 and the rectification of this is in the Generation of the Wilderness for which is

was called the kindness of youth. As it is written I have remembered for you the

kindness of my youth. (Jeremiah 2:2).16

Undoubtedly, this text, described by Reb Zadok himself as the roots of my soul, is the most

authoritative presentation of Reb Zadoks self-image in his extant writings. While itsinterpretation is ambiguous, the thrust of the dream is the powerful religious energy which is

present even in sins and the potential to channel such energy into positive direction, ultimately

resulting in the redemption. Why this relates to the root Reb Zadoks soul is less clear. What

emerges from this dream is THE central role the Hasidic idea of descent in order to elevate

14 See the important study by Martin Ritter, Scholarship as a Priestly Craft: Harry A. Wolfson onTradition in a Secular Age, in Klaus Herrmann, Margarete Schlter, and Giuseppe Veltri, eds., JewishStudies Between the Disciplines: Papers in honor of Peter Schfer on the Occasion of his Sixtieth

Birthday (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 435-455, who has noted that only by a careful reconstructionof the scholars complete writings is [the reader] able to discover the speculative underlying dimensionthat is often inter-woven with dry and long-winded interpretations. For later generations it thus remains acomplex challenge to reconstruct the ideas of those polymaths from their vast publications,correspondence, and papers (436). The same methodological inquiry, suggested Ritter, could beextended to Henry Corbin, tienne Gilson, Erwin R. Goodenough, Gershom Scholem, and Leo Strauss,and one would not be incorrect to also include Reb Zadok, and R. Nahman of Bratslav, R. Joseph B.Soloveitchik, among others.15 This is a rabbinic euphemism for the sin of wasting seed, about which see Shilo Pachter, Shmirat ha-Berit: The History of the Prohibition of Wasting Seed, (PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University, 2006),esp. 247-255, for a discussion of Reb Zadok. Recently, Reb Zadoks theology has been used to formulate

an appropriate response to the growing issue of sexual impropriety within the Modern Orthodoxcommunity, as discussed in Jennie Rosenfeld, Talmudic Re-Readings: Toward a Modern OrthodoxSexual Ethic, (PhD dissertation, City University of New York, 2008), esp. 73-123 (Nineteenth CenturyPolish Hasidisms Radical Ethics: R. Mordekhai Yosef Leiner of Izbica and R. Zadok ha-Kohen ofLublin), and though her interpretations and applications are often questionable, the discussion isnonetheless fascinating. For an additional perspective, listen to the lecture by R. Mayer Twersky and Dr.David Pelcovitz, Maintaining Kedusha in an Overexposed Society, YUTorah.org, delivered on 8February 2009, available here (http://tinyurl.com/274omzd).16 See Alan Brill, Thinking God, 27.


7/18

7

played in Reb Zadoks life, where in his methodology, as articulated by Yaakov Elman, the

great Lurianic drama of cosmic catastrophe and slow rebuilding takes on a decided

epistemologic cast. This cosmic drama, which Reb Zadok brilliantly presents through his

mastery of halakha, aggada, and the unfolding of Jewish History, was just as evident in the story

of his life.

While the following appendix is, of course, not an exhaustive presentation of Reb

Zadoks thought, the following brief essay should serve as a call for scholars from across

academic disciplines to carefully re-consider Reb Zadoks contribution to modern intellectual

thought.

Appendix:

The World as a Book:Religious Polemic, Hasidei Ashkenaz, and the Thought of Reb Zadok

Sweet are the uses of adversity,

Which like the toad, ugly and venomous,

Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;

And this is our life, exempt from public haunt,

Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,

Sermons in stones, and good in everything

-William Shakespeare (As You Like It, Act II, 1.14-17)

Mainstream Orthodox Jewish religious thought views the Bible as the exclusive

representation of Gods will. Certainly, experiential reality may serve as testimony to His will or

may inspire others to follow His will, however the arbiter of what His will precisely is, is

restricted to the domain of the Bible. This view is clearly reflected in the oft-cited formulation of

the Zohar that God looked into the Torah and created the world.17 The all encompassing will

of God is clearly represented in the statement by the Torah, while the world is merely an

expression of its truth. The world is not given any independent status as a prophet of sorts for the

word of God.

17Zohar, vol. 2, 161a.


8/18


9/18

9

perception of the outside world and, as it also underlay most of its art, found expression

in every frontal, portal, and stained-glass window of the cathedrals of the time. The

doctrine taught that God has declared Himself in two manifestations: in the Holy

Scriptures and in the Book of Nature. The world of sense is what it appears to be a

structure of physical objects but it is at the same time a mirror and mystical typology of

the attributes of the Creator Himself.20

Following the humanistic revolution and the Renaissance the notion of the Book of

Nature lost its prominence in Christian theology. The advances of science and humanistic

thinking forced Christians to focus on other ideas to further their own theological agenda.21

Overall it seems there are two primary themes that can be culled from the vast array of

presentations this analogy has taken in Christian thought relate to its objective and its substance.Firstly, in regards to its objective, the analogy served an important polemical role in the Churchs

battles with the Cathar heresy which maintained that a radical dualism of evil matter and divine

spirit existed in the world. Cathar dogma was founded upon the notion that two Gods existed,

one evil who was the creator of matter, and one good, who controlled the world of spirituality. 22

This approach is innovative for two reasons. By definition, proposing that God has

revealed Himself outside the explicit prophetic revelation of Scriptures is novel to a normally

prophetically based religion. Yet Christian theologians were uniquely innovative in that they

actively pursued Gods implicit revelation in nature in its most basic sense, namely, flora and

20 Haym Soloveitchik, Three Themes in the Sefer Hasidim,AJS Review 1 (1976): 315-16.21 For a more detailed discussion of the interaction of science and nature in Christian theology, see DavidC. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter betweenChristianity and Science (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).22 See Per Binde, Nature in Roman Catholic Tradition,Anthropological Quarterly 74:1 (January 2001):15-27. In regards to its substance, the analogy has a markedly literalist tone to its message. Nature was

not simply a product of Gods handiwork, but His spiritual message can be deciphered from withinNature to inspire man. mile Mle cites a gross example of literalism from Adam of Victor who, whilecontemplating a nut, remarked, What is a nut if not the image of Jesus? The green and fleshy sheath isHis flesh, His humanity. The wood of the shell is the wood of the Cross on which that flesh suffered. Butthe kernel of the nut from which men gain nourishment is His hidden divinity. See mile Mle, TheGothic Image: Religious Art in France of the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1953), 30, citing Adam ofSt. Victor, Sequentia. Patrol, cxcvi, col. 1433. Mle also noted other literalist interpretations of thespiritual message within nature such as Peter of Mora musing on the roses of a pedal and Hugh of St.Victor thoughts of the dove.


10/18

10

fauna. While other theologians were content with the first innovation, it was a markedly

Christian exercise to search for Gods message in the pedals of roses and the contours of a nut.23

Eventually, with the advent of the scientific revolution, the Church and its sacrosanct

Book of Nature faced tremendous controversy. The Galileo affair managed to shift the

astronomical view of our universe and consequently redefine the essence of the Book of nature.

In response to a letter from his student Castelli, who informed him of the concerns of the

Grand Duchess Christina regarding the relationship between religious dogma and Copernican

theory, Galileo wrote her a short essay entitled Letter to the Grand Duchess. It was in these

letters, to his student Castelli in 1613 (Letter to Castelli) and to the Grand Duchess in 1615,

that Galileo began to release the shackles restricting the Book of Nature to the Domain of the

Book of Scriptures. Later, in 1623 Galileo finally made it abundantly clear in which domain the

Book of Nature resided.24 He wrote:Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to

our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the

language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of

mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without

which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one

wanders about in a dark labyrinth.25

The sacred Book of Nature, which had for so long served as theological tool of the

Church was now beginning to lose its authority. Galileo was careful not to deny the authority of

the Book of Scriptures; it was with the interpretive framework of the Book of Nature that he took

issue. Criticizing the Churchs claim as the exclusive authority in the Book of Natures

interpretation, he felt the church had overstepped its boundaries in so narrowly defining the

scope of legitimate interpretation. In his opinion the Church believed that, Theology is the

23 This is not to say that such ruminations do not appear in Jewish theology. Certainly, reflections on thesignificance of the structure of nature are only to be found scattered in Jewish thought (see for exampleTB Eiruvin 100b). However the centrality and seriousness of this discipline is entirely absent and onwhole the practice altogether disappeared following the redaction of the Talmud.24 See Mario Biagioli, Stress in the Book of Nature: the Supplemental Logic of Galileos Realism, MLN118:3 (April 2003): 557-585, for a detailed analysis of evolution of the Book of Nature in Galileosthought.25 Galileo, The Assayer (1623), in Stillman Drake, trans., Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (NewYork: Doubleday, 1957), 238.


11/18

11

queen of all the sciences and hence must not in any way lower herself to accommodate the

principles of other less dignified disciplines subordinated to her; rather, there others must submit

to her as to a supreme empress and change and revise their conclusions in accordance with

theological rules and decrees.26 Galileo did not seek to delegitimize the Churchs claim to truth

in the Book of Scriptures; he just wanted that the Book of Nature be approached and understood

on its own terms as a concurrent source of truth, rather than a truth subordinate to the truth of the

Church.

Scholars have pointed out that it was not Galileos intention to engage in religious

polemic, and he was, in fact, quite hesitant to respond to the Duchess, due to his concern that his

innovative ideas would shake her faith. Most notably, Galileo never published the letter, a

testament to his honest intentions to simply allay the Duchesss theological concerns. However

the letter did eventually circulate locally and found its way into the Congregation of the HolyOffice in Rome, eventually setting the stage for Galileos trial of 1633 and the placement of

Copernicus De revolutionibus on the banned Index of the Church.27

Ultimately Galileos presentation of the parallel truths of the Book of Nature and the

Book of Scriptures did not help mitigate the attacks of his persecutors. As described by Biagioli,

The book of nature, therefore, was a Trojan horse: it seemed to pay homage to the theologians

and their regime of truth, but it would have restricted their authority if they allowed it through

their gates. The Church did not allow itself to be fooled.

Emerging from this entire affair is a new chapter in the evolution of the interpretive

framework of the Book or Nature. No longer was nature a hermeneutical resource for theological

pontification, now it had a life and a message of its own, independent from theological dogma.

As the Book of the Nature received serious attention in the world of Christian theology,

it also managed to infiltrate the medieval world Hasidei Ashkenaz. In a pioneering study, Haym

Soloveitchik presented the primary text of the Hasidei Ashkenaz as Sefer Hasidim and explained

that underlying much of Sefer Hasidim, is the idea that the will of God, the rezon ha-Bore has

26 Galileo, Letter to the Grand Duchess (1615), in Maurice Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: ADocumentary History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 99.27 For more details on the affair, see Maurice Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).


12/18

12

not been cabined or confined within the overt dictates of the Torah, written or oral.28 The author

of Sefer Hasidim seemed convinced that a vast body of unexpressed commandments exists

outside of the explicit ruling of the Torah. Soloveitchik suggested that such an assumption is

derived from the vast disparity between Biblical and Rabbinic norms, and the testimony of

Gods actions (both His wrath and His favor) in the Bible and in daily experience, [which] stand

witness to the operation in history of standards of judgment other than those articulated in the

Torah.29 Indeed, the introduction to Sefer Hasidim makes this goal quite clear:

[This book] is written for those who fear God and are mindful of His name. There is a

hasid whose heart desires, out of love for his Creator, to do His will, but he is unaware of

all these things-which thing to avoid and how to execute profoundly the wish of the

Creator. For this reason the Sefer Hasidim was written so that all who fear God and those

returning to their Creator with an undivided heart may read it and know and understandwhat is incumbent upon them to do and what they must avoid.30

Perhaps this statement may not at first glance seem relevant to the previous discussion,

but it underlying assumption is extremely important to the general notion of the Book of Nature.

Heretofore in Jewish theology it was generally assumed that all of Gods commandments were

explicit either in the Written Law or the Oral Law which was simultaneously handed to Moses

on Sinai. Generations following the canonization of the Talmud viewed it is the final authority

on Jewish law not only in terms of deciding existing law but also in determining which laws

even existed. Those within the Hasidei Ashkenaz were revolutionary in the sense that they

suggested that the Law as revealed through the existing Torah was incomplete and an

independent set of directives could be derived implicitly that had not been previously expounded

in the Bible or Talmud.

28 Haym Soloveitchik, Three Themes in Sefer Hasidim, 313.29 Ibid., 314.30 Introduction, in Judah Wistinetzki, ed., Sefer Hasidim (Berlin: M'kize Nirdamim, 1891), trans.Soloveitchik, in ibid., 312. For a related article on the background ofSefer Hasidim, see Ivan G. Marcus,The Recensions and Structure of Sefer Hasidim, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish

Research 45 (1978): 131-153; and on the early 152 sections ofSefer Hasidim (dubbed "Sefer Hasidim I"),see Haym Soloveitchik, Piety, Pietism and German Pietism: 'Sefer Hasidim I' and the Influence ofHasidei Ashkenaz, Jewish Quarterly Review 92:3-4 (January-April 2002): 455-493. See, as well, therecent symposium about Sefer Hasidim that appeared inJewish Quarterly Review 96:1 (Winter 2006).


13/18

13

To be sure, as Soloveitchik is quick to point out, the notion of a separate implicit

revelation played significantly different roles in Hasidic thought and Christian theology. The

differences, as presented by Soloveitchik, were as follows:

The Hasidic doctrine dealt with Divine imperatives, the Christian one with Divine

attributes; the former asserted deductions of new truths, the latter symbolic reflections of

known ones. They share, however, one common assumption: outside the binding,

canonized corpus, a larger scripture, as it were, exists which can yield up religious

truths upon proper inspection.

Regardless of Soloveitchiks distinction, the innovation of the Hasidei Ashkenaz serves

as a powerful precedent in Jewish theology for extra-Biblical revelation. Reb Zadok employs the

analogy of The Book in several different places and contexts.As previously mentioned, in Reb Zadoks first work after becoming joining the Hasidic

ranks of Izbica, he presents the following:

Every day there are innovations in Torah, for God recreated every day his works of the

world, and the works of the world (maaseh bereishit) is through the Torah as cited in the

beginning of Bereishit Rabbah,31 and logically the recreation of the world as well is

though the Torah. And it is for this reason that after the blessing [of the Shema] Yotzer

ha-Meorot, which relates to the recognition of the recreation of the world every day, [the

Rabbis] established a second blessing which functions as a blessing on the Torah as

explained in [TB] Berahot 11b (i.e. Ahava Rabba). One requests (to God) to know the

innovations of the Torah which are through the recreation of the world. And as I have

heard, that God created a book, and that is the world (olam),32 and the commentary (on

the book), and that is that Torah. For the Torah is akin to a commentary of Gods

possessions.33

31 Most likely this is referring to the first passage in the introduction toBereishitRabbah which, based onProverbs 8:30, refers to Torah as an instrument of a craftsman used in order to fashion the world.32 Our translation of the word olam as the world is important as it clearly varies from the Christianconcept of The Book of Nature.33Tzidkat ha-Tzadik216.


14/18

14

As is typical of much of Reb Zadoks writings in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik, he is quite brief and

does not go onto lengthy expositions as found in his later writings. In this passage it is seems

clear that he is following traditional Jewish thought in ascribing precedence to the book of God

(i.e. the Torah) over the book of Nature. His citation of the classical passage in Midrash Rabbah,

aside from lending traditional pedigree to his thought,34 clearly articulated the traditional Jewish

view that the world is an outgrowth of the Torah and not vice versa. After establishing this

traditional premise, Reb Zadok proceeded to present an atypical understanding of the

relationship between the Torah and the world, namely, that the World is a book while the Torah

is mere commentary. Certainly it seems fair to presume that a commentary is ancillary to the

book to which it is attached; therefore this relationship must be more carefully examined and

defined in the context of broader Jewish thought and the full scope of Reb Zadoks writings.

In his work Mahshavot Harutz, Reb Zadok returns to and elaborates upon the usages ofthe book analogy.35 In this essay, he proposed that the essence of all existence in this world is

comprised of the letters of the Torah. Similar to his previously cited comments, he once again

invokes the oft-quoted passage in Bereishit Rabbah that the Torah is the blueprint of the world.

However in this passage he elaborates much further upon the concept of the world as a book and

its relationship to the Torah.

Reb Zadok began the essay by citing the Talmudic passage that on Rosh Hashanah three

books are opened: The book of the righteous, the book of the wicked, and the book of the

ambivalent. Each of these books, in Reb Zadoks thematic archetype, corresponds to a different

expression of spiritual existence. The book of the righteous corresponds to the objective truth

contained in the Written Torah, which in effect corresponds to the world of writing. The book of

the ambivalent corresponds to the Oral Law thus representing the world of speech. While the

Book of the wicked, corresponding to the implicit essence of spirituality, which is the only

vestige of spiritual connectivity which remains for the wicked, this, says Reb Zadok, is the world

of thought. Such a presentation is counterintuitive, for it posits that the highest expression of

34 Reb Zadok truly made an art out of finding traditional textual support for otherwise innovative ideas.His expertise in this area was twofold. Firstly the very act of finding sources for ideas which weregenuinely innovative and oftentimes radical. Secondly his command of such a wide ranch of sourcesallowed him to create fascinating connections between texts which were seemingly unrelated.Oftentimes he would find support for Kabbalistic idea in Halakhic texts. For a more detailed discussionregarding Reb Zadoks methods of interpretation, see Amira Liwer, Oral Torah in the Writings of RebZadok ha-Kohen of Lublin, (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, 2006), especially 379-382 (Hebrew).35Mahshavot Harutz#11.


15/18

15

truth is found in the Book of the Wicked. Yet, it is precisely the transcendental nature of this

concealed element of Godliness which demands that it be referred to as The Book of the

Wicked; for the only remaining grasp which the wicked have into the world of spirituality exists

within this book.

Though Reb Zadok expands his tripartite correspondence, what is crucial for our

discussion is his explanation as to why the Talmud ascribes the description of writing to all

three books, even the book of thought. He writes:

And the language of writing is relevant in all (three books). For all of them are called

booksand also on the book of thought its writing is the physical world which is a

remnant of the letters of thought which are faintly recognizable through their (i.e. the

wicked) actions. And so I have received that this entire world is a book which God

created. And it appears to me that as a child I saw such a formulation in the work MeorEinayim36 which cited the formulation in a gentile work of pedagogy. Seemingly, it was

found there a slight parallel of this idea that all of the creations of the world are the forms

of the letters which God inscribed in his book, the worlds. The Torah is the commentary

on that book and adorns the world with truth for within the Torah the letters of thought

are explicitly manifest, as opposed to in the World which only presents vestige and a

remnant. And through the Torah we are able to understand the hints of the remnants and

recognize that within the worldly actions contain the thoughts of God. Nevertheless, one

must bear in mind, that all worldly actions and creations of the world are a Book unto

themselves on which the letters of Gods thoughts are inscribed through great

concealment. There is no creation which is not marked for a specific purpose in the mind

of God.37

36 Written by Azariah de Rossi (1513-1578). For more on the thought of Azariah de Rossi and the work

Meor Einayim, see Lester A. Segal, Historical Consciousness and Religious Tradition in Azariah de Rossis Meor Einayim (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988), Giuseppe Veltri, TheHumanist Sense of History and the Jewish Idea of Tradition: Azaria de Rossis Critique of PhiloAlexandrinus,Jewish Studies Quarterly 2:4 (1995): 372-393, the very important scholarly contributionin Azariah de Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, trans. Joanna Weinberg (New Haven: Yale University Press,2001), as well as Giuseppe Veltri, Conceptions of History: Azariah de Rossi, in Renaissance

Philosophy in Jewish Garb: Foundations and Challenges in Jewish Thought on the Eve of Modernity

(Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2009), 73-96.37Mahshavot Harutzibid.


16/18

16

In this remarkable passage, Reb Zadok presents more clearly his understanding of the

relationship between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scriptures. Reb Zadok believed that the

experiential world functioned as a means of revelation, though the cryptic revelatory language of

the world is chiefly deciphered though the explanation of the Torah. Yet all of the experiences of

the world are infused with spiritual and theological significance through which Gods glory can

be revealed. It is clear from the passage that The Book of Nature in Reb Zadoks thought it not

restricted to mere flora and fauna, but encompasses more broadly the entire experiential world.

Whether such experiential revelation can ever occur without the aegis of the Torah still remains

to be seen.

Another point worthy of note in this passage is Reb Zadoks willingness to cite a Gentile

work which obscurely alludes to his idea. In fact, citing the controversial work Meor Einayim, is

in itself quite noteworthy bearing in mind the scathing criticism the work endured in previousgenerations. Certainly such citations should be seen in light of Reb Zadoks general open

mindedness to scholarly inquiry, particularly historical studies,38 and his nuanced attitude toward

gentile wisdom, all of which have been previously noted by scholars.39 Ironically, this

controversial citation may very well be justified based on the import of the very idea he is citing

it for, namely, that all of creation, even gentiles, are passages in the Gods grand book: The

World.

Reb Zadoks view of the Book of Nature contrasts strongly to the Christian conception.

Whereas Christians took a markedly literal approach to the theological messages of nature, in

Reb Zadoks works such messages are restricted to experiential sentiments and personal

directives. Reb Zadoks avoidance of homiletical deductions from natures structure sidesteps the

potentially officious theological implications of the Book of Nature which arose for the Church

during the time of Galileo.

Reb Zadoks conception of the revelatory consequences of the Book of Nature appears

in his novel understanding of the bat kol (trans: heavenly voice). Departing from the more

38 See the work of Reb Zadok, Kuntres Zikeron la-Rishonim, published many years later in Sinai 21(Nisan, 1947) andKutres Shemot ba-Aretzwhich discuss, respectively, the history and chronology of the

prophets and the post-Talmudic sages. For further discussion regarding Reb Zadoks iconoclasticapproach to historical study and scholarly analysis see Gershon Kitsis, ed., Meat Latzadik (Jerusalem:Beis Publications, 2000), 255-268 (Hebrew).39 For a detailed analysis of Reb Zadoks innovative approach towards Gentile wisdom, see YaakovElman, The History of Gentile Wisdom According to R. Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,Journal of JewishThought & Philosophy 3:1 (1993): 153-187.


17/18

17

traditional description of the bat kol,40 which understood the phenomena quite literally, Reb

Zadok proposed a new approach (which seems to be theologically rooted in his aforementioned

conception of The Book of Nature):

And our Rabbis have revealed to us stories which discuss the bat kol, which is defined

as listening to the voices of everyday people who are discussing daily matters and do

have other intentions. Rather one listener is able to be informed, through their words,

what is required of him Namely, God articulates the will of his voice through regular

people. Even though they have their own intentions when they speak and the directives

do not seem to emanate from God with intention and clarity, rather His will relates to us

implicitlyFor example when God wishes good it is manifest personally in each of his

creations according to their conception of good. The Jewish people relate according to

their conception of good, gentiles relate each according to their own conceptionand soit is with all creations according to their own conception. And therefore it is nearly

impossible to define what is the implicit will that God intends to impart since it is

manifest through different being, each with their own conceptions and notions of that

message.41

Undoubtedly, Reb Zadok maintains that there are vital messages contained in the Book of

Nature. However, the implicit revelatory message through which the Book of Nature operates

often obfuscates our ability to properly decipher its contents. The Torah contains Gods explicit

spoken word, while Nature, or more precisely experiential life, only relates implicitly God

unarticulated will. Yet all of Nature remains, as Reb Zadok often quotes from his Hasidic

predecessor R. Simha Bunim of Przysucha, a means of acquiring God.42

40 About bat kol, see Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. 5, cols. 1-4 (Hebrew). See also Aspaklarya, vol. 4(Jeruslaem: Hotzat Aspaklarya, 1998), 381-385 (Hebrew).41Dover Tzedek#111.42 Reb Zadok cites this statement of R. Simcha Bunim, which is a Hasidic reinterpretation of Psalms104:24, in several places. For some examples see Tzidkat ha-Tzadik#232, Mahshavot Harutz, ibid. Reb

Zadok was deeply influenced by the thought of Przysucha and in many ways his thought is built upon thefoundation built by Przysucha. Though Reb Zadok personally never studied under R. Simcha Bunim, hisHasidic master, R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica, was initially a student of R. Simcha Bunim.Thought much has been written about the influence of Izbica on Reb Zadoks thought, sadly, the effectsof Przysucha have been generally neglected by the scholarly community. For more on the life of R.Simcha Bunim of Przysucha, see the very important work by Michael Rosen, The Quest for Authenticity:The Thought of Reb Simhah Bunim (Jerusalem: Urim Publication, 2008), and see the earlier article byAlan Brill, Grandeur and Humility in the Writings of R. Simha Bunim of Przysucha, in Yaakov Elmanand Jeffrey S. Gurock, eds.,Hazon Nahum: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought, and History Presented to Dr.


18/18

18

Indeed, Reb Zadok allowed for the actual interpretation of Natures message, yet only by

those properly initiated to the methods of interpreting bat kol, as demonstrated in a widely-told

story:

As is well known in the name of Zusia of blessed memory that he was once walking

along the road and it chanced upon him that a Gentile wagon driver, who was

transporting hay, fell over. The man requested help, to which he responded, I cannot.

The Gentile said to him, You can, but you just do not want to. Regarding this Rebbe

Zusia said to himself that it must be an allusion to the fallen hey (referring to the fifth

letter in the Hebrew alphabet) represented in Gods name. It has fallen and it is in my

power to pick it up, I just dont want to. And so it is with all occurrences that chance

upon a person, for all worldly events are really spiritual allusions.43

Reb Zadok believed that the everyday experiences of life are in truth lessons which

provide spiritual guidance. Often these experiences can compel one to reexamine or develop a

novel approach to Torah scholarship. As Reb Zadok relates in several places, the Talmud classic

presentation of a legal opinion, Aleiba dman damar, derives from the leiv, the experiential

heart, of each scholar.44 Yet unlike to the Christian conception, which allowed viewed the Book

of Scriptures and the Book of Nature as competing voices, Reb Zadok only considers the Book

of the World on matters which have not yet been clearly articulated in the Torah. Though the

prophetic gates of the Book of Scriptures have closed, God continues to speak.

Norman Lamm on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1997),419-448.43PriTzadikNassoh #13. See also Pri Zadik Balak#2. This approach, that the experiential life of manserves as a repository for Gods messages, can also be found in other Jewish thinkers, most notably R.

Nahman of Bratslav (in, for example, Likkutei Moharan 54:2). For more on the intriguing relationship between Reb Zadok and R. Nachmans writings, see my unpublished essay Between Bratslav andLublin, written as a graduate seminar paper for Prof. Jonathan Dauber at the Bernard Revel GraduateSchool (Yeshiva University).44 SeeLikkutei Amarim #7,Divrei Halomot#23, andPri Tzadik, Naso #5.

Documents

Dovid Bashevkin - Perpetual Prophecy - An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok Ha-Kohen of Lublin on His 110th Yahrzeit