fJP PrhPPPPh> Pr PPP hf PP.Pf.JP pp;pp;;p;.p ppnp). • .(;.;. '44144'44 44444144;. q; '44C4h..;4(Qh¾41'4h'44

'A Thread ofBlue': Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner of Radzyn and his

Search for Continuity in Response to Modernity

SHAUL MAGID

HISTORIANS of eastern European Jewish culture have for the most part viewed hasidism as a response to crisis. 1 Following Dubnow, many scholars have con­ceived of the late eighteenth century, up to 1815, as the great period of hasidic creativity. 2 Hasidism in the inter-war period has also attracted scholarly attention recently, specifically with regard to traditional responses to Zionism and the

infiltration of modernity into hasidic communities ii But the majority of studies on hasidism overlook a fertile period of hasidic thought in the mid- to late nineteenth century, viewing this period as a time of stagnation for hasidism precisely because of the movement's success, and implying that hasidism could only be a creative force in the face of crisis and opposition. Only a few studies, like that of Raphael Mahler, take the nineteenth century seriously as a creative period in the history of hasidism.4

This essay will argue that the mid- to late nineteenth-century hasidic dynasty of Izbica-Radzyn constitutes an intellectual renaissance in hasidic creativity. Its originality was much more subtle than simply being a critique of non-hasidic rabbinic culture. By the middle decades of the nineteenth century Polish hasidism was speaking to an educated audience which looked for its spiritual sustenance to the rich literary tradition of medieval Jewish mysticism and pietism. Its

1 Emmanuel Etkes, 'Hasidism as Movement: The First Stage', in Bezalel Safran (ed.), Hasidism: Continuity or Inno,•alion? (Cambridge, Mass., 1988); 1-26; Rachel Elior, 'Spiritual Renaissance and Social Change in the Beginning ofHasidism·, A lei Sejer(1990), 29-.io,

2 See e.g. Mendel Piekarz, Biyemei tscmihat hahasidut: 1Hega11101 ra 'ayoniyol hesifret derush 11111us11r('When Hasidism was Flourishing') (Jerusalem, 1978).

" See J\1endel Piekarz, Hasidut po/in: lr!egamot ra 'ayoui)'ol bein shetei h11milh11111ot ('Polish Hasidism between the Wars') (Jerusalem, 1990). Cf. Nehemiah Polen, Hof)' Fire (Northvale, NJ, 1993); Alan Nadler, 'The War on Modernity of R. Havyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz', Modern

Judaism, 14/3 (1994), 223-64; Shaul Magid, 'Modernity as Heresy: The Introvertive Piety of Faith in R. Areleh Roth's Shomer Emunim',Jell'ish Studies Quarterly, 4·1 (1997), 74-104.

" Raphael Mahler, Hasidisn1 and the Jen'ish Enligh1c11111ent (Philadelphia, 1985).

32 Shaul Magid

constituency included those who were deeply engaged in the literary tradition of the past, an.d who wanted to see the ways in which hasidism could deepen their understanding of that tradition. Nineteenth-century hasidism was not addressing the 'uneducated masses' as much as well-trained young Jews looking for an alternative to either non-hasidic Orthodoxy or to the Jewish Enlightenment (which, in their eyes, included Zionism).

The canonical tradition of medieval philosophic, kabbalistic, and pietistic literature emerged in mid-nineteenth-century hasidic discourse, specifically in Congress Poland, with surprising regularity. Rabbi Gershon Henoch of Radzyn (1839-91), student of his illustrious grandfather Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of lzbica (1800--54), revisited medieval Jewish philosophy and kabbalah and attempted to represent this rich tradition within the ideological framework of hasidic spirituality. His project seemed to have numerous goals, none of which was explicitly developed in his writings. First, he apparently sought to root hasidism in medieval philosophical and kabbalistic tradition in an attempt finally to put to rest the criticism that hasidism departed from normative Jewish practice and ideology." Second, Rabbi Gershon Henoch's entire programme was founded on an overt messianic impulse. His attempt to unify and synthesize the disparate philosophic and mystical traditions in Judaism should be seen in the light of his underlying belief that redemption hung on the success of his enterprise.6 This programme, including his attempt to reinstitute the lost tradition of tekhelet,

should be seen as representing a mid-nineteenth-century hasidic response to modernity. This is not to suggest that Gershon Henoch had a sophisticated or even an informed notion of modern advances in philosophy, science, and litera­ture (although he did read German, it is unlikely that he read general philosophi­cal works). When I speak of his response to modernity I am referring specifically to the modern Jewish attempt to historicize the tradition, creating sharp dichotomies between philosophy and kabbalah, in an attempt to reconstruct a critical history of Jewish literature and ideology.7 For Gershon Henoch, this attempt to highlight the disparity between authentic Jewish ideological trends was not only false; it was also destructive, in that it perpetuated and deepened Israel's experience of separation from the divine. Drawing on the kabbalistic tradition of the Zohar and sixteenth-century kabbalah, unity, in all its mani­festations, was Gershon Hcnoch's primary goal, as only unity would serve the redemptive end.

.-, Sec Rahhi Gershon Hcnoch of Radzyri, Hal11d:damah rcl111pe1ihah, repr. as Sha 'arei emunah t't'J't'.wd hal,asidut (Henei 13erak, 1996). In this lengthy introduction to his father's treatise Beil Ya 'akor, Rabhi Gershon Henoch attempts a synthesis hetween Maimonides' Guide o{the Perplexed and the 7.ohar, respcctivelv the classic philosophical and kabbalistic texts of the Middle Ages.

" Sec Morris Faicrstein, .111 is iu the Hands"{ Hc,ffen (Hoboken, NJ, 1989), n-8+ Faierstein's u-eatmcnt ofRahbi Gershon Hcnoch's messianism does not focus on his notion of unity.

' See Gcrshom Scholcm, 'The Science of Judaism: Then and Now', in The Messianic Idea in ]uJ,11su1 (New York, 1971 ), 304--13.

Gershon Hc11od1 �- Searclzfiir Continuif)' 33

In order to bring the intellectual biographies of hasidic thinkers out of the realm of hagiography and into the domain of history, biographical details have to be set in a multiplicity of contexts.8 Previous works on Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of lzbica have largely viewed the lzbica tradition as an extension of the Przysucha-Kotsk (Kock) tradition from which it emerged. When speaking specifically about Mordecai Joseph Leiner, this is largely correct. However, Gershon Henoch represents a shift in this hasidic community, shared by his con­temporary Rabbi Zaddok Hacohen Rabinowitz of Lublin among others, whereby the hasidic master began to engage with the broader intellectual environmcn�. Although these masters were unique individuals in their own right, they were also products of a changing Poland, an environment which was being inundated with modern ideas and technology. Gershon Henoch could not ha,·e educated himself so widely in modern languages and natural sciences, for example, if he had not been the product of a Poland where cultural persecution was abating and eco­nomic barriers against Jews were being removed. His concern with unifying diverse traditions of Jewish learning was equally a response to trends in the wider Jewish world outside his hasidic community. Setting Gershon Iknoch in these contexts-the secular histor� of Congress Poland and the wider intellectual his­tory of contemporary Polish Jewry-enables us to achieve a new appreciation of nineteenth-century hasidism.

Rabbi Gershon Henoch is particularly interesting because of the wav his thought combined messianic and mystical strains with a sophisticated u�der­standing of science and medicine. He is best known for his discoverv and advo­cacy of a species he claimed was the l1ila.::,n11, or 'tint-fish', for making ;he blue dye called tekhe!et described in Numbers 15: 38 as the colour of one of the ritual fringes worn on the corners of garments, and especially of prayer-shawls.8 However, his work on reinstituting this ancient lost custom is not distinct from his other literary projects; all his efforts were driven hy an underlying messianic impulse founded on his family's tradition that his grandfather had initiated the heginning of the messianic era. Before developing these points further, two issues need to be addressed. First, briefly to survey the poiitical and ideological changes that were taking place in the Kingdom and which affected its hasidic communities in the mid-nineteenth century. Second, to consider more closely the split between Rabbi Menahem Mendel Morgenstern of Kotsk and Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner oflzbica in T839, which resulted in the birth oflzbicer hasidism.

The province of Radom, where the Przysucha hasidic tradition developed, was part of the Russian-controlled Kingdom of Poland. At the Congress of Vienna in

,s On this sec Ada Rapoport-Albert, 'Hagiography with Footnotes: Edifying: Talcs and the Writing of History in Hasidism', in A. Rapoport-Albert and S. Zipperstein (eds.), Fssa.rs iu Jcn•ish Hist11ri11grt1pl,y (.'\,tlanta, Ga., 1991) 1 HJ-59-

,, Sec Rabbi Isaac Heroz, Tl,, Roy,,! Blue Thread ,111d the Bibliwl Blue: Arg,//uau and TeMelet (Jerusalem 191l7), esp I q-19. Cf. Rabbi ZYi Cohen, T,i1siit 1etcUtclc1 ( 1993), ch. 21.

34 Shaul Magid

181 5 the major European powers had divided Poland amongst themselves, and the central part of Poland, called Congress Poland, was controlled by Russia. While we often think of Congress Poland as culturally backward compared to other regions, Romanticism took hold there in the 1820s and 18 30s as it did in the rest of Europe, and hoth the movement for Polish independence and the hasidic movement were based on Romantic ideology.Just as literary figures like Ksawery Bronikowski and Maurycy Mochnacki looked hack to an independent Polish past, young, enthusiastic hasidic leaders looked hack in their critique of the structure of the east European kehilah (community). In this and in other respects hasidim were affected by both intellectual and social trends in Polish society.

The Polish rebellion against the Russians in November 1830 ushered in a new era of qualified Polish tolerance towards Jews, partly because Polish nationalists became aware of the widespread Jewish support for Polish independence. Although the Jews were not integrated into Polish society, it appears that many wanted to take part in the 1830 rebellion and eyen more in the rebellion of 1863. In 1830 a fair number of Jews wanted to join the National Guard set up to keep order in Warsaw. A compromise was made 'that they could enlist provided they shave their beards'.10 Although this may appear unimportant, the mere fact that the nationalistic Poles would permit Jews, who were not yet Polish citizens, to take part in their national rebellion represents a significant move towards what would later become Jewish emancipation.11

Even though the hagiographies of the hasidic leaders neglect Polish politics, there is some evidence that hasidim supported the 1830 revolt. We have an account that Rabbi Menahem Mendel Morgenstern ofKotsk and his pupil Rahhi Isaac Meir Rothenberg Alter, founder of the Ger dynasty, actively encouraged the Jews to aid the Poles in their rebellion and that after the Russian victory both were forced to traYel to Lemberg (Lwow), then the capital of the Austrian province of Galicia, to hide from the Russian authorities. They were only able to return to Kotsk after changing their names; Menahem Mendel changed his last name from Halpern to Morgenstern, Isaac Meir from Rothenberg to Alter. Although they were able to escape further attention from the Russians, years later, when Rahhi Isaac Meir ran for the position of chief rabbi of Warsaw, the Russian authorities in Warsaw enquired into his activities in 1830. 12

Because of the hackwar<l- and inward-looking nature of hasi<lism, there are few primary sources that deal directly with hasidic responses to the 1830 rebellion. Only after the migration of the hasidic communities from rural areas to Warsaw just before the First vVorld War did their leaders feel compelled to address the

10 W!adyslaw T. Bartoszcwski and i\ntony Polansky, Tl,,, Jnrs 111 W11rs,1w (Cambridge, Mass., 1991), q, 174-

11 In the 1863 rebellion, for example, Orthodox Jc\\s such as the chief rabbi of Warsaw, Rabbi Dov Berush i\1cisels, took part in the funeral of five demonstrators, two of them Jews, who were killed in demonstrations in Feb. 1863 (ibid. 17, 167 f

f.).

'" Eliyahu Porat (ed.), Sc/er koi.-1! (Tel .'hiv, 1961), 111, 112.

Gershon I frnoch 's Searchfi11· Colllinuit}' 35

problems of modernity systematically. This initiated the formation of hasidic political organizations, which ultimately led to the creation of Agudas Yisro'el in Warsaw in 1916. Other hasi<lic institutions also formed in the urban centres to

deal with security issues and to establish a policy on Zionism and secular Polish Jewish culture. These new conditions explain the (rather limited) attention to

political life in hasidic biographies published in the inter-war period. It is from these biographies that we gain an impression that hasi<lim, like other Jews in Poland, supported the 1830 rebellion.

The revolt had effects beyond the change in Polish attitudes towards Jews. It marked the beginning of a fundamental change in the Polish agrarian system that was completed after the remit of 1863. Polish farmers supported the largely urban rebellion because they <lid not want to pay Russian taxes or observe Russian quotas on their produce. After the rebellion "·as quelled, the Russians lifted some of the harsh restrictions on peasant and Jewish society in an attempt to win the loyalty of these two groups, which had supported hut not participated directly in the rebellion. This lifting of economic restrictions resulted in greater prosperity for both groups.

In 1843, as part of the same pacification effort, the Russians attempted to Russify Polish Jews hy conscripting them into the Russian army. The conscription decree was largely ineffectiYe because of widespread resistance among traditional Jews, especially hasidim. n Nationalist Jews and proponents of the Haskalah wel­comed the opportunity to show Jews as modern people, and even went so far as to denounce the ways in which traditional Jews evaded the draft.11

In February 18+6 as a consequence of the outbreak of revolution in the Free City of Krakow, just south of the .h.ingdom, Jews were granted citizenship there, a move which paved the way for the legal framework for Jewish emancipation in the Kingdom. 1.o Traditional Jewish communities were sceptical of the "·or<ls of tolerance and liberalism that emanated from the same people who had persecuted them for centuries. Many of the Jews in the proYince of Radom remembered the decrees of the Emperor Joseph II against the Jews, forcing them to abandon traditional clothing, and the many taxes which were levied on the Jews for innocu­ous items such as candles. The Polish nationalists fighting against the Russian authorities wanted to create a more tolerant society, hut the traditional Jews were not used to making distinctions between one Gentile society and another. 11i

In any case, even the most tolerant Polish nationalists had underlying

1' A. Penkalla, 'The Socio-Cultural Integration of the Jewish Population in the Pnn ince of Radom 1R15 1862', in Pf//111, iii (London, 19R8).

" r\lahler, lfasid1s111 and 1/,c Je1risl, Fn/1gll/e//nll'nl, 22. " Artur Eisenhach, Tiu• t:n1//1/(/pa1i1111 nf' //,,· ]e,rs in P11la11d I 780 1S70, ed. Antony Polonsky,

trans.Janina Dorosz (Oxford, 1991), 207-33. 16 Penkalla, ' The Socio-Cultural Integration of the Je" ish Population', 220; r\fahlcr, Jlasidisn1 a11J

1hcJem1s/, En/1glz1m111m1, 171 ff.; and Gershon Hundcrt, · .\n Ad,ancc to Pcculiarit) The Case of the [Jews in the] Polish Commonwealth', .l.,s11(i,11i1111 a/Jmi.'11 S11iJ1es Renell'.(> (1981), 21· 38.

Shaul Magid

assumptions which implicitly threatened traditional Jewish ways of life. The newspaper Tr:::,cn /vlaj, the organ of the national government of Krakow, published an editorial on 12 September 1846 saying, 'No country can tolerate a nation within a nation, a separate estate within a collective estate. If the Israelites want to have Polish citizenship, let them be Poles of the Mosaic faith, but they must stop being Israelites. n' The opportunity to assimilate implied bv this article was welcomed by many of the enlightened Jews in the cities of Warsaw and Krakow, but the hasidic communities, still primarily based in the small towns, viewed this 'new' attitude as a dangerous development. rn

Accompanying the dangerous possibility of assimilation, which the hasidim deplored, was a concomitant expansion of economic opportunity. For generations Jewish occupations and financial opportunities had been limited by law. Even though Jews had long constituted a sizeable part of the Polish population, they had no presence in local or national government with which to voice their con­cerns and lobby for their communities. The sweeping societal changes in the Kingdom, even as they were rooted in the principles of modernity which threat­ened the cohesion of any traditional society, were none the less beneficial to the hasidic communities.

The oppressive conditions which had plagued the Jews in Poland for centuries began to change considerably in the , 840s and , 850s. In , 846 Pius IX, who held many well-known liberal views regarding the Jews, was anointed pope, and many Jews in Poland hoped that papal influence would now dispel some of the long­held negative attitudes of the Church towards the Jews. This optimism was further enhanced by Jewish participation in the rernlution of Krakow in February 1846 and the famous 'Springtime of Nations' revolts in 1848-9. The loyalty dis­played by these Jews assuaged some of the deep-seated suspicions many Poles felt towards their Jewish neighbours. 1� Enlightened Poles, including the poet and emigd leader Adam Mickiewicz, began to argue that Polish independence was linked to Jewish liberation.20 These events culminated when Alexander II came to the Russian throne in 1855. The emancipator of Russia's serfs also initiated a period of liberalization towards the Kingdom of Poland which included the extension of greater tolerance towards the Jewish population.

The 1850s and 1860s were boom years in the Kingdom of Poland, and Jews

" For a more deYdoped discussion on the Polish attirnde tcrnards the Jews as reflected in the Polish press, sec I. Oppenheim, 'On the Q_uestion of the Jews in the Polish Newspaper Glos (the Voice)', in Bein Yi<r// "el V1111101 ('Between Israel and the Nations') (Jerusalem, HJ87).

" Alina Cala, 'The Question of Assimilation of the Jews in the Polish I,,;_ingdom 1864 -1892', in ?11/111, i (London, 19i12).

19 R. Rurup, 'The European Rcrnlutions of 1848 and Jewish Emancipation', in Werner E. l\1osse (ed.), Reru/111io11 11/1/I Ern/11111111: 18.;8 111 German ]emsh His111rJ' (Ttibingen, 1981); H. S. Blejwas, 'Polish Positivism and the Jrn s',]oum,1/ ,1/Joris/1 S111dies, 46 ( 1984), 21 36.

,o Eisenbach, Tl,e E1111//lop1111011 11{1he ]m's i11P11 l011d1780-1870, 339; S. "-ieniewicz, 'The Jews ofWarsaw, Polish Society and the Partitioning Powers 1765-1861 ', in Poli11, iii (London, 1988).

Gershon Henoclz 's Search for Continuity 37

reaped considerable benefits. As compulsory peasant labour dues were replaced by rent, farmers were able to move to a more capitalist form of agricultural pro­duction.21 Peasants began to leave the land for the cities, and land-owners embarked on industrial ventures, including building textile factories. This increased Polish exports, which necessitated expansion of the railways. From 1862 to , 887 Poland increased its railway network from 635 to 2,084 kilometres of track, and estab­lished railwav links between Warsaw and the major cities in Russia and the Ukraine, and isolated rural areas were given greater access to the cities as well as to other provinces and countries. In addition to these general benefits of modern­ization, Polish Jews were permitted to purchase land in 1859, which brought them a previously unattainable level of financial security.

For hasidim, these benefits had specific cultural repercussions. Like the rest of rural Polish Jewry, they began a slow urban migration. Warsaw's Jewish popula­tion more than tripled in the period between , 864 and , 897, and more than two­thirds of the 300 synagogues in Warsaw were hasidic at that time.22 Railways enabled hasidim to choose their rebbes more easily, as thev were more able to travel from one hasidic court to another. Opportunities for secular and scientific know­ledge, though generally shunned bv most hasidim, were also unprecedented.

In addition to the benefits of greater mobility, the 'Era of Great Reforms' also brought a flourishing of Polish Jewish culture through the publication of govern­ment-sanctioned Hebrew, Yiddish, and Polish Jewish newspapers. Literature, theatre, and music began to develop in all three languages, and by the , 88os there was an expanded state-sanctioned Jewish school system, including an academy for religious studies. Emancipation also brought with it an onslaught of modern Jewish ideologies: the Haskalah and modern Zionism. Progressive Jews applied Moses Mendelssohn's framework of German Jewish identity to their own sense of Polish nationalism, even as they disliked Mendelssohn's negative attitude towards eastern Europe and east European Jews. 2:J Nationalist fervour in Polish society also turned Polish Jews towards Zionism in the , 86os, with the publication of Moses Hess's Rome and Jerusalem and Zevi Kalischer's Seeking Zion in 1862. In the , 88os Zionism gained further momentum with an influx of Lithuanian Jews into the Kingdom who saw it as a new progressive Jewish identitv.

Hasidic communities in Poland during these decades were ambivalent in their stance towards Zionism. It was clearly preferable to the Polish nationalism which had become so popular as a result of Jewish emancipation, and much early Zionist propaganda was written by traditional Jews; Kalischer's work in particular was infused with rabbinic arguments. Messianism still played a role in Polish hasidic

21 Y. Ba'artish, 'The Agricultural Settlement of the Je,,s in Congress Poland in the Period Preceding the Freedom of the Serfs', Zin 11, _,z,3--4 ( 1967), 46 - 75.

22 Bartoszewski and Polonsky, The ]en's i11 IVars,,ni, 19, 21 . 2:3 Ibid. 166, 167; _;\lexander Guterman, Md1i1h11/el111 file ·uml)-111: Pera/nm /ie{IJ/e,/111 beit hd·enesel

hagadol (hasi1111gog{I/,) beVitrsha/1 1806-19.;3 ('From Assimilation to Nationalism: Chapters in the History of the Warsaw Great Synagogue 1806-184,,') (Jerusalem, 1993), 5 1 5.

Shaul Magid

thought after emancipation. Manv hasidic thinkers initially saw Zionism, in which messianic elements seemed strong, as a way of challenging the sweeping trend of assimilation in Poland, even though they rejected its secular ideology, which negated the hasic tenets of traditional J u<laism.

Polish hasidic communities henetited in the wake of modernization in Poland, even as they abhorred its principles and feared its implications. Religious reform, Polish nationalism among traditional Jews, and the growing influence of Zionism largely initiated by Jewish immigrants from I ,ithuania posed a serious threat to the coherence and stability of the hasidic community in Congress Poland. HoweYer, rather than totally rejecting modernity, as hasidic communities had done in Russia and Galicia in the late eighteenth century, the hasidic Jews of Congress Poland adapted by waging an ideological battle against the Enlighten­ment while becoming involved in the political process of Polish independence and taking advantage of modern technological advances. Rabhi Gershon Henoch Leiner represents this new breed of hasidic master, who was exposed to a much wider range of general knowledge.

In order to understand the ways in which Gershon Henoch responded to modernity, it is essential to see him in the context of his family dynasty. He was above all a follower of his grandfather, Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Tomaszow, later the hasidic master of Izbica. One of his descendants recounts an anecdote that Gershon Henoch began his obsession with teklzelct when his grand­father called him 'a gaon in the performance of the mitsralr of tsitsit' (the ritual fringes on the prayer-shawl worn in devotional contexts).2.i

Rabbi Gershon Henoch's sense of himself as an embattled defender of true hasidism came primarily from the many splits and rifts among the Przysuchahasidim from which his dynasty sprang. Izhicer hasidism had hegun with a rift between Gershon Henoch's grandfather and his close friend and early mentor, Rabbi Menahem Mendel Morgenstern of Kotsk, known as the Kotsker rebbe, on Simi).at Torah of 1839 (5600). Both men were disciples of Rabbi Simchah Bunem of Przysucha.25 Menahem Mendel was one of those who inherited his hasidic court after his untimely death in 1827. (Rarely in the Przysucha school did one individual inherit the entire dynasty. Usually a son inherited part of the court and one or two of the more important disciples inherited the rest.) When the founder of the dynasty, Rahhi Jacob Isaac ben Asher of Przysucha, the 'Holy Jew', died, part of his court \Vent with his son Jerahmeel, while others went with Rabbi Simchah Bunem. Most of Rahbi Jacob Isaac's hasidim followed Rabbi Simchah Bunem to Kotsk, although smaller courts hegan in Aleksandrow, Warka, and

21 Priv.ite comersation with Rahhi Jacoh Leiner of Brooklyn. Oct. 19q3; cf. Jn11rn11I 11(Jcwisl, Studies, 3-l 188 ( 1993), n. lq.

'' Rahhi Simchah Bunem of Przysucha was the spiritual heir to Rahhi Jacob Isaac hen Asher, known as the 'Hoh Jew', who Years earlier departed from the court of the Seer of Luhlin, Rabbi Jacob Isaac Honrnit1.

Gershon Henoch 's Search for Continuity 39

Sochaczew. These smaller courts remained devoted to Kotsk until Rabbi Menahem Mendel ofKotsk died and Rabbi Isaac Meir Alter (later the founder of the dynasty of Ger) took over. At that point, the school split up into many differ­ent factions, making up a large part of the hasidic community in Congress Poland until the First World War.

Rabbi Simchah Bunem's influence on the Leiner family extended beyond Rahbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner's generation; Rahbi Gershon Henoch's responses to modernity seem to have heen framed by some of his decisions. Before he hecame a hasidic master, Rabbi Simchah Bunem trained as a pharmacist. Later he was involved in the logging industry and often travelled to Danzig and Germany on business, and stories of his participation in the cultural world of German 'enlightened' society, including going to the theatre, hecame an issue after he was chosen as the successor to Rahbi Jacob Isaac of Przysucha. Like Rahhi Simchah Bunem, Gershon Henoch had a scientific education, though no formal training. Since Rabhi Simchah Bunem was Rabhi Mordecai Joseph Leiner's teacher, and since Gershon Henoch modelled himself on his grandfather, the influence of Rabbi Simchah Bunem's reputation for enlightened ways should not be under­estimated, even though he never knew Rabbi Simchah Bunem and made no explicit reference to his influence.

The split between Rabbi Menahem Mendel and Rabbi Mordecai Joseph, the two inheritors of the Przysucha tradition, happened in a year fraught with both personal and general significance. Polish hasidim greeted the Jewish year 5600 (1839-40) with great expectations. Messianic fervour swept through eastern Europe as many mystically orientated Jews awaited the fulfilment of the promise stated in the Zohar, i. rr6b-117a, 119a, that 'the wellsprings of wisdom will he opened in the year 5600'. 26

In the final months of 1839 Rabbi Menahem Mendel began his thirteenth year as rebbe of Kotsk. The details of his life from 1827 until his death in 1860 are shrouded in mystery/7 hut some time between Simi).at Torah 1839 and January1840 he went into complete seclusion, which lasted for the last twenty years of his

26 Yitshak Alfasi, Hos<1hu h11k11dosh m,Rod11s/11ts ('The Holy Old l\lan of Radoshits') (Tel AviY, 1957), 86-9. For an account of how non-hasidim also Yie \\cd this date as auspicious, sec Arie Morgenstern, Bishelihut Ycrushalr1yi111: Tol.-dot 111isl,p11l1111 P. H. Ro::.cntal 18d1 1,�19 ('Emissary to Jerusalem: The History of the P. H. Rosenthal Family') (Jerusalem. 1985), 52 ,78. Cf. id., 'The Messianic Expectations of 18+0' (Heh.), in. \frssi11nis111 ,nut Fs,/1,110/ogy (Jerusalem, 198-l)-

2' There are mam 'accounts' of Rahhi /v1enahem Mendel's life, hut almost all arc written hv students and descend.ants of students \\ho arc hardh objecti,·e in their research. The latest studies �f this type are Yehudah Lcih Lewin, Beit Kot.,k (Jerusalem, 1990), which is a collection of literary frag­ments and oral traditions about Mcnahcm Mendel and his students, and Pinhas Sadch, Es!, /,,,l,eder sagur ('Man in a Closed Room') (Jerusalem, 1993). In the scholarly world, A. J. Hcschcl's Yiddish study Kotsk, 2 mis. (Tel )hiv, 1973), contains some historical data hut is primarih· dernted to a presentation of the Przysucha-Kotsk hasidic ideology. Morris Faicrstcin, 'The Friday Night Incident in Kotsk: Histon of a Lcgend',]mm,a/ o/Je1risl, Studies, 3+ (1983), 179-89; and a slightly revised version in his. JI/ ls in the Elands o(Hem·en, 89 ·{)8, attempts to gain some historical clarity on the incident that preceded Rabbi Mcnahem \.1cndel's seclusion.

Shaul Magid

life. While he left no writings, it is clear that Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner's sud­den departure from Kotsk had a profound effect on him. Rabbi Mordecai Joseph had spent thirteen years in Kotsk, and that number was of great significance for the hasidim of both Kotsk and lzbica. Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai is thought to have spent thirteen years in a cave hiding from the Romans and developing the Zohar, so the hasidim viewed this as the necessary period of private preparation before revealing oneself as the Messiah. Izbica tradition thus had it that the thirteen-year period meant that for Rabbi Mordecai Joseph 'the time had not yet come for him to teach Torah publicly', and that his departure signified his emerging from 'the cave', as Simeon bar Yohai did. Certain Kotsk hasidim viewed Rabbi Menahem Mendel's subsequent seclusion as the dissipation of the messianic hope of 1840 and held Rabbi Mordecai Joseph accountable. 28

Accounts disagree over what caused the breach between Rabbi Mordecai Joseph and Rabbi Menahem Mendel.29 The later lzbica tradition interprets it to be the moment of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph's revelation as Messiah. Rabbi Hayim Simchah Leiner writes in Dor yesharim that Rabbi Mordecai Joseph 'began to awaken and illuminate a new and pure light, revealing the secrets of the Torah which had been hidden until then' _:io This appears to be a variation on the zoharic passage cited above regarding the year 5600, coupled with a common kabbalistic theme that is first found in the anonymous Sefi:r temunah ( early fourteenth cen­tury), and which later appears in different forms in the Zohar and subsequent kabbalistic literature, that the messianic era would being forth 'new' Torah not previously revealed.

After a short stay in his home town of Tomasz6w, Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner settled in Izbicai11 His son Jacob had married quite young and lived with

"" The great rift in the community was healed decades later, when Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Eliezer I ,einer, the great-grandson of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph of Izbica, befriended Rah hi Israel Pilo,, the grandson ofRabhi l\lenahem Mendel, in the resort ofMarienhad in 1900. See P. Z. Glicksman, Der Kot�lw Re/,he (Lod7., 1938), �8, and Faicrstcin, .JI/ is in 1!1t Hands 11[ Hrnffn, 19.

�·, One ,ersion, Rnhhi Havim Simchah Leiner, Dor reshari,11 (Lublin, 1925), J�, states that the split was friendly, even saving that Rabbi Menahcm Mendel escorted Rabbi Mordecai Joseph to his carriage that Simhat Torah night. Note that this is the 2nd cdn. of Doryesl111nm, and may soften the break with Kotsk in an attempt to end the feud; I haYe not seen the 1st edn. Another account, Glicksman, Der 1'_11tdeer Rch/,c, 53, depicts the split as much more dramatic and sensational, and there arc similar versions in Porat (ed.), Scf<'r 1'_11tsk, 111, and J. L. Lewin, Ha'admorillf mehhirn (Jerusalem, n.d.). Lewin ,,as a Cierer hasid whose allegiance was clearly with Rahbi 1\1enahem Mendel (Rabbi Isaac Meir Rothenberg Alter of Warsaw, (later of Ger), succeeded Rabbi Mcnahem Mendel as the reh/,e of the Kotsk communitv). For a later Izbica version of the split, see S. Z. Shragai, Bintin>i hasidut hhirn-Rad�yn (Jerusalem, 1972), i. 72. In my many conversations with the Leiner family, I have felt that neither they nor the Gcrer hasidim are interested in getting at the truth of this incident.

·,n Leiner, Dory,,s!lllrillf, 12; Faierstcin, . ./// is 111 t/,c Hands ofHcarcn, 79-8+ H Rabbi Hay im Simchah Leiner explains that Rab hi Mordecai Joseph chose Izhica to fulfil a

prophecy made by Rabhi Jacoh Isaac Horwitz, the Seer of Lublin, who once passed through Izhica and said that it would one day he the home of a great scholar (Doryesharim, 3�). Another tradition has

Gershon Henodz 's Search for Continuit)' 41

his wife, Hana, and his father-in-law, Rabbi David of Tishvits (Tyszowce), one of the better-known students of Rabbi Simchah Bunem of Przysucha. After his father moved to lzbica, Rabbi Jacob Leiner moved with his wife and their infant son, Gershon Henoch, to a house dose to the beil midrash in Izbica.'12 Jacob himself remained in Izbica with his father until Rabbi Mordecai Joseph's passing on 7 Tevet 1854.

At that point, the Izbica community split again. Many of the older hasidim moved to Lublin, anointing Rabbi Judah Leib Eger their new rebbe, while Rahbi Jacob Leiner remained in Izbica to maintain his father's community. Rabbi Judah Leib Eger was the grandson of the illustrious talmudist and halakhist Rabbi Akiba Eger. At an early age he had run away from home and arrived in Kotsk, seeking out a spiritual path. The hagiographic literature is replete with stories of how he had been rejected by Rabbi Menahem Mendel'"3 and finally travelled with Mordecai Joseph to Izbica, where he became his devoted disciple and the close friend of another newcomer from Lithuania, Rabbi Zaddok Hacohen Rabinowitz. Later, when Rabbi Judah Leib Eger and Rabbi Zaddok Hacohen had become two of the most famous Izbica hasidim, they moved to J ,ublin and set up a beit midrashthere. The split between the Izbicer (later Radzyn) dynasty and the Izbicer dis­ciples in Lublin was not characterized by the same severity as the split between Kotsk and Izbica, although friction emerged between Rabbi Zaddok and Rabbi Gershon Henoch in the late 1880s, specifically on the issue of tckhelet. In large part both communities continued to interact with each other.:34

Rabbi Jacob Leiner served as rebbe for twenty-four years. Unexpectedly and for no known reason, before the completion of his thirteenth year in Izbica, Rabbi Jacob moved to Radzyn, a small city north-east of Lublin, outside the province of Radom. This enabled him to widen the gap between his hasidim and the other Kotsk schools of Ger, Sochaczew, and Aleksandr6w, bringing them closer to the Lublin rebbes, with whom he had more sympathy. Rabbi Jacob lived in Radzyn for almost thirteen years until his passing on 15 Av 5638 (1878). Although his younger brother, Rabbi Samuel Dov Asher of Biskovitz (author of Ne 'ot deshe)

was well known for his piety and scholarship, it was Rabbi Jacob's eldest son, it that Rahhi Aaron hen Jacob of Karlin, while passing through Izhica, once said, 'I feel here the air (spiritj of Erets Yisra'cl.' Rnhbi Jacob of lzhica replied to Rahhi Aaron of Karlin that the Seer of Lublin had once made a similar comment. Sec Lewin, H<1 ',1d11111nm, 62. 11.hica was indeed set on the top of a mountain surrounded hy hills similar to the Judaean hills outside Jerusalem. Still others sug­gest that it was chosen for its close proximity to Kotsk.

:i·J Lewin, Ha 'admorim, 56, 57. i:i Tradition has it that in spite of his being rejected h, Rabbi '\lcnahem Mendel, once he became

rebbe in Lublin in 185�, Rabbi Judah Lcih Eger refused to teach in public until Rabhi Mcnahem Mendel had passed away in 1859.

·14 On Rahbi Judah Leib Eger's arrirnl in Kotsk: Elllcr 1-ee111u,1,1h, q�; Abraham Isaac Bromberg, Rab/,i /,eih Eger, .Higed11/ei hatarah rtlwh11sid111, 2� mis., xiii (Jerusalem, 1958); Nahman Shemen, Lublin: Shtotji111 Tora!,, r,1boncs u,1 hsi,les (Toronto, 1951), �8-52. See also Gedo/at ts,11/iki111, in She,11oneh scji,rim she/ ta/111/dei ha Ba '11/ Sho11 T1,1· (N], 1976), 1511, h.

Shaul /Hagid

Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner, then 39 years old, who was chosen to become the next lzbica rchhe.

Rabbi Gershon Henoch h,1d been only a year old when his father moved to lzbica. He spent his childhood attending his grandfather's lectures, apparently attaining the reputation of a wunderkind at a very young age. 35 As a young man, he attended classes with accomplished scholars like Rabbi Judah Leib Eger and Rabbi Zaddok Hacohen, with whom he maintained a relationship long after Rabbi Zaddok's departure for Lublin_:i,; He is known to have had a photographic memory and a unique talent for languages. According to Shlomo Zalman Shragai, whose sources are often oral histories of Gershon Henoch's students, Gershon Henoch spoke Yiddish, Polish, German, Russian, some French, and, after his first trip to Naples in search of the 4ila.c.on, Italian. He may also have read Spanish, since he records in Hahakdamah 11e/111pctl�wh that he obtained a copy of Abraham Kohen de Herrera's Puerta de! Cicio (Sha 'ar hashamayim) in the original Spanish.:" There are also extant handwritten documents of medical prescriptions he wrote in Latin. A modern Israeli historian of medicine has written of Gershon Henoch's medical knowledge:

Gershon Henoch Leiner did not study in primary school, secondary school, or university. He acquired his knowledge of medicine from other sources, using among other things a Polish and Latin dictionar) ... Rabbi Gershon Henoch had a brilliant mind. [He was able to accomplish all this] through self-instruction, perseverance, and a superhuman devotion to the study of ancient Hebrew texts as well as texts in other languages without previous knowledge of any other language . . In this the self-taught healer Gershon Henoch succeeded, as if to prove that one need not attend university to become a competent doctor. He was known among those of his generation as a 'good doctor'_:i.�

From the sources, a picture emerges of Rabbi Gershon Henoch as a widely educated person, but the basis of his education was a traditional grounding in Talmud. His father, Rabbi Jacob, was quite strict about his young child's atten-

y·; Lewin, lla 'ddmonm, 66. 1" Form exchange oflcllers on halakhic issues hct\1een !he Iwo rabbis, see Rabbi Zaddok, Resist:i

lai!uh ;·ct.i/.:,11wt lwsl,.i;im (Jkn ei Herak, 1967), 16c;-7+; Lewin, Ha 'admorim, 87. 17 .-\braham Kohen de Herrera, probably a descendant of Marranos, wrote P11ata dd Cie/11 some­

time in Ihc early part of1he 171h cenlury. It\\ as abridged and Iranslaied into Hebre" by Isaac ,-\boab in 1655 and la1er inio J ,alin. Sec,\ .. -\hmann, 'I ,urianic Kabbalah in J Pla1onic Ke,: .-\braham Goehn Herrera's P11ert11 Jd <:1,/11', in l. Twerskv and B. Scptimus (eds.),Jen,is!, T/101(�!11 i11 the Set'entecntlz C('lltllr)' (Cambridge, \lass., 1987). II is difficult Io delermine whether or how much Herrera's Neoplatonic reading oH.abbalah affected Rabbi Gershon Henoch 's S) n1he1ic programme.

'' David MargoliI, Harc/ii'a/1, +7+ (190+), my !rans. For reprinls of some of Rabbi Gershon Henoch' s Lalin prescriplions, sec S. Z. Shragai, 'Hasidul haBaal Shem Tm bi1efisa1 Izbica-Radzyri' ('The Hasidism of 1hc Baal Shem Trn in Ihe Perceplion of Izbica-Radzyri'), in Sc/er l,aBcslzt (Jerusalem, 1960),- HJ+, 195. S ec also 1hc work on disease and medical Irealment by Gershon Henoch's nephew Rabbi Hayim Simchah Leiner, DarNici hayim, JO mis, (Warsaw, 1908). Vol. i was reprin1ed in a collection of 11orks by Izbica aulhors bv Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner (Brooklyn, 1988).

Gershon Henoch 's Search.for Co11tinui()1 43

tion to Talmud and the legal codes before beginning a systematic study of the Zohar and Lurianic kabbalah, Gershon Henoch's knowledge of Talmud was demonstrated by his ambitious work Sidrei tohorot. In a ten-year project Gershon Henoch gathered all the relevant material scattered in the Babylonian Talmud and Palestinian Talmud that might throw light on the tractates of Mishnah Tohorot, for which no talmudic commentary is extant,:19 This work also includes Rabbi Gershon Henoch's Rashi-like marginal gloss on the passages he collected. This controversial undertaking was completed and published when he was only 29 years old. 40

The polemic waged against the hasidim in lzbica-Radzyn by the remnants of the Kotsk dynasty, as well as by supporters of the growing Jewish Enlightenment in the r86os and 1870s, became Rabbi Gershon Henoch's major preoccupation. His father was more even-tempered and sought to avoid the growing conflict rather than confront it. Gershon Henoch, however, modelled himself on his grandfather, whose fiery personality and sharp tongue were well known in the hasidic communities in the Kingdom.

The conflict reached new heights in the summer of 1883 when Rabbi Gershon Henoch was arrested by the Russian authorities. The two hagiographic biographies disagree on why he was arrested and who informed on him. According to Judah Levin, he was arrested for helping young hasidic men avoid conscription into the Russian army.41 The draft instituted in the r84os had met with little success, especially among hasidim. It is unclear who Levin believes informed on Gershon Henoch, but it seems unlikely that members of the Kotsk camp would have informed on a fellow hasid for a crime they also committed. Jewish supporters of Enlightenment were known to have played the authorities against hasidic Jews in cases like this one. Gershon Henoch suspected, however, that rival hasidim were responsible.

During the three weeks of his arrest, Rabbi Gershon Henoch wrote three short commentaries: one on Or4ot !Jayim, sometimes attributed to the medieval rabbi Eliezer ben Isaac Hagadol; one on the gaonic work Sha 'arei teshuvah; and one on the fifty disagreements between the rabbinic sages of Babylonia and Palestine. S. Z, Shragai, Gershon Henoch's other biographer, makes use of one of these

·1" .'vfost of !he mishnaic order of Tolli1rnt, with 1hc exception of one 1ractale, lV,dah, has no Ialmudic commemar) (�cmara) in ei1her the Palcsiinian Talmud or 1hc Babvlonian Talmud. Rabbi Gershon Henoch ga1hered commenls from Ihe res! of1he Talmud 1ha1 applied IO Iopics in !he tractales Kehm and O//IJ/01 ofMishnah Toh11r111 and arranged I hem like agcmara 101he mishnaic malerial.

'" Shragai, Bintiui hasir/111 Lhirn-Rad�pi, ii. 150 ff., and id., 'Hasidut haBaal Shem Tov bitefisal Izbica-Radzyri', 175, 176. This work caused quile a stir in !he hasidic communiiy in Poland (Dur ycslzarim, 71). Prof. David Weiss Halil'I1i poinicd oul Io me 1ha1 in Ihc 2nd edn. ofSiJrei 10l11m1t, the publisher added !he following words on 1he boll om of e,-cry page: 'Galhered and collec1ed from 1he words of our rabbinic sages (lza::.al)'. Halirni suggesls 1ha1 apparcn1ly 1his was a compromise belween Rabbi Gershon Henoch and Ihe publishers after 1he initial priniing caused such conlroversy. The slalemenl makes clear thal this work is no! an authcnlic piece of 1almudic liierature.

41 Le,\'in, Ha 'admorim.

++ Shaul Magid

works to explain his arrest. According to Shragai, Gershon Henoch was in court rather than in prison during the period of his arrest, as one of his rabbinic decisions was investigated by secular authorities. Shragai quotes the preface of an early edition of Gershon Henoch's work on OrlJ.ot lwyim:

I have written this hook ... at a time of great pain to me. There arose from the 'community of liars' those who accused me, using lies and falsehoods. Many arose against me, both from numerous branches of hasidim and transgressors. Thank God ... who destined me for this imestigation in the cit, of Radzyn these eight months in 1883. More specifically, the imcstigati;in was het \\ee� 17 Tamuz and 9 Av. I was required to remain in court almost the whole <la, and was thus unable to continue my regular course of study. I said [to nwselfl that I \Hml:I undertake to comment upon the holy hook Or�wt �ayim ... I \\as also ah-le to find ten more sections of this work in the responsa of the geonim, in Tosafot, and in Or/iot har/111, ml. ii, which was attributed to Rahhi Aaron Hakohen of Lune!. Much of this wo�k defied understanding and its source was concealed ... With the help of God I was able to find satisfactory explanations and interpretations in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds and in midrashic literature. This was all completed during the three weeks l mentioned ah<m: 1-

Shragai adds that that this arrest had nothing to do with the issue of tekhelet,

which did not become public until 1889. Rather, it concerns an individual whoaccused Rabbi Gershon Henoch of sanctioning the drowning of a young girlfound dead by a river near Radzvn. The girl was illegitimate, born of a mentally illwoman who had apparently be�n raped. 12 If there were ideological reasons for afellow hasid to inform on Gershon Henoch, they were connected to either thepublication of the controversial Aiei hashi!o 'alJ, or the ongoing polemic betweenKotsk and Izbica. Whatever the reason for his arrest, it is clear from this sourcethat Gershon Henoch believed that other hasidim had been involved in informingon him. The arrest onh- contributed to his increasing sense of himself as anembattled defender of the true faith and strengthened his sense of mission as an ardent upholder of his grandfather's work. It probably also contributed to his own attempt to revive the use of tck/11:/et.

Controversv arose over Rabbi Gershon Henoch's publication of his grand­father Rabbi iinrdecai Joseph's work Mei hash/lo 'a& in 1860. Although the title­page says it was published in Vienna, Shragai theorizes that it was published in Jozef6w and that Vienna appeared on the title-page to evade Russian censor­ship," 3 but this seems a little unlikely. By 1860 the Russian censors had becomequite lax in the Kingdom, allowing a wide variety of Hebrew publishing-houses tobe established in Piotrk{)W, Warsaw, Lublin, and J6zef6w. Although in the firstpart of the nineteenth century members of the Jewish Enlightenment led by

'" Shragai, 'Hasidut haBaal Shem Tm biteti.sat Izbica-Radzyn', 191. This statement does not appear in ;he pr�facc of the 1 !J+6 edn. of Or/11,1 lw1·i111.

1' Shrngai, 'Hasi<lut haBaal Shem TOI bitctisat Izbica-Radzrn', 167.

Gershon Henoch 's Searchji1r Continuit)' 4-5

Joseph Perl attempted to limit the publication of hasidic texts, by the 1860s this too had subsided. 14

Joseph Weiss suggests that Gershon Henoch may have found it difficult to contract a Jewish printing-house to publish ,Wei hashi!o 'alJ in Poland. 45 One reason it may actually have been published in Vienna is that the various groups of followers of the Kotsk rebbc had become such a predominant part of Congress Poland hasidism that the Izbica court could not find anyone to print it, even among the hasidim. By 1860 the conflict between Izbica and Kotsk hasidism had become quite severe. Rabbi Isaac Meir Rothenberg Alter of Ger, who inherited the largest portion of the Kotsk community, became involved in political activity in Warsaw in the 186os and 1870s. He wielded a strong influence on the chief rabbi, Dov Berush Meisels, and served the community as a base for the hasidic influx into the city.46 Meisels was quite sympathetic to the Polish fight for in­dependence and was used on numerous occasions as a liaison between the govern­ment and the Orthodox community in Warsaw. 17 As a result of Rabbi Isaac Meir Rothenberg Airer's political activity and his reputation among non-hasidic Orthodox Jews as an accomplished talmudic scholar and legal authority, the Ger dynasty emerged as the most prominent hasidic court in the Congress Kingdom in the last decades of the nineteenth century. One can only imagine that the Izbica court, tucked away in a small outpost in Radzyn and the provincial medieval city of Lublin, could not have matched the political force and popular appeal of the Kotsk community in and around Warsaw. A popular legend asserts that some Gerer hasidim broke into the printing-press where /Wei hashi/o 'a!J was first being printed and changed the letters of the title-page from /\,lei hashi/o 'a{1 ('Waters of Siloam [in Jerusalem]') to Mei rag/ayim ('urine'); supposedly, the first copies of the book came out with this title. If the story is true, Gershon Henoch' s remark about the hasidic community and the 'transgressors' may be aimed at the succes­sors to the Kotsk dynasty (Ger, Aleksandrow, Warka), who had become quite powerful in the enlightened city of Warsaw.

For whatever reason, the Izbica court had become a kind of pariah among many hasidic and non-hasidic Jews in the Kingdom. By 1877 Rabbi Gershon Henoch was the leader of the Izbica family and the most ardent defender of his grandfather, Rabbi Mordecai Joseph. Yet it appears that the most vehement

11 Mahler, Hasid1im aud rhe]elT'lsh Eu/1gl11,·u111m1, 121-+!J· ,.; Joseph Weiss, SruJies lu Easlern European Jm,fsh .H)·s1fris111 (Oxford, 1485), 2{5 ff. 16 The relationship between Rabbi Dov Berush Meisels and Rabbi Js,ac \leir Rothenberf( Alter is

well known. Some claim that Meisels was a hasid of Rabbi ;\lcnahem Mendel ofKotsk, which would place him firmly within the camp of Rabbi Isaac .'vlcir of Ger. l\lciscls 11,JS also dose to Dr Mordecai Jastrow, who, as a Polish nationalist and an Orthodo,Jcw, attempted to comincc Rabbi Isaac J\leir of Ger to institute a new ultra-Orthodox school in Warsaw which l\ould modernize the method of study and the selection of courses. Guterman, Fran,. -lssimilat/1111 111 .Vat1111w/1su1, 30 and n. 36.

n S. Kieniewicz, 'Jews, Polish Society and Partitioning Pol\ers', in Bartoszewski and Polonsky, The]ell,sin IVimaw, 166.

Shaul Magid

attacks on him were not the result of the publication of his grandfather's book, or even of Sidrci tohorot, but rather of the three short, primarily halakhic, works on the discovery of what he believed was the �i/a:::,on in an aquarium in Naples, and his subsequ�nt mission to coerce Jewish leaders into reinstituting the wearing �f tekhelet. As mentioned above, in the larger hasidic community Gershon Henoch 1s best known for this claim to have discovered the source of tekhelet, and for the con­troversy which this aroused. Anyone aware of the nature o_f tradition�! J�dai_smshould not be surprised by this. Changes in practice, especially the remst1tut10n of a practice that probably had not been observed since late antiquity, would invariably evoke far greater controversy than would problematic ideological or theologi�al positions. Moreover, the subtle messianic implications of the tekh�let,pointing towards the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, would b� suspect m a Jewish community which still remembered the Sabbatean heresy and '.t� after�ath.By the beginning of the gaonic period, in the ninth century, the trad1t1on of iden­tifying the fish had been lost, 18 obliging Jews to wear tsitsit without tekhelet. The Joss of the tradition of tckhe!et came to symbolize the period of Jewish exile, when certain mitsvot that had been current during the Temple period could no longer be performed.·19 The rediscovery of tekhclet was viewed by many, including Gershon Henoch, as a sign that the time of redemption was at hand.

That Rabbi Gershon Henoch's messianic yearnings prompted his interest in tekhe/ct is shown by his publications on the issue. His first essay on the subject, Sefunei tcmunCI l;ol, appeared a year before he first travelled to Naples. That work se�s the stage for the journey and the subsequent attempts to prove the validity of its outcome. In it he argues two points. First, he suggests that the ge 'onim and early rishomm may indeed have known of the �i/a-;;on, so the mitsrnh of tekhe/et was not dependent upon the Temple. Secondly, he uses responsa literature to describe the physical characteristics of the �i/a:::,on as a preparation for his trip to Italy.

In 1888 Rabbi Gershon Hcnoch travelled to Naples with a companion, Rabbi Isaac Kotsker. Though he describes the Naples aquarium in detail in Ma 'amarpetil tckhe/ct, he never states why he chose Naples. Obviously, if the �i/azon was a fish known to the rabbis in Palestine and Babylonia, it must have lived in the Mediterranean Sea and not in the waters of eastern Europe. However, Gershon Henoch never explains whether he believed the aquarium in Naples to be the most advanced of its kind or whether it was merely the only place he knew of.

At the beginning of Ma 'amar petil tekhclet, which appears to have been written at the time of his first trip and immediately after, he describes the aquarium as

" There are various opinions concerning when the hi/11;:,on disappeared. See Rabbi Gershon Hcnoch, Sefime, 1e1111111ei ho!, rn; id., .4yi11 hate/.:/,e/et, 11 zb. Cf. Rabbi Isaac Heras, 'When did tel·helct Disappear from Israel?' (Heb.), in Sh111 le Yeshay«lm: S,fer yore! to Ra/,/,i I. fVol{sbe�� (Tel Aviv, 1987); Rabbi Menahcm Bornstein, Sc/er tekhelet, q3-5; and Rabbi Jacob ofKutno, She'e/ot 11/es!,urot res/111 'ot mall·a, nos. 1 3.

"-1 According to Rabbi Isaac Luria, the entire 111i1srnh of 1e/.:/1cle1 only applies when the Temple ts

standing in Jerusalem. Sec Rabbi Meir Poppers, Peri els l111yim (Jerusalem, n.d.), ch. 5.

Gershon Henoch 's Search for Continuitv 47

being set under the sea with large glass windows where one could view the fish in their natural habitat. After locating the �i/a:::,on (which he says was known as the 'tint-fish' because it excreted a dark dye), he explains how he was able to obtain some of the dye:

I was there in the winter months in the place where they fished for it [the tint-fish). However, because they fished for it only during certain months in the summer I was able to obtain a small amount of the blood for testing. However, in all of Italy I was never able to obtain a sufficient amount. The traders [in this fish) said to me that (during the fishing months] they send all of their catch immediately to Rome to the factory which makes it into dye [for clothing].50

Apparently, the dye was used for expensive clothing and was immediately exported to Rome for the monarch's clothes. Rabbi Gershon Henoch precedes this description with a historical account derived from traditional sources of how the tekhelet of old (in the days of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and Titus) was used for royal clothing and thus difficult to obtain. He infers that the tradition of the Gentiles regarding the tekhelet supports the view that this fish is truly the �ila:::,on. Although he returned with the blood of the tint-fish in 1888, he did not successfully colour tsitsit with its dye until the first day of 1:Ianukah 1889.51 By the end of 1890 the dye was being mass-produced and Rabbi Gershon Henoch claimed that up to 12,000 Jews were wearing tekhe/ct. Although it came almost four decades after the initial messianic fervour of 1840, the discovery of the tekhelet in 1888 and its reinstitution into ritual life in 1889 served to support the claim of Gershon Henoch's family that Rabbi Mordecai Joseph's emergence as an independent hasidic master in 1840 was the beginning of a new era of redemption.

Negative reactions to the tekhelet appear to have become quite pronounced in 1889 and 1890 in Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, and Germany. Rather than seeing this as a cause for concern, Gershon Henoch seems to have responded to each serious challenge in writing and stepped up his programme to spread tekhelet to Jewish communities in Europe and Palestine.52 After he successfully produced the tekhelct in 1889-90, he travelled three more times to Naples, each time visiting the same aquarium and apparently purchasing more of the dye.

In the preface to his last work on the subject, Ayin hatekhelet, Gershon Henoch summarized the responsa for and against the wearing of the tekhelet. His general challenge to the learned community, one which was met by very few halakhists, was to oppose him on the grounds of the particular nature of his findings as well as within the framework of halakhic discussion on the possibility of renewal of the

·50 Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner, Ma 'a mar pet/I teklie!t'l(New York, 1952), �11.

51 Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner,. -/yin hatekhclet (New York, 1951 ), t 5/,. ·" For a 20th-century hasidic response to Rabbi Gershon Henoch 's position on teHelet from the 5th

rebbe ofLubaYitch, Rabbi Shalom Dov Beer Schneersohn, see his f�rot kodesh rash a/, (New York, 1982), 351--4- I should like to thank my good friend Rabbi Lazer Lazerofffor bringing this text to my attention.

Shaul Magid

tekhdct without the Temple. Most of the rcsponsa he chooses to report challenged his position in ,·ery general terms, largely revolving around the quasi-doctrinal statement of the Hungarian talmudist and halakhist Moses Sofer that had become very well known in Poland at the time that fwdash asur min hatorah ('innovation is forbidden by the Torah'). Gershon Henoch responds to this as follows:

We read the Book of Ruth on the day the Torah was given [the Fcstirnl of Shavuot] to teach

us that c,en a nc\\ thing (1/timr IJ11dash), ifit has foundation in the Torah, it is forbidden to

challenge it e,en if the sages (g,•do!im) argue 1Yith you. This is the meaning of l1ad11sh asur 111i11!t11 ta rah, i.e. something that is 'ne\\' [ or perhaps here, renewed], which is 'from the

Torah' [here obviously regarding td:he!tl] 'it is forbidden' (asllr) to challenge it. 53

The only other hasidim whom Rabbi Gershon Henoch persuaded to use his dye for te/.:helet were the disciples of Rabbi Nahman ofBratslav. On a trip to Uman, the burial-place of Rabbi Nahman and the place of pilgrimage for Bratslav hasidim since his death in 1810, Rabbi Abraham ben Nahman Hazan stopped in Radzyn, met Gershon Henoch, and decided to adopt the custom of tekhelet, taking dye back with him to his community in Jerusalem. It was Rabbi Abraham's student Rabbi Israel Halpern who apparently brought the tekhe/et to the Bratslav community in Galicia almost a decade later. However, Rabbi Abraham's willingness to adopt this custom was not solely due to Gershon Henoch's persuasiveness: the reappearance of tekhc/et as a sign of the Messiah is rooted in both Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav's Likutci moharan51 and Rabbi Nathan Sternhartz ofNemirov's Likute1 ha/akhot.55

Rabbi Gershon Henoch 's work on tekhe/et is part of a broader project of reveal­ing the concealed unity in all Jewish literature. In his earliest work, Sidrei tohorot, Gershon Henoch gathered fragmented discussions on a single topic from talmudic and midrashic literature. In his later commentary on Or�ot �ayim, he uses the same method, which reflected his belief that the inauguration of the messianic era would be the result ofuncovering the tradition of the Written Torah concealed in the Oral Torah. This act of literary reconstruction, which involved synthesizing apparently disparate literary traditions, was based on the common kabbalistic notion that gather­ing the fallen sparks of holiness was a prelude to the messianic era. Essentially, Rabbi Gershon Henoch wanted to show that esoteric, mystical traditions were buried in the halakhic discourse of rabbinic literature. In Sod yesharim and Sod yesharim /111)'1//W, his collected commentaries on the Pentateuch, he consistently attempts to show how the Zohar and subsequent kabbalah illuminate classical

" Shragai, B/11/iro /i;,s/,/u/ L/,/111- Rad::,y1i, ii. 166. For tv.o of the more supporti,e responses to Rabhi Ger�hon Henoch's f c'kiide!, see Rahhi Beirish hen i\lexander Turish of Warsaw in his Mo::,nei !sl'lic'k (1895), 22l•-2311, ,mJ Rahhi :\hraham hen -"ahman Hazan (known as Abraham BratslaYer, d. H)I S) of Jerusalem, in Shragai, 'Hasidut haBaal Shem To,· bitefisat lzbica-Radzyri ', 171-+.

''1 Rabhi Nahman ofBratsla,·, Lik11tei moh,mm (Brooklyn, 1976), 2 vols., ml. i, lesson 18, para. 7, 25,1, +9: 7, ;811, h.

,,-, Sec Rahhi ]\;athan Stcrnhartz ofNemiro,·, Liku10 lw!alcha1, 'Orah hayim', Laws ofTsitsit 5: 1, +2a-1 anJ 'Yorch De\1h ·, I .aws of Purifyin!( Pot,+: ;1, 153h-d.

Gershon Hcnodz 's Scarth for C11mi1111it)' ..J.9

midrashic literature, and to demonstrate the integral relationship between rabbinic literature and biblical verses. The tendency to unify the rational with the mystical is also exhibited in his works on tckhe/ct. The first part of Sc(tmei tcmune ho/, for example, is devoted to showing the similarities between the gaonic, Maimonidean, and kabbalistic attitudes towards tckhe/ct, all of which he argues support his thesis that tckhelet is not dependent upon the existence of the Temple.

In his Hahakdamah uhapetifwh, Rabbi Gershon I Icnoch tried to prove that Maimonides' philosophy is consistent with the classic work of Jewish mysticism, the Zohar. As well as demonstrating his messianic belief that unifying these traditions would bring us closer to redemption, this attempt to unify medieval mysticism and medieval rationalism also shows Gershon Henoch trying to expose the modern historicist attempt to deepen the bifurcation of these post-rabbinic ideologies. Finally, by responding to the way Jewish Enlightenment thinkers used Maimonides, he was attempting to find a unity between Haskalah rationalism and hasidic mysticism in order to invalidate the ways in which the Haskalah was built upon general Maimonidean assemptions. He was not the first hasidic rabbi to attempt to reclaim Maimonides for hasidism, but he is the only hasidic thinker systematically to read the Guide 11( the Pe,plcxed through the eyes of hasidic thought.

The maskilim, or enlightened Jews, of Germany, Poland, and Galicia, viewed themselves as the rightful inheritors of the Maimonidean tradition. They found support from historians in the Wissenschaft des Judentums school, such as Heinrich Graetz, who placed Maimonides' 'rational' philosophy against the mystical trend in Judaism, which they argued was largely the result of 'external' influences not compatible with 'normative' Judaism."6 Contemporary scholarship has both refuted the accuracy of this claim as well as uncovering its ideological bias.57 Nevertheless, Maimonides was used by the Enlightenment as the 'gateway' for liberal, rational Judaism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Rabbi Gershon Henoch's reading of Maimonides was an attempt to turn the Haskalah view on its head. By claiming that Maimonides shared a tradition with the Zahar, he suggested that his 'rationalism' was merely a veil, covering a mystical tradition rooted at Sinai. This claim is not original to Gershon Henoch: its history goes back to at least Rabbi Abraham Isaac Ibn Latif (u 21 o-c. 1280) and Abraham

''" H. Graetz, Histarr o(fhc]or., (PhilaJclphia, 19;6), 8 mis., i,·. 1-+6, +77 528. Sec also iJ., The

Stmclure o/]orish Histo,y au./ Other Essays, ed. and trans. Jsmar Schorsch (New York, 1975), rn+. '7 Gershom Scholem, Origius a(!he Kahhalali (Princeton, 1962), 3-12, and id .. 'The Science of

JuJaism: Then anJ Now'. See also the Jiscussion of these and other te,ts in D. Hiale (eJ.), Gashom Sc/10/em: Kabba/ah a ud Co1111/c'r-Hisfor y (Cambrid!(c, ;\lass., I</79). Scholcm's theory has hecn chal­lenged from two different angles. For a critiq uc \\ hich mo,cs hack in the direction of Graetz, sec Eliezer Schweid,Juda ism and ,\Iystiti,,m frmrdiug la Ccrsl/{/m Scho/m,, trans. D .. '\. \Veiner (Atlanta, Ga., 1985), 21 -38, 1 +5 -63, 168 71. Another critique which argues that m,·sticism was c,-cn more an integral part of Judaism than Scholcm's initial claim can he found in l\l�she Ide!, Kabba /ah: Nc'm Persperlh·es (New Hayen, 1988), 1-17, and more dirccth in id., 'On J..:abbalism ,s. Rabhinism: On Gershom Scholcm 's Phenomenology of Judaism',. Hader;, ]1((/aism, 11 3 ( 1991 ), 281-96.

50 Shaul Matid

Abulafia ( 12+0-after 1291 ). Gershon Henoch 's reformulation of the idea is inter­esting, not so much for its substance, as for its appearance in nineteenth-century hasidic Poland. By this time, the controversy over the legitimacy of Maimonides had long been won: there was no need to defend Maimonides by making him a kabbalist, nor was there any need to legitimate kabbalah by making it square with Maimonidean ideas. Rather, this enterprise appears to have served a political, as much as a spiritual, purpose: first, Gershon Henoch attempted to expropriate Maimonides from the secularists and thus redeem him from the 'transgressors' against the Torah; second, he believed that unifying these disparate traditions would move the world closer to the messianic era. However, unlike many of his hasidic colleagues, he admitted that Maimonides was educated in philosophy, which required him to explain why, in his own day, the study of philosophy was considered unnecessary. Shragai summarizes his argument thus:

There is no reason in our generation to he inrnked in philosophical polemics. The reason

is that, in our generation, those who leave the way of God do not do so as the result of being

enticed hy philosophy, hut rather because of licentiousness and abandoning the yoke of

Heaven. Therefore, what good would it do to argue with these transgressors about things

that stand in the supernal world when they are L hopelessly J rooted in this [physical] world?

Rather, we must turn our faces inward towards faithful Judaism in order to deepen that

faith and to improve our actions with the joy of mitsi-ot, the love of Israel, and the love of

creation. This is the true intent ofkahhalah whose Ltrue] inheritor is hasidism. 5'�

This statement reflects Rabbi Gershon Henoch's position in Halwkdamah that the modern 'transgressor' docs not leave Torah as a result of intellectual specula­tions. The medieval world, whose metaphysical construct is seen as a support for Torah, has, in Gershon Hcnoch's mind, been replaced by a rationalism which has no base in any traditional theory ofbelief in God. As such, the modern 'transgressor' is not bound by intellectual barriers which would necessitate the development of philosophical theories to justify belief. Although Gershon Henoch makes this assertion as a polemical statement and not as a historical claim, his sentiments are reflected in various schools of thought which viewed modernity as the 'age of unbelief'. While modern 'transgressors' are obviously not solely the product of their hedonistic desires rather than of philosophical speculations, it is arguable that the medieval thcocentric world-view made heresy that much more difficult to justify.59 Therefore, Gershon Henoch says, regarding the medieval Jewish philosophers, 'the sages needed to embellish [their] words of truth with [philo­sophical] proofs and principles, to seek out, understand, learn and teach the way of faith and present their words according to philosophical principles in order that thev be available to all'.80

'8 Shragai, 'Hasidut haBaal Shem Tov bitefisat lzbica-Radzyri', I 56. '

0 Martin Marty, I ·anctics or U11hc/1cF{New York, 1966), 1-15, 32-6{; Karl Rahner, 011 Heres11

(Freiburg, 196{), {l-67; and G. Galgan, The Logir of.Hodm1i1y (New York, 1982)_ 1-20. °'1 Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner, St/im,·i 1t1111111ci ho/.

Gershon Henoclz 's Search for Continuit}, 51

To a large degree, this reflects the more common theory among traditionalists that Maimonides was a 'true believer' and merely used philosophical garb to make Judaism an acceptable alternative to Jewish members of the philosophical renaissance in eleventh-century Egypt.61 However, Rabbi Gershon Henoch adds a new dimension by arguing that Maimonides' 'true' opinion is not necessarilv that of the rabbis, but rather that of the mystical doctrine of the Zohar. As such, he holds that, although the study of philosophy is not necessary in a world where religious choices are no longer rooted in philosophical speculation, this does not affect the continued study of Maimonides, who has a secret mystical subtext. Indeed, one is obliged to engage, as he does, in the philosophical sections of Maimonides' corpus in order to reveal their mystical nature and redeem them from the problematic categorization of 'rationalism'. This exercise is the unique vocation of hasidism because the revealed state of the Zohar, which is largely the product of Lurianic kabbalah and the Baal Shem Tov, makes the study of Maimonides more essential in that his esoteric doctrine can now finally be decoded. In Hahakdamah, the Zohar serves to decipher the true position of Maimonides as one who had a share in this ancient pre-Sinaitic mystical tradition.

Throughout his analysis of Maimonides in Hahakdamah, Rabbi Gershon Henoch believes he has transformed Maimonides from a philosopher to a mystic along the lines of the Zohar. The implications of such a position are significant in a world where the Jewish Enlightenment posed a serious challenge to the hasidic community, especially when it claimed to be rooted in a Maimonidcan 'method'. Gershon Henoch challenges the Enlightenment thinkers' use of philosophy and unpacks their claim to root their ideology in Maimonidcan thought. 'Turning inward', for him, meant turning away from the secular challenge as well as in­validating it by undermining its foundations in Maimonidean thought. To accom­plish that he had to disengage Maimonides from the Enlightenment notion of philosophy. By making Maimonides a mystic, Gershon Henoch distanced him from the philosophical agenda of maskilim who saw no place for mysticism in the authentic history of Jewish thought.

Rabbi Gershon Henoch never explicitly stated his position on Maimonides as a model for his response to the Enlightenment. His primary intent was more focused on messianic expectations and the need to create a unity in the apparently disparate Jewish literary tradition. However, his analysis of Maimonides as part of the mystical tradition responded to the conditions of Jewish life during the reforms in Congress Poland. With growing acculturation, there was a need for a spiritual renewal in Judaism which could meet the challenges of modernity by satisfying the curiosity of young Jews who now had to choose between studying secular subjects in a gymnasium or the world of tradition and faith. Many scholars have described early hasidism as a populist attempt to create a spiritual renewal

01 The traditionalist school ofMaimonidean scholarship is perhaps best represented by J\farvin Fo,, Interprell11g /Haimomdcs: Studies in ,Hetho./11/ogy, _\'/e1aph1·sics and Moral Phi!osap/,y (Chicago, 1990).

Shuul Magid

for poor Jews excluded from the elite world of Jewish scholarship.62 In some ways, Gershon Henoch's project of integrating the spiritual and rational prefigured a similar challenge in a later period. The disfranchised were now not the impoverished masses hut the emancipated, educated elite who felt excluded from the world of Jewish spirituality. By analysing Maimonides in mystical terms, Gershon Henoch was asserting a continuity between the rational world of the enlightened Jews and the spiritual world of hasidism.

i\fter his discovery of tckhdct, Rabbi Gershon Henoch continued to lead the hasidic community ofRadzyn until his death in 1891. He wanted to leave Radzyn after thirteen years there, probably because of the significance to the Przysucha tradition of the period of thirteen years, and he did attempt to leave, hut always returned, even after a very successful year in 1886 as rabbi of Ostrow.6:

1 He continued to live in Ra<lzyn, responding to the many letters he received on tekhelet and doing other scholarly work which I have described.

Rabbi Gershon Henoch had no interest in transmitting the breadth of his knowledge to his students or his family. The Radzyn hasidic tradition which developed in Poland and Germany, and later in England and America, was not shaped hy his attempts to unify philosophy and kahhalah. The only substantive thing which separates Radzyn from other hasi<lic courts is the wearing of !t'khelet and perhaps a more intense focus on the study of the Zohar. While other Jews, such as Rabbi Abraham Kook and Rabbi Joseph Soloveichik, integrated their g-eneral knowledge into a new religious ideology, Gershon Henoch only used suchsecular knowledge privately. He <lid not advocate the acquisition of scientificknowledge as a religious imperative, even though he believed in the integration ofall forms ofJewish study.

It is only through a close reading of Rabbi Gershon Henoch's hasidic com­mentaries and halakhic works that we can see the profound effect of modernity on his thinking. As an individual, he took advantage of the new environment in Congress Poland, including opportunities for travel and increased availability of scientific publications and language dictionaries. His most famous work on tc/.:hdet combined an esoteric hasidic messianism with scientific zoological detective work. He also responded to the increasing divisions between the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the mysticism of the hasi<lim hy trying to find mystical mean­ing in the rationalist discourse of halakhic responsa and of Maimonides. Through his command of modern languages, his knowledge of science and medicine, and his study of classical Jewish texts which many hasidic masters had ignored, Gershon Henoch Leiner was responding to the conditions of modern Poland. His scholarship indicates that Polish hasidism was a vital and creative force in the mid-nineteenth century.

,,., For farther discussion of this :1ppraisal, see B. Dinur, Be 11ufiu1t l1adorat (Jerusalem, I<J72), 83-227; and A. Rapoport-Albert, 'God and the Tzadik as the Two Focal Points ofHasidic \Vorship', Hist my a/Rd1r,i1111s, 18 ( 1')7()), 296 32+. '" Hatse/irah (q Adar 1886).

THE LITTMAN LIBRARY OF

JEWISH CI VI LIZA TION

MANAGING EDITOR

Connie Webber

Dedicated to the memorv of

LOllIS THOMAS SIDNEY LITTMAN

mho jimmied the Littman Library fi1r the love of God

and in memor)I of his father JOSEPH AARON LITTMAN

11"1::l C"l:Cl ll:;-t'

'Get wisdom, get understanding: Forsake her not and she shall presen-e thee'

PROV. 4: 5

POLIN STUDIES IN POLISH JEWRY

"'"'"'"'"'"'"'"' ""'"""'"' ""'"' .. � ... "''"" "''"'""'" ""'" '""'" '""

VOLUME ELEVEN

Focusing on Aspects and Experiences of Religion

Edited by

ANTONY POLONSKY

».> ,,, ».r »PP,,, ;pp ;pp .. , ;pp PPP,,.,,, PPP ,, HP PP ,,l .... &--..11 41 41 4 C 44 ;, q;c ......... 44 4h .... 41 44 44 44 4i

Published.for

The Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies

and

The American Association for Polish-Jewish Studies

London · Portland, Oregon

The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization

1998