I . /~?1~?1isl1 Tl~urrflrl 6 Plrilusopl~y, Vol. I, pp. 247-280 @ 1992 Hamnod Academic Publishers GmbH Reprints available directly lronl the publisher Printed in the United Kingdurn Photocopying permitted by licence only

Meir ben Elijah of Vilna's Milhamoth A donai: A late anti-hasidic polemic

Allan Nadler

Y l V O lr~st i t l i tefor Inc~islr Rescarclr, N L ~ U York, USA

Meir Ben Elijah - life and works

In the manuscript collection of the Hebrew University and National Library in Jerusalem, there are two copies of an anti- hasidic polemic entitled, Millrarnotlr Atlortai.' The subtitle of the tract, apparently referring to those Jews who found themselves torn between the dual "evils" of Jewish Eastern Europe of the nineteenth century, hasidism and haskala, reads: "Moreli Nn~iikhbri Le'annshitti Ha-timukltirti, Ha'poshirti A1 Slitei Ha-seiffirtr" ("A guide for those perplexed persons who are still sitting on the fence"). ~ l t h o u g h -the author's name is nowhere expl~citly stated in the work, the acrostic - M e + Bet1 Eliynhrr -is formed by the highlighted letters on the title page. The precise identity of the author is further indicated by autobiographical and bibliographical references throughout the polemic, and positively confirmed by the citation, towards the end of the tract, from "my master and grandfather in his work, Mn'alotli H a - T o r a l ~ . " ~ That reference is unquestionably to Abraham ben Solomon of Shklov, the younger brother of the Gaon

' The two extant manuscripts of Millranrollr Adorroi are both housed in the manuscript division of Hebrew University and National Library, (Jerusalem's Ma)rutr 11rKlIhwi Yad), catalogued as: ms. # tK) 1067 & ms. tK) 171. Insofar as l was able to discern from a curwry examination of the two texts, there are no differences of any significance between them. All page references to Millrarrrollr Adoirai in this article are to tlir former manuscript, # 80 1067.

The text consists of two sections 1) The polemic ilself, comprising 95 pages; 2) A supplement, taking the form of elegies to two recently deceased Rabbis, but including an extensive anti-haskala polemic, and comprising 21 pages.

Millmrrrollr Adormi, p. 68.

Elijah b. Solomon of Vilna. The author of this polemic is then the direct paternal grandson of R. Abraham, and son of Rabbi Elijah of ~ e u s t a d t , ~ Meir b. Elijah of Vilna.

Little is known of the life ot Meir b. Elijah. It is certain that he spent most of his years in or around Vilna. According to A.L. Frumkin, Meir left Lithuania sometime after 1836, finally settling in Jerusalem where he died on the 28th of Nissan, 1842.'' Besides this unpublished manuscript, Meir b. Elijah is the author of two im- portant published books: Ntrl~lotll Avotlr (Vilna, 1835), an ethical will, and Drreklr Avot l l (Vilna, 1836), a commmentary to the Mishnaic tractate, Avoth. In Mill~nriroth Aliorlni, he also repeatedly cites his non-extant work, Zern Avrnhnm, and refers to two other unknown tracts, Ma'aloth Ho'trshuvn and Me'nlotl~ Haze~inkn.~

The date of M i l h n n ~ o t l l Ador~oi's composition is not immediately clear, as i t is only ambiguously indicated by the numerology of the highlighted letters formed from a Biblical quotation at the bottom of the title page. At first examination, the date resulting from that transcription would seem to be 1798. This dating is however im- possible, since the work is supplen~ented by eulogies for Rabbis Aryeh ~atzenel lenbogen,~ and Akivah Eger who died in 1836 and 1837 respectively.? The far less problematic calculation of 1839 is also indicated by a more inclusive, though less obvious, calculation

' A.L. Frumkin, in Tolrtlolh tlek~~rei Yer~rsknl:~yio~, Vol. Ill, p. 229, mistakenly confuses Meir's father with the famed Elijah b. Jacob Ragoler of Sogind, probably on account of the fact th.it the former Elijah's father was also Rabbi of the Lithuanian town oi Ragolrh, and known as Abraham Ragoler. On the later Elijah Ragoler, who was a younger contempor- ary of Meir's, see tlie ~nonograpli by Frumkin. Tol~.clolh Eliyakrc (Vilna, 1900). and the article in Encycloppdia /~~ilaicu, Vol. 13, pp. 1512-1513. Meir's grandfather, Abraham, was the author of the famous panegyric to the study of the Torah, Ma'nloth Hn-Torah. See the reference to him and his children in Elijah Landau's biographical introduction to the CRA's Mitrl~oll~ Eliy~rlr~~ (Jerusalern, 1927), p. 19.

Aryeh Lwb Fru~nkin, Tolc~loth Hr~kkn~ei Yerrrshr~hyi~~~, Vol. 111, Chapter 7, # 9 (p. 229). On Zern Avrirba~n, see Millrr~~r~ollr Adotrsi, pp. I I & 18. In the latter citation, he refers

specifically to his comments in the introduction to Zern Avmlmnr, on the teleology of m.in's creation. On Mn'nlolk Hit-lrslrezr, see Millrarrr~ti~ Atkl~~ni, "supplement." p. 20. On Mn'ulull~ HuZcrlaAa, see Millm~~rofl~ Atlo~mi, "supplement," p. 18.

On R. Aryeli Leib Katzenellenbogm, the Rabbi of Brisk, see M.S. Cershuni, "Makh- loykes un Cesang," in Brrsl-Lilovsk Volrm~e - E~~cycloprdirr of l l~r /e~uish Dinspora (Tel Aviv, 19U(), p. 128. See also, lllr Telrillnh: Hu'lhr Brisk U-Cnloldm, pp. 30 & 220. Like Meir, Katzrnellenbogen was the grandson of a leading mithnagged, R. Abraham Katzenellenbogen of Brisk, and was known by the honorific title "Gtun Vr'uryrl~ De'vei llfl'rd~." ' For this very reason, Isaiah Tishby certainly errs when he claims that Meir completed the work in 1&35 before his emigration to Israel. Tishby's brief comments regarding Milhns~olk Ado~~t~iare found in footnote # 46 to his article, "Kudsha k r ikh Hu Ve'Oraitha

of the same highlighted letters. That the latter date is almost certainly correct is supported by the little we know, from his published works, about the life of this author.

In both of his aforementioned published books, Meir b. Elijah refers to his own deep personal desire to emigrate from Europe to the land of Israel. In his ethical will, Meir rhapsodically depicts these inner longings to go to Palestine:

1 said to my own heart: "What is witli you, oh slu~nberer? Get up and depart from your land and your place of birth, to the Idnd of your forefathers. Distance yourself from the members of your family, and from the offspring of your loins. For, maybe there your soul will find some respite, so that you might spend your final days and years in the pleasant service of your Creator and Maker. May He who grants favours to contrite men, grant that I might realize this desire, and may He strengthen me so that I will be able to survive the journey from here to there. And may He support me so that I might arrive at His holy pldce.""

The next year (1836), in the introduction to his commentary to Avoth , Meir reiterates these same sentiments, and he further inti- mates that the move to Eretz Israel is not a distant dream, but an imminent reality. The decision finally to publish this commentary, which he had held in manuscript for many years, is, Meir claims, his final spiritual preparation for the planned journey to the Holy Land:

Ve-Yisrael Kula Had," in Kiryrllb Srfcr, Vo1.50 (1971). p.489. Prof. Tishby is preparing a critical edition of the text of Milhamolli Adonai.

Tlie fact that the "supplement" to this polemic is formally structured as a eulogy to these two Rabbis is not without some symbolic significance. Aryeh Lwb Katzenellenbogen was a scion of one of tlie most in~portant mithnagdic families in Lithuania, whereas Akiva Eger was a famed, prolific opponent of the reform and hashla movements. Tlie tribute to these two models of "Orthodoxy" would appear to be a perfectly fitting supplement to a double edged polemic against hasidism and modernity.

There might also be some added significance in tlie fdcl that R. ALiva Eger was regularly claimed by the mitlin,~gdini as one of their own. A stongly worded polemical letter demi~nicing tlie liasidis~n was attributed to him and widely distributed. Wilmsky, while publishing the letter in Hasillir~r U-Milh~~aydirn, Vol. I pp. 341-348, prefaces the text by citing convincing internal evidence from the letter indicating that it is in fact a forgery and could not have been written by R. Akiva Eger. Neverlheless. the letter is known to have been circulated in Israel and forms part of the mithnagdic collection entitled Miklltevri Oz (Jerusalem, 1892; Ms. # 9798 of the manuscript cullection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York.) The letter may very well have been taken by R. Meir at face value. In fact, some of the central arguments of Millwmolb Ado~mi are to be found in this text; e.g. that hasidism is comparable to Baal worshipand thal it is merely the latest manifestation of the recurring cosmic forces of evil which emerge in every period of Jewish history. Assuming that Meir was familiar with the letter, this affinity would further explain the tribute paid to Eger in the context of an anti-hasididanti- haskala polemic such as Milhn~olh Adomi.

* NNrlntl~ Awlk, preface, p. 17.

250 Allnn Nnriler

May the Creator of the universe i n His mercy guide me o n the still waters, and give me tl iestrengtli and courage toarrive safely at my desired destination, and may H e escort me i n the Holy Land. . . I t is well known that it is important to prepareoneself i n all kinds of ways for such a long journey, so as not to arrive empty handed. This is true of physical p r c y ~ r a t i ~ ~ n s , and all the more so regarding spir i t t~al groundwl~rk. Therefore I said to m y u w n s o ~ ~ l : "prepare some stistcnance for this trip."'

In all probability, Meir was caught u p in the great fervour of Aliya which had, especially in the years immediately preceding the predicted messianic year of 1840, captured the imagination of many leading mithnagdic figures. Meir apparently joined the large number of Jews who left Vilna for Israel in 1837-8."' It is then very likely that, soon after arriving in Israel, Meir began to compose Mifinmoth Adonai, which he completed in 1839. This violent pole- mic against both the hasidic movement and the Jewish enlighten- ment was apparently written in Jerusalem.

I t is a cu;ibus fact that nowhere in his two earlier, published works did Meir polemicize against hasidism. The ethical will, Nelrlntlr Avot l r , wliich is the far niore original of tlie two books, docs contain an extensive and oft-repeated critique of tlie materialism of the wealthy classes of contemporary Jewish society, as well as an attack on those modernizers who pursue secular learning and advocate adopting gentile customs. Yet nowhere is there any refer- ence to hasidism, or to its adherents. The very first reference of any kind to tlie hasidic movement occurs then in this last work, pre- sumably composed subsequent to his arrival in the land of Israel. ~ l t h o u g h there is no obvious reason for this phenomenon, a possible explanation for Meir's apparently delayed interest in com- batting hasidism is the changed environment in which he found himself upon having arrived in Israel. As is well-known, the east- ern European polemics against hasidism on the part of the mith- nagclim had reached their height in the last two decades of tlie eighteenth century. Subsequent to that time, the two communities of hasidism and mithnagdim ceased to lock horns and simply grew apart. For the Rabbis and scholars of the third generation after the daon of Vilna, hasidism was no longer the m&t troilbling revolu- tionary force which threatened the world of traditional Rabbinic Judaism. By the 1830's, mithnagdic Judaism was well-established

' Derek11 Awllr, Introduction, p. 5b. O n the immigration, i n this period, of significant groups of Lithuanian Jews lo

Israel, and the possible messianic underpinnings of this movement, see, A. Morgenstern, Mcslrilriylrlh Vt-Yishrru Ert'tz Yisrnel (Jerusalem, 1985), especially pp. 78-83.

and securely insulated from the hasidic communities, most espc- cially in Vilna and the major Lithuanian Jewish centres. Hasidism was, of course, an established reality, but one from whose Rabbis and coliimunities the mithnagdim felt themselves distant and well- guarded. The obsessive fears that hasidism might swamp the Rabbinic world, which had largely exercised the earlier polemics, were by now assuaged by the firm establishment of mithnagdic yeshivoth and communities. This was especially true in Vilna and its environs. By far the greatest threat to traditional Rabbinic Judaism in the early nineteenth century was not hasidism, but the Iiaskalla and its increasing attempts to reform Jewish practise and modernize Jewish learning.

While still in Vilna then, Meir focused his attention and vented his anger primarily against the maskillini." Having arrived in the land of Israel, however, Meir and his mithnagdic colleagues found themselves in new and far less secure religious circumstances. Unlike Vilna, tlie I'alcslinian Jewish communities were doniinated by tlie hasidim who had already arrived and established their kc l r i l lo t l r in the lnst decades of the previous century.12 These Jewish communities were small, and consequently, socio-religious div- isions between hasidim and mithnagdim such as those which by then prevailed in Europe were not possible in Israel. The mitlinag- dim were forced to join with the hasidim in many communal enterprises, most iniportantly in the use of the much-nce~icd I rnl t rkn

funds raised largely by hasidic emissaries in the diaspora commu- nities.'"n the early years of the niitlinagdic aliyotlr, this unavoid- able closeness between these two groups often led to tension, and occasionally to open polemics.14

" Both of Meir's afurementioned published works, Drrrkli A10111 and Nultlarl~ A ~ u l l ~ are, as we shall note beluw, filled rvilh allackb on the ~ncdern iw l ion of Jewish 11fe and bitterly lnourn the decline of traditional values ds a consecluence of the dc.veloylnc.nl uf th; hdskalla mcwement.

Mordechai Wilensky, lfu-yisllrrz, Ih-lmsilli Oi-Tt.l*.r'*yr~ (Jerusalem, I%), pp. 26-27 (esp. nule # 78). has noted the fact that, even dl l r ing the Iieight of the mitlinagdic polemics i n Europe, tile hasidic Rabbis who had arrived i n Israel almost never referred to any opposition by Palesline's nun-hasidic Rabbis. Aside from some resistance on the part of the Sefardic Rabbis of tlie Galilee, mithnagdism was apparently not a force with which the Palestinian hasidic community had to contend.

I' O n both the tensions and the cuuyeratic~n between the Iiasidic and mithnagdic comniunilies i11 Israel, see H. Stiinan-Katz, Kcysl~ilnrr S l~r l Al iyul l~ Ifnsii1i111, chapter 4, esp. pp. 66-67. See also Aryeh Lcwb Frumkin, up. c~t., vol. Ill, passim.

Isaiah Tisliby has noted a very similar phenomenon to M e i f s apparently belated interest i n co~nh.llting Iiasidism, regarding the earlier mithnagged, Israel b. Solomon of

It is perhaps in this context that the major thrust and purpose of Meir b. Elijah's polemic, Mili~nrrroth Arfotrai can best be appreciated. The allusion in the book's subtitle to those Jews who are "sitting on the fence" refers to the biblical account of Elijah's confrontation with the Jewish idolators and Baal worshipers of his day. Indeed, many specific aspects of hasidic spirituality are compared to ido- latry in general, and specifically to Baal worship, in the course of Meir's polemic. But this reference suggests not only the very dim view which Meir took of both the hasidic and haskala movements. I t also reflects the religious realities of Jewish life in the young and very small Jewish communities of Palestine in the early nineteenth century.ts The very confined nature of these communities did not allow for the luxury of isolation which the mithnagdim enjoyed in Eastern Europe. And it required a great amount of cooperation between hasidim and mithnagdim, which likely led to greater mutual acceptance between them than was the case in Lithuania and Ilelorussia. It is, in all likelihood, in response to this that Mcir B. Eliyahu composed Milharrrotil Adonni. Repeatedly throughout this polemic, he castigates the leaders and Rabbis of the Jewish community for not taking a stronger and clearer stance against hasidism. Meir insists that his sole motivation for composing his work is to compensate for this lack of decisive leadership in an era of national crisis and spiritual degeneration.

desires. This "great war" between the conflicting instincts of man is a central theme, especially of the ethical will, Nnlrlntlr A v o t l ~ . ' ~ This work also contains an extensive critique of the materialism which Meir sensed to be rampant among the Jews of his time. Meir was a rigid ascetic who repeatedly warned against the material seductions of this life. Since, in his view, the physical desires and material aspirations of man are his greatest moral adversary, Meir believed in the spiritually therapeutic nature of physical suffering (yisurirn) and the essential quality of a life of poverty and depri- vation ( a r ~ i ~ ~ r t l ~ ) . ' ~ In that spirit, he continuously reminded his children of the ephemeral nature of this life, the ultimate insignifi- cance of all its physical gratifications and the utter folly of amassing wealth or accumulating material possessions.'9 In terms remark- ably reminiscent of the dramatically graphic panegyric to death by the Belorussian mithnagdic Maggid, IJhinehas b. Judah of Polotsk at the end of his work, Ketiter ~oralt ,~"Meir continually reminds his readers of the final fruitlessness of materialistic pursuits in this life:

Son of man! Open your eyes from your blindness, and realize that all of the possessions of this wurld are nothing but vanity and the pursuits of the pcrplexcd. h ~ r why should you so greedily desire toaccumulate silverand gold, and to build spacie,us Iiousa, when you are headed inevitably to thegrave, in Ihenetherworld. Then you will have nothing in your hand, and you will leave the results of all of your efforts to others. Why shouU you be so bothered abuut a world which is not really yours, for you will, quick as the blink of an eye, go on toanolher world, and all Ihal you toiled for in this world will be as nothing, and it will turti out that you have so exerted yottrsclf in vain."

Aspects of the religious thought of Meir b. Elijah

In both of his published writings, Meir b. Elijah reflects a religious philosophy remarkably consistent with the theology of his mitli- nagdic predecessors. I6 His view of human nature is both pessimis- tic and starkly dualistic, and he is virtually obsessed with the battle which the higher spiritual forces within man must wage constantly against the evil instinct which animates his innermost physical

Slikltiv wlic~, in liis publisliecl writings hardly nientit~ncd tlie l~asidim at all, but I.ilcr, 1v11'1r 111 t'.ilestin~., co~nposcd an entire polemic against Irasidisnr wlliclr was also ncver p~~hlislicd. On this manuscript, see I. l'ishby, "Kitrugo shel R. Yisrael Mi-Sliklov al lid- tlasidim," Kiryalk Scfcr, y.4. 21 (1976). pp. UWW3.

Israel of Shklov, in his anti-hasidic polrmic, also addressed those who are "sitting on tlie fence." See, Tislrby, ihirl., p. 302. " On the major features of the religion of the mithnagdim, see my forthcoming, A

Xc.lki~>rr 01 1I.111ils - Ilrr Fnill~ I,/ :Ire Milltrto~di~rl, Yeshiva University Press, (Winter, 1992).

Like his mithnagdic predecessors then, Meir was convinced that true human fulfilment can only occur s~tbsequent to man's passing from this life:

Even if a man were lo live from the very genesis of creation until its very end, and to attain all of tlie gratifications and precious objects of this world, none of i t is as valuable as a single moment in the world to

" The "batlle of the instincts" is a theme which is repealed often in Meir's ethical will. Some extended treatments of this issue can be found in Nul~lallr Atwllt, introduction, pp. 13.21; pp. 19b-2Ua, 21b.

I n On the spiriti~ol v.llue of suffering and poverty, Meir repeats the exact sentiments of tlie earlier milhn.igclim which have k c n an.ilyzed in my Krlih.iorr o\l.iarils, clidpler 5. Scv, for exatnple, Nrrlrlr~th Aa~llr, introduction, p. 19; pp. 8.4, 17a-1Bb.

IY Meir enters into a long diatribe apinst the foolisliness of materialism and the vanity of hoarding money and material possessions in Nn11l11rh A~ulll, I la-b.

2U For an English translation of this text see my Religio~~ olLinrils, appendix A. 'I Nalrlatlt A~ollt. 19b.

Nrrbkllb Awt11, introduction, p. 5b. The contempt for materialism and the resulting glorification of both suffering and death as paths to salvation is a central theme of

The very purpose and spiritual end of man's entire life is arriving at death free from sin. Death frees man's soul from its torments and allows him to complete his religious destiny.'"he regular contemplation on the part of man of the inevitable day of his death is therefore the most effective form of ethical training2"

As in the case of the mithnagdim of the previous generations, Meir's anti-materialism is the foundation for an extended polemic against what he perceived to be the worldly interests and the mindless materialism of the advocates of the modernization of Jewish life and Jewish learning. Repeatedly he warns against those who, in the name of mundane achievement, counsel the Jews to adapt themselves to the values and social customs of the gentiles. He specifically castigates his generation for abandoning traditional Jewish forms of dress and grooming, singling out parents' shearing of their young boys' earlocks, and married women's exposure of parts of their hair as a result of wearing loose-fitting, immodest head-covering.2"

M i l k ~ r ~ o t h Arkrtmi. See. for example, t l ie l o ~ i g discussion o f the pros a n d cons of l i uman mortdlity o n p.ige 56. See the similar discussion in the "supp lc~ i i c~ i t " to M~III(IIJI~~II Aclt~~~rri, paff 8. - Sre Mill~rrrrrc)ll~ Arlor~ni, "s~~pp lcmen l , " p. 3:

The esscnce, end .ind purpose o f mat i is t l i is matter of death, for only t l i n ~ u g l i ~ le. i l l i r l t ~ c s l ie arrive .it h is fin.11 go.11 and gcw~d fur whir11 purpc~se l ie w.~s rre.ltc-d - for evcri i f l i e was to l ive icir trvo thousand years, enjoying all o f the materi.11 pleasc~res .ind e~ i joyments o f t l ie universe . . . tl i is earns h i m n o advantage i n the wor ld 10 come . . . I t is imptissible to attain that boundless spiritual bliss so long as one is trapped in his f i l thy h l d y i n t l i is material univcrsc. I lu t it is only dr.itli which brings h i m to l i is fin.11 purpose and dcstin Y- "l ' l ie end of the Lwast is t l ie slaughter," that is to say, 11s final good is attained t h r t ~ c ~ g l i sl.iughter, when man slaughters it, properly and i n accordance w i t l i t l ie

. law, .in4 eats its flesh, not for the pleasure o f his appetite, but ratl ier a, that he niigl it serve l i is Creator, fc~r then l ie w i l l rise and raise the sparks o f holiness and spirituality w i th in t l ie 10 their source . . . for ma l l is the m d o f all o f the lcvcls o f crc.itiu~i. I n short, all o f creation is awaiting de.ltI1, for i t is through the death o f n ian that they all are elevated.

The anti-hasidic mot i f here is clear. I n opposition to hasidism wh ich instructs m a n to raise holy sparks, and participate i n the redemptive process i n this life, Me i r insists that such cosmic spir i t t~al i ty must await main's entry in to the world-to-come, " N~111111llr Al~c~lh, l9b21). Meir, l ike most of the mitl inagdim, was virlually obsessed

wi t l i t l i is understanding of the religious role of death. This not ion is especially prevalent i n l i is commentary to Avoth. See, D t rck l~ Atwfb, pp. 5, 27, 29, 35, 45,47. The idea o f death as tl ie only r ~ l u t e to ult imate sphi tual fclicity is a central one in early mithnagdic thought. O n this theme generally, see m y Religio~t of LLhits, chapter 6.

25 N11hli1111 AwIII, 16b17a. &sides l i i s resistance to the social trends o f modernization i n jewis l i life, Me i r was a strong ideological opponent of the hnskulln movement. H is op1wsition is anelyzed below.

Aside from the very substantial consistency with, and agreement between, Meir's ethics and religious philosophy and those of his mithnagdic predecessors, he nonetheless displays certain unique personal and intellectual traits in his published works. Most sig- nificant is a view of man which is so dim, and a fear of the of sin that is so extreme that they often recall the Christian doctrine of original sin and the medieval monastic tradition.

The Biblical warning that "sin crouches at the doorway" is a leitmotif in Meir's writings, recurring dozens of times throughout his literary corpus as an important reminder to nian of his inherent moral depravity. Meir seems to be of the rather unconventional notion in Jewish thoughtZh that sinfulness is man's natural con- dition, from birth:

I t is k n o w n that m a n is burn w i l d and that the dcsires o f l i is lieart are evil frcini l i is you th fu l days. For m a n is born wil l1 a s infu l nature and evil attributes. Sincrouchesat the doorway - that is, at the very doorway of l i is entry in to this world, sin waits for h i m l o lure h i m and lead h i m i n the ways of s infu l~~css."

Other distinguishing features of his religious orientation, related to this extremely negative assessment of the natural human con- dition, are Meir's deeply introspective, psychological approach to religious fulfilment, his very pronounced anti-social denleanour, and his insistence on the liniitation of Rabbinic study.

In a style which brings to mind the later, introspective psycho- logical approach of R. Israel Salanter and the musar movement to religious self-improvement, Meir calls upon man to investigate the deepest and most subtle recesses of his soul in order better to understand the subconscious underpinnings of sin. Extending the familiar nioralistic metaphor of human spiritual refinement as con- stituting a war within man, Meir conimcnts:

I t i s wel l k n o w n to al l mil i tary experts that .i gc~H1 strategy is necessary before any battle, a n d that many preparatic~ns .ire necessary before warfare; i t i s essential to investigate (t l ie enemy) w i th great precision and to prep.ire tlie ,~pprc~priate \vcLaponry. I t is only as a

2b O f course, there were ascetic sc1im)ls in earlier Jewish thought in which the need l o combat t l ie sinfulness in l i c r rn t i n l i uman nature was given much attentic~n. Milst notable are t l ie medieval Franco-German pietists, o r I h~sblri Aslrkcr~sz, and the 16th century school o f mystics of Safed. I discuss tliese earlier sc l iw~ls c ~ f ascetic Judaism i n niy forthcoming Kr l iy ior~ of Lir~rils, cliapter 5 (see, i n particular, notes # 14). There is however noevidence i n Meir's wr i t ings of any d i r c ~ t o r literary influence which theseearlier schools may have h a d o n h i s thought. t i c quotes neither any c ~ f the masters of the Safed school nor the classic works o f H l f l s i r l~~ l l~ Asl~kc~rrrz.

27 Derek11 .4l)otlr, p. 19.

consequence of this careful planning tliat the war w i l l be won. We also know from the military experts that even before these preparations can begin, one mus l know the precise requirements and scope of the anticipated battle. For this reason, spies are sent to i~ivesligate the enemy and to evaluate the lot! which is facing them, so that one may appreciate all of the enemy's machinations and plans, and to ascerlain tlie exact number i)f troops which lie has deployed, and also how much weaponry the enemy possesses. A l l o f tliis is done i n order to be able to prepare even more powerful counter-measures and preparations with which to overwhelm the enemy.

I n a si~ni l i l r manner, man must engage in a great number o l preparations and elaborate . strategies within his own soul in order to d o battle w i lh the evil instinct. Above all, each man must spy upon his own self i n order best to know himself thoroughly and to recognize his own nature and personal habitual behaviour, which tends to become l ike a second ~iature. Each man must understand his unique direction and his inner nature, and where i t is headed, L>r no two people share the same personal disposition. . . Such tliat each individual must make these appropriate preparations and strategy before the great war.'"

'rruc to liis obsession with tlie ubiq~~i tous and highly seductive presence of sinful tetnpta tion, Mcir boasted frequently of the fact Ihat he always avoided joining in any social or communal events, and advised his children to follow liis example. Even his attend- ance at a fanlily wedding was viewed by Iiim as a necessary evil to which lie simply had no choice but occasionally to succumb. He speaks passionately of the great dangers of going out into the streets, especially those of the "big city," Vilna. The major danger lurking in such public places is the presence of large numbers of womcn who niight distract the attention of the men from spiritual matters.

I musf call tu your attention the great importance of guarding your eyes from looking at women. For the man whom God blesses with the possibility of slaying closed u p and sequestered, co~npletely alone i n a private rown where he can study Torah and serve God - s i~c l i a pcrs1)11 dews not require any struggle or machinalions i n this matter. Rut any person who must carry upon his shoulden: the burden of earning his living, and who . ~ n i ~ s t therefore be surrounded by women -especially a person who must go out into tlie marketplace and public streets and big cities - such a man requires great zeal i n avoiding Ic)i~Ling at womcn, or circulating among women. . .

Norv the Creator c'in testify rcgarcli~ig me Illtit since m y early days, whenever I was forced to go out into the streets and ~narketplaces, especially i n the city u l Vilna . . . 1 made heroic effilrts i n this regard. I meditated before leaving that I must avoid looking at the womcn, and I prayed to God to give me the strength not to look at vanity. . .

And when at a wedding celebration - even though I always avoided attending any such celebr.itic)ns - nevertlieless, i f I absolutely had to attend, I always made special c.lfi~rls not to Lx. consumed i n tlie heat of their coals. . .%

2' N111rl11lh Arxxh, i n t r oduc l y , pp. 21-22, " N~III~IIIII Aw)lh, introduct~ n, p. 23. Thc great danger and moral pitfall involved i n looking at women seems to have been

one of Meir's central personal obsessions. H e repeatedly' warns of Ihe threat which the very sight of .I woman constitutes to personal religious development. See, for example, N~rlrl~rllr Ar~olh, i~itrculuclic~ri PI). 22-23; 1'11. 5"-h, tlb, 17a. 21b.

Meir repeatedly advised his children to follow his example and to avoid attending public events to the degree possible:

Always try to avoid attending any public religious celebrations, most especially wedding receptions, unless i t is for a very pressing reason. For the hazard of these events is great indeed . . . for what man is there who can avoid the snare of staring at tlie women. at their jewellery and their dancing. . .-W

Meir's idealization of the sequestered life of total isolation from society, and his romantic view of the individual quarantined in his private room, recalls the legendary monastic way of life of his grand uncle, the Gaon of Vilna. The earlier mithnagdim's pious contempt for the broad Jewish public and their disdain for min- gling with the masses, is here faithfully continued two generations later.

While lie counselled self-separation froni tlie wider society for fear of the moral pitfalls and distractions of tlie marketplace, Meir was no elitist. In his approach to both the ideal curriculum of Jewish learning and tlie relative values of scliolarship and piety, Meir reflects a populist posture that is soniewhat different from the common conception of the effete scholarship of the mithnagdim. Acknowledging the fact that the average Jew of his day simply lacks the time to pursue in-depth Rabbinic learning, Meir repeat- edly recommends the regular study of the popular halakhic manuals of I<. Abrahani Danzig, referring specifically to Hi1yy~'i Arln111, and Zikllrrr 'Tomtlr Moslrt, both of which deal with ritual matters affecting daily religious life. Unlike tlie curriculdr pro- posals of his mithnagdic predecessors, like Phinehas of ~'olotsk,~' Meir does not mandate the methodical study of the Rabbinic classics, but is content to require the intense study of popular halakhic manuals. Aside from representing a pragmatic, conces- sionary tactic in dealing with the limitations of his generation, this pedagogic approach also relfects Meir's unique understanding of the ideal of lornlr lishrnol~. In clear discord with the prevailing notion in Lithuanian Rabbinic circles, established by R. Hayyim of Volozhin, that the highest level of study is that which has no more

" N1111lfltl1 A ~ a l k . 8b. 'I See, for example, Phinehas of Polotsk's curricular prop,sal, i n his ethical will, Rud~

Iln'Gia~lr, (Jerusale~n, 1965) pp. lld-12b. On the role of Torah study i n early mithnagdic thought generally, see the excellent study of the concept ofTorah lishmah in the writings of R. Hdyyim of Volwhin: Norman l ~ m m , Ti)rulr Lis1111r1rk. Yeshiva University Press. N.Y., IYW.

258 Alln~r Nadlcr

lofty object than the very acquisition of knowledge itself, Meir insists that true torah l i s l~ r r rah is study whose final objective is the correct practice of the commandments. Consistent with this prag- matic, praxis-oriented approach to t a l m t r d tornh, he maintains that the chief criterion of spiritual distinction in Judaism is halakhic observance, not academic excellence:

The most important thing i n the study of Torah is to know the laws of theTorah and its commatidtncnls . . . and this principle o f knowing the law is the correct definition of Tore11 l.isl~r~rrtl~ . . . for i t is not study which is tlie most important matter, but ratlier perfor~nance. . .

So long as a person has the fear of God in hirn and he is careful i n his behaviour and scrupulo~~s i t 1 his personal affairs, he is considered loftier i n the eyes of God than as man who has a highly developed intellect, and is an accomplisl~ed scholar. . .

For the fear of God is a far greater attribute tlian a great mind."

This view of personal spiritual felicity is a rather radical break froni the overwhelming emphasis on intellectual and academic achievement that was prevalent in most mithnagdic circles froni the time of the Gaon of Vilna until this day. As such, i t represents the most unique and original aspect of Meir b. Elijah's religious thought.

The polemic Milhamoth Adonai: general characteristics

While some general features of his theology and ethics can thus be abstracted from his published ethical will and P i r k e i Avotlr com- mentary, it is only in Meir ben Elijah's unpublished polemic, Mi l lmr r ro t l r Adorr l l i , that a systematic and highly consistent religious ideology emerges. In the course of refuting both hasidism and the haskala, Mcir produced a work that is to be considered among the most learned and important manifestos of mithnagdic spirituality.

M i l l m a o t l r A d o r m i is, as mentioned above, a dual polemic whose overall goal is to refute the two movements which Meir believed were posing a serious threat to the very survival of the Jewish faith. An acute sense of religious and national crisis, provoked by the

" Nnl~lrlllr Al~)llr, pp. 13b14b. I n Mil l rn~rr~~lh kionni, pp. 75-75, Meir polcn~icises exlensively against those who jump to stand the difficult, obscure and non-practical tractates of tlie Talmud, Gfore first mastering those tractates which relate to the ddily requirements of halakhic observance. On Mei f s very pragmatic understanding of Torn11 I.isk~rnrb, w e also, Dcrrklr Acrollr, p. 3%. "Tlie meaning of Lislrrrmh is for sake of knowing the laws and commandmelits of tlie Tor;ili."

emergence of tliese new "heresies," pervades the work. Already in the title page, the association of hasidism and haskala as comp- lementary, mortal menaces to Judaism is evident. While the bulk of Mil!iamoth A d o r l n i is devoted to refuting hasidism, the author re- peatedly moves back and forth between the anti-haskala and anti- hasidic motifs. Although more troubled by hasidism, i t is clearly not only its practitioners whom Meir perceives to be straying from the "path of moderation." He assails two different groups, whom he respectively characterizes as, "those who stray to the left," and "those who stray to the right." The latter, "right-wingers" whose excessive piety leads to a distortion of the Torah and disregard for its limited, normative legal requirements, are the hasidim. The former, "left-wingers," are the maskillini who more fundamentally reject and abandon their religiolrs oblig'itions. Rathcr immodestly referring to his work, in the introduction, '1s '1 co~itcmporary M t ~ r ~ ~ l r

N e r ~ u c l r i ~ n or guide for those who are perplexed as a rcsult of being torn between these polar, competing "evils" of hasidisnl's heretical piety and the enlightenment's heretical modernity, Meir forcefully states his determination to stay the course of moderation by upholding the traditional, golden path. More specifically, he pro- mises to refute the heresies of three dangerous elements which have developed within the contemporary Jewish society. These he identifies as " l uk r i r a , rnordirrr, oe'k(~frirrr" - reformers, rebels, and heretics. "Reformers and rebels" apparently refers to the emerging Reform and government-appointed rabbis and their flocks,3' while the true heretics are the hasidini.

While Meir is clearly alarmed at the deviations from both tradi- tional theology and halakhic observance generated by the develop- ment of lieform Judaism in Central Europe, as well as the growth, in his lifetime, of the enlightenment and tlie emcrgence of a modern Rabbinate in Russia, he insists, remarkably enough, that hasidism is a far more dangerous and subversive force in Jewish life. This is because the reformers' departures from tradition are apparent to any truly pious Jew who will thus know to avoid them,

) I n the courseof hiscriticisms of trenctsof niodernizatiun within judaistn, Meir refcrs f re~uent ly to "those who call tliemselves r~~ldrtrtirrr." I t is alniost ccrtairi that he is wferring to the emergence i n Russia of a government controlled Rabbinate, or "n~lurrrrrll~ ~rrr'l~m~~r," which was officially established i n 1835, some four years before Meir's completion of his poleniic. On the origins dnd h~story of the modern rabbinate i n Russia, see Azriel Shwhat, M o ~ t i tln'Rnhnnrrllr Mi'jrrnt~~ Br'Rrtssin. Haifa 1976, uspcially pp. 9-12.

260 A l b r ~ Nndler

while the hasidim deviously hide behind a cloak of false piety, thereby seducing the ignorant Jewish masses into accepting their heresies as a form of exalted spirituality.34 It is then natural that he should devote more time to his critique of hasidism polemic.35

The critique of hasidism I M i l l ~n~ i ro t l ~ A d o r ~ f l i is arguably the most developed and sophisticated Rabbinic response to hasidic spirituality produced in the nine- teenth century. Yet, at the same time, it remains one of the fiercest anti-hasidic polemics ever written. The nature of Meir's critique suggests that, unlike most of the earlier mithnagdic polemicists, he was very well acquainted with hasidic theology. In fact, the author repeatedly claims that he had read extensively in hasidic literature. In his programmatic statement at the beginning of the book, Meir affirms and justifies his study of these "subversive" works:

'rhese powerful leaders (i.e. the hasidic Zadikkini) are subverting the words of the l iv ing God, and dist t)r l i~ ig the Torah. They transform the profane to the holy, and they replace .II~CI excliange the sacred for the secular. Now, I Iwve explored and exaniined the h idd~*n places of thew shepherds - namely, tlie hooks by thcsc bimrs; and bchold the b r e is empty, and there is no water i n it. M y purpose i n so doing was only l o assist and bring merit to others, spcific.tl ly to tliosc. who .>re still sitting UII the fence, all i n order to eliminate the darkness of these enemies of light. , .%'

Inciced, the terminology which the author uses, most particu- larly in the first chapter when dealing with the question of divine immanence, indicates that Meir w a s very well familiar with the religious philosophy of hasidism, and specifically with the mystical theology of HaBaD.

Meir's accliraintance with hasidic writings and ideas did not in any way lessen his hostility to the movement and its religious leaders. As he makes clear throughout the polenlic, the hasidim -- " Millri~rrri~llr Allor~si, p. 5a. Thedevious seductiveness that lies at the root of hasidism's

.11,pe,ll to tlie m.isses of I s r ~ c l is $1 familiar theme of the earlier mithrhgdic literature, and runs like a tlire.id tlirc)ugli I'liine1i.i~ of Pololsh's Krl lar Tor~~lr, esyeci.illy i n Ihc early pages of thi, work.

This description of tqe overall objective and general parameters of t l ~ e polemic, Millrrrrn~lh Adtrrttri represents d summary o f yp. 1-5 of the text.

.k' M i l l ~ f l r ~ ~ ~ ~ l l r A~lu~lr~i , p. 4. Th r~> i~ghou l the work, Mc i r repeats this claim that he had examined the hasidic sources i n great detail before'enyging i n his criticism. Most noteworthy is Meir's very detailed critique of hasidism's mystical exegesis of specific scriptures, on p ige 5.

were, by his lights, nothing less than total idolaters. In the lengthy introduction to M i l h a r n o f h Adonai where he states his purpose in writing the tract, Meir contends that hasidism is no less anheresy than the ancient idolatry of Baal wor~hip ,~ ' and that it threatens the Jewish nation in much the same way that the rebellion of the biblical Korah against Moses threatened the Israelite community in the Sinai w i ~ d e r n e s s . ~ ~

One of the most striking features of M i l l ~ f l t t ~ o t l ~ Ado r rn i is tlie unusually harsh terms which its author reserves for the founder of hasidism, R. Israel Baal Shem Tov. Throughout the work, Meir refers to the BESHT as the verv embodiment of the forces of evil. and as Satan personified here on earth. Acknowledging the mys- tic's power of automatic speech which the hasidim claimed for the BESHT, Meir explains that it is none other than Satan who rcgu- larly spoke out of the mouth of the DESHT.

This matter has come froni tlie very mouth of the chief source u f sinfulness and religious deviation, namely S,ita~~ himself, that is, tile BESI IT. . :"'

Following in the tradition of his great-uncle, the Gaon of Vilna,40 Meir perceived both hasidism and its founder, the DESf-IT, as dangerous, demonic forces - the very quintessence of heresy and

" M i l l r ~ ~ ~ r s ~ l b Allormi, p. 4a. The characterimtion of hasidism as Hadl worship recurs thr~)ugIiout the work. %e, irrfrr rrlhr, pp. 27-28, 51-53 & R).

Millrrr~rrollr Atb~mi, p. M. Meir argues that juat as Kor.111 preaclled thG1t all of the Israelite masWs are et l i~al ly holy, so tw) the li.isidi~n arc .~ttempting to pu1)ularizc the attainment of the highest levels of spiritual prrfection among all o f t l i r masses of Irael, w i t l~out taking into account the varying religious levels of diiferent elenients within Jewish society. The accuwtion that hasidism, i n its aggressive popularizatiot~ of sublime religious doctrines, f'iils to account for such varying spiritual capacities is central to Meir's c r~ t yue . See, fur exan~ple, tlie discussion of hasidic prayer

Millr~ran~llr A~lorrrri, p . 53. O n the llESl 1.1' as a n~.tnif~.st.~liori u f SdIan, srv also p. 63: "Satan has found .I source tliruugh which to cbtlie Ilimsclf i n the person of the llESl IT i n order to teach a b lse way. . ." See also, pp. 7 M . '" There is significant evidence to suggest that tlie Calm, far from dis~nissing I~asidic

spirituality, kared the hasidim precisely because of their supernatural powers. Note, especially, the niosl remarkable st.itcmen1 attributed to the (;am by K. Abral~am Zelig Lifshitr., a student of the Gaon's mcnt noted disciple, I l a y y i ~ n of Vol~szliin, i n liis t l~ r rdr f l~ot l~ Vr-rz11111 Slrrl k~lli Ilr~yyirn Mi-Vt~lozbirr (c~~ipubl is l ied manuscript in the co l l ~ r . l ion of tlie tlcbrew University and National Library, Jerusalem), I'arl II, par. # 1.1, to the c f kc l that the hasidic maslers were i n pussession of dac~gerous, n~agical powers which they would summon fur de~nol i i r purposes. There is much i n tlie history of the Gaon's battle w i th hasidisn~, particularly liis refusal directly l o confront or to enter into any dispute or dialogue wi th them, which suggests that l ie nut only despised them, but a l w ge~luinely feared their charismatic and black magical powers. It would appcar that Meir b. Elijdh 100 perceived the hasidic masters as possessors uf demonic powers and masters of black magic.

evil, and repeatedly characterized them accordingly. For example,

in the course of insisting, in reaction against the monistic acos~nism of HaBaD, that tangible evil exists in the world and has specific concrete manifestations in every generation of Jewish history, Meir suggests that in his day the cosmic forces of the sitrn nhrn have

found a home on earth in the hasidic movement:

This cvil source and ramt always remains, such that in every generation there mmerges and grows an evil fornm of belief akin to ancient idolatry, just as many false messialms have arisen in Israel. . .

Now in our t ~ w n lalter gcneratiimns, prior to the iompending messianic age in wlmiclr tlme spirit (11 impurity will LK' exp~~nged from the t~niverse, Satan h .1~ once .)win been tlisp~ised by tlie forces of cvil, the silnr n11rr1, in order to ;mn~iol the coven.llmt and to establish the monument of U.mel tlirough the propigation of false, destruclive beliefs. I'articularly, in Ihe days of Ihe Gaon, that Rabbi who resembled a holy dngel of Cod and was sent from tlie heavens, namely Rabbi Elijah (ben Solomon of Vilna). In his days, Satan clo.iked himself in tlie person of the Besht, may his name be blotted out from all remembrance. (Since manifestations of evil persist in all generations) it is no surprise tlm.rt this evil sect was not complelely and successfully destroyed by the Gaon."

Consistent with his demonic depiction of the BESHT, Meir characterizes his heirs, the later hasidic Zadiqim, as practitioners of a dangerous and subversive form of black magic. He devotes an

entire chapter in his polen~ic to debunking the hasidic belief in the supernatural powers of the Zadiq as a bnal rrrofith, or niiracle-

worker."' Acknowledging the genuine powers of black magic, Meir insists that one of the main purposes of the Torah is to limit mall, in his spiritual life, to the normative performance of the God's will as reflected in His commandments, t h u s protecting him from such deviant and potently dangerous magical practises.

Meir extends his criticism of the hasidic Zaddiq to satirizing certain specific, "magical," customs which he had apparently wit- nesses in their courts."%e refers contemptuously to the custom of

hasidim to gather en masse around the Rebbe's table, during the Sabbath and festivals, in order to eat his leftovers, or slrirnyinr, as an idolatrous form of personality worship.'" He also mocks the hasi-

dim's belief in the universal power of their Rebbes' prayer,45 and

" Millmrrrull~ Adorrrri, pp. 27-8. " Mill~rrrr~ollr Adorrui, chapter 7. ' On llie role of magic in hasidism, see the article by Moshe Idel, in J. Neusner, ed.

Kcliric,,l,, Scirrrcr nrrrl Mugic, (Oxford, 1989). ' Mrllur~nolh Adormr, p. 52. " Milh~rr~ollr A1111rmi. p. 63.

their ability to effect miracles in response to the hasidim's petition- ary notes, or hjittelndr, to them.J6

In a most remarkable use of the very scriptural verse which was the proof-text most commonly cited by the early hasidim to sup- port their panentheistic cosmology, Meir denies the magical role adopted by the hasidic Zaddiqim, insisting that the Torah emphati- cally rejects any religious reliance on human intermediaries:

The intention of the verse, "Know this day and set it in your heart tlmat tlme Lord, He is Ctd, in Imeaven above and on the earth beneath, there is none else but Him" (Dc~rlrro- 1111111!/, 4:39), is Ilmat y t ~ u slmc~uld understand with true knowledge (ynlllllr rrnrrrrss6). tlmat is, tlmr~~uglm a~gnition ancl deep investigation (Ir'wAl~t~l rr'lrlrillrl~~rtr~~rrlh) . . . a1111 yo11 sh~t~ld retreat frt~nm the wayward tlmouglmt with which the evil impulse dupes you in order to have ~ ~ I L I cling and depend upon a ft~~rlish man and his vain thoughts. . . Rdt1mc.r you nmust know that "The Lord is God," that is, He tiimself is the one who superviws and directs the world, and it is only tu Him that you slit~uld turn with all of your prt~blems, and only Him tli.it you should petition for ,mil your ne~ris, and to Him alone tlm'mt you sliould repent for you sins. You should not cling toany mortal man such as yourself, who was created by God from crude matter, in the vain hope that he will atone for your sins, correct your flaws, or raise your prayers to the highest heavens."

Given the preeminent use of that same verse in all of the major hasidic writings in order to verify hasidism's belief in Divine imma- ~ience,''~ i t is almost certain that Meir's citation of Deuteronorrry 4:39 to deflate the claims of the hasidic Zaddiclim is highly calculated. Especially striking in this paragraph is ~ c i r ' s use-of expressions, such a s "!jaiinlr rrrnrrrnsh" and "lritlrhorrei~rrtlr," which were important

technical-terms in the vocabulary of the popular HaBaD niystical writings.

Historians have noted the increasing moderation of the mithnag- dic battle with hasidism during the course of the early decades of the 19th It has been suggested that the emergence of the haskala and reform movements equally alarmed both hasidim and mithnagdim, thus creating, however inadvertently, a common

' b Millmrrrolh Adortni, p. 45. " Millrrrroll~ Adorrai, pp. 88-89. '" Two, among almost innumerable, examples of the use of Drureror~orrry, 4:35 4 4:39 in

hasidic writings to supporl the belief in Divine immanence, taken fronm tlie first two generations of the hasidic movement, are Krllrrr Slrnrr Tor) 1:84, and Shneur Zalman of Lyadi, Likrrlei Tornb, D~rIrror~~rr~y. pp. 7-14 (Brooklyn, 1965). " The extent of tliis moderation is tlie subject of some scholarly dispute, particularly with regard to the most prominent disciple of the Caon of Vilna, R. Hayyim of Volozhin. Norman Lamm, in his Turul~ Lisl~aralr, has claimed that the conciliatory tone of NC~PSII !in-tinyyirrr is a reflection of this softening. Isaiah Tishby, in his articles "Kudsha Berikh Hu. . ." in Kiryrrllr Scr\er, vol. 50, and "Kitrugo she1 R. Yisrael Mi-Shklov. . ." in Kiryulb S1,k.r. vol. 51, disagrees.

enemy a n d something of a n automatic bond a m o n g all Orthodox factions. In the face of this softening of mithnagdic hostility to the hasidim o n the part of many leaders of Rabbinic Judaism of the period, Meir ben Eliyahu remained intractable a n d absolutely ~tncomproniising in his war o n hasidism. In fact, h e complained about the waning spirit of classical mithnagdism, a n d cited it in-, justifying the pressing need for his o w n polemic:

I am most surprised at the Sages of our generation, those who are called "mithnagdim," fur Ii.iving failed to take a stand on this matter. (On tlie contrary,) they have adopted sc)nie of tlieir (i.c. the Iiasidi~n's) customs as i f they were g o d , llit~s giving succor to the evildcwrs. The opposite response is in order, namely, to eliminate and terminate even tlie most superficial and primitive of tlie customs of these sinners who call themselves Ii.isidim, in order to protect (the Torah) from ftlrther viola~ion.~'

Likc the earlier mithnagdim, the central feature of hasidic reli- gious bchaviour that most disturbed R. Meir w a s its exaggerated, undisciplined nature. A central motif of Millmreoth Allorrni is the total absence of a properly-defined, disciplined, hierarchical pro- cess of religious growth in hasidism. Rather than ascellding the ladder of piety gradually, Meir accuses the hasidim of jumping to its highest rungs in a n overly anxious thirst to attain the highest spiritual levels without proper preparation, o r l ~ d r n ~ n . ~ ' This criti- cism of the precipitousness of hasidic religiosity underlies Meir's specific rejection of the hasidic approach to both prayer a n d study.

The critique of hasidic prayer

O n e of the major complaints of the earlier mithnagdim was hasi- dim's cmphasis o n tnystical prayer a s the highest priority of Jewish religii)us life. They accuscd the hasidini of reversing the traditional hierarchy of values by raising prayer over the supreme obligation of Torah study. The mithnagdim were also scandalized by hasidism's negiect of many of the normative laws governing prayer, most especially the proper times for the various services. Finally, they opposed the Hasidic masters' aggressive populariza- tion of mystical prayer, which involved the widespread use of the

-Y

" Millalrtlc~lh Ailo~mi, p. 49. 51 For a discussion of the ideal human type in hasidic thought, the h a 1 Judraga, or the

master of the highest levels of spirituality, see Louis Jacobs, Holy Living (N.Y. IW), cli.iptcr 3, especially pp. 40-45.

Lurianic version of the liturgy hitherto limited to elite circles of genuine mystics, and the propagation of esoteric mystical exercises in prayer to the masses of

Each of these classical mithnagdic complaints regarding hasidic prayer re-emerges decades later in Millrarrrotlr Adorrni. In response t o hasidism's inversion of the priority of s tudy over prayer, Meir insists that Taltnird Tornh mus t retain its pre-eminence over all other religious a ~ t i v i t i e s . ~ ~ H e shares fully ii his predecessors' concern for the integrity of the normative laws regulating the form, and especially the time, o f prayer. In a stinging rebuke to the hasidic obsession with inwardness a n d knr)nlm in prayer, Meir argues that the hasidic impulse to delay the service pending the attainment of proper intention is nothing less than satanic i n origin. H e insists that the neglect of the liturgy's time regulations undermines the entire edifice of tL.filln:

(The has id in^) cite the saying that prayer without hintm is like a bud). willit,ut a soul. On llic basis of this expression did Satan find the strellgtli t c ~ clothe hi~nsclf in the Iwrson uf llie UESIIT in order to inslrtst th.it the essence of prayer is ~ i iys t i~a l t1ni011 with Gui . . . and without that mystical experience one had better not pray at all, and certainly should one delay the time of prayer.

This man has permitted the forbidden and invented a new, perverse Ileliold how strongly the Satanic forces have emerged in urtter lo propagate this slupidily . . . w) that even tlie leaders of our people have come lo believe in this new rcligiun which he (tlie BESIIT) has simply i n v e n t ~ d . . .

Their basic argument is Ihen that prayer without hrrntm is akin to a body without a sot~l. But the truth is tIi.11 prayer in the wrong time indeed has no h x l y and no soul at all. Such prayer has virtually no existence at all. For tlie basis and foundation of our Torah is rooted in temporal restraints and lin~its.~'

Central to his opposition to hasidic prayer is Meir's insistence that all mystical activities require years of carefully controlled spiriti~al growth and preparation, a necessity which the hasidim flagrantly ignore. While in n o way denying the theoretical power of genuinely mystical prayer, Meir insists that, but for a select few, sitch a n experience is unavailable to the members of his own diminished generation:

'' On the nature of hasidic prayer generally, see Louis Jacobs, lhsiili~. I'ruyrr. The major collection of sources for the earlier classical milhnagdic opposition to hasidic thotlght and religious behaviour is Mordechai Wilensky, tliniili~t~ 11-Millrr~i~gtli~~r, 2 vol- umes. On the crilique of Iiasidic prayer, see, Wilensky, Vol. I, pp. 41, -1547.62. 138-139, 227; Vol. I I , pp. 90, 155, 249. On the mithnagdic approach to prayer generally, we my Reli ion o Li~rrils, chapter four.

d M i l k n ~ u l r Alto~ni, p. 74. Mill~c~t~rrllr Aitotari, pp. 73-74.

266 Allnrr Niallcr

As f i ~ r us, who are grounded and entrapped i n the impurities of the earth and lempted by the riches of this world, always pursuing the attainment of money and material gain with ,111 of ciur energies and powers . . . would we only (l imit o ~ ~ r s u l v ~ s ) to intend tl ic ~neaning of the words of our prayers, and intend, befure praying, to fulfi l our legal obligation of tlie rrrilzrr~lr tliat our Creator has given us - namely, to worship H im. What business have we j11mpi11g the rungs of the ladder and rising to the heights without proper grad.ition. . ."

Meir refutes hasidism's use of the Mishnah's warning against the routinization of prayer,5h in order to encourage the immediate attainment of a mystical level of communion with God during worship. He insists that the lissidini err in applying tlie Mishnaic standard to the masses of Israel. Meir assures the average Jew, incapable of genuine nlystical experience, that i t is sufficient to pray with the simple intention of fulfilling one's legal obligations:

It turns IIII~ that when (the Mishn.111) st'1tl.d tliat one sliciuld not turn one's prayers into a routine (O'rrr) - ndniely, merely to fulfi l the rrrilz~xrlr - this is advise 111 tlie c x c e p t i ~ ~ n ~ l l y pious, the true Bcisirlirrr. As for simple people like ourselves, i t is sufficient to intend, brforc one's recital of the "Hear 0 Israel" and one's prayers, simply to fulfi l one's legal obligation. I f only we w o ~ l l d also have the proper intention to understand the meaningof tlie (words of tlie prayers), and not attempt to rise to the highest level without proper gradatior~ I t is only the elite few, sumlnoned by Cod Himself, that lnay enter tlie holy dfler 1i.iving risen throug l~ the nine levels (of spirituality) which must precede the level nf true Irrrsirl~~tlr.

The gener.11 conclusion of our words is that, when il comes to adding intensity and inwardness to the pe r f~~ r~ i i ance of I11e rrrilzw~llr, all men are not equal . . . and this is obviously the case too when i t comes to the study of the Torah - all Inen are not eclually suited tc, t l i r s,imc l p ~ e l . ~ ~

The basic crror of the hasidim, in their propagation of mystical prayer to the masses of their followers, lies in their failure to draw appropriate distinctions between the varying spiritual capabilities of different individuals. Each generation, and every single indi- vidual within those respective generations, have different capaci- ties for religious greatness, or nlystical experiences. One must be careful not to prescribe powerful, kabbalistic prayer formulae to the simple Jews who will not be capable of attaining such exalted

55 Millmrrr~~llr Adormi, p. 72. " Mi~hrrrrk. lk~rrrklii~lh, 4 3 . ce t l ~ e discussion of the need for inwardness i n prayer in

11. T. L~critkltoth, 29b. %. s7 Mi11111r11idh Arlorrfli, p. 62. See also page 87, where Meir warns generally against

precipitous, or exaggerated spirituality: "In all matters o f added intensity and Imsiiiu/l~, one 11i11st hc exceedingly careful that these be engaged in only i n accordance with the gr.id.itions of tl ic Torah. . ."

levels of religious experience.% For this reason Meir emphatically rejects hasidism's justification of its mystical activities and doc- trines by citing the precedents set by mystics of earlier generations, most notably R. Isaac Luria. While honouring the legacy of these earlier kabhilists, Meir insists that there can be no analogy drawn between their exalted spirits and the religious depravity of contem- porary Jewry:

. . . but we today are lacking i n wisdo~n and knc~wledge, we are intellectually dimin- ished, spiritually incapacitated and impoverished i n Torah learning - we a ear before then) (tlie rnystics of e.irlirr generations) truly, like a monkey k f o r e a man. 8'

Of particular interest in Meir's polemic against hasidic prayer is his dispute with two specific hasidic sects - Habad and Kotsk.

In the course of his critique of the precipitous and unciisciplined spirituality of the hasidini and thcir popularization of the notion that all Jews should be encouraged to reach the heights of mystical prayer, Meir alludes to the Habad school:

They have seized, as the source and the basis of their religiosity, that everything depends upon the extent of one's spiritual purity and that r~,rryi~rrr must become exalted by rising to the highest Iieiglits and attaining the level of I!nBaD -

But in tractate Sukkah, Ibbbi Shimon bar Yohai proclaimed: "I have seen exalted men, but they are very few." Now i f that was the case i n those earlier generations, how much more are we of limited intellect, for we are virtually nullif ied i n significance compared to tliem.*

Meir was writing during the period the most active and aggress- ive propagation of mystical contemplation, or I r i t l r l u r~c~ r r~ r t l r , in the history of the HaBdD movement, on the part of its second master, R. Dov Baer of Lubavitch. As Naftali Loewenthal has recently demonstrated in his intellectual history of the Habad movement, the widest possible dissemination of mystical experiences in prayer and contemplation of the divine was the central goal and dominant impulse of Lubavitch, especially in this period." It is almost certain that, in insisting that his generation was both incapable and

" O n the general need to draw these distinctions between the varying religious ca acities of the different generations and individuals, see M~IBnrrrollr Adonni, p . 59.

Pq Millmrr~oll~ Adorrfli, p. 16. Millmrrs~lk Ati~~ncri, p . 64.

'' See Naftali Lwwenthal, Corrrrrrrrrricalirrg I11e Iri\irrile: T lv Ernerger~n o/ llte Hfllad QIIIIO~, Chicago, 1990, especially chapter 5 on R. Dob Bder's aggressive campaign to spread mystical contemplation and ecstatic techniques to Ihe widest possible spectrum o f Jews during tlie first tl ircu decades of the 19th century.

unworthy of the attainment of such spiritual levels, R. Meir was responding to R. Dov Baer's unprecedented popularization of h i t l ~ l ~ o t r r t r ~ ~ t l ~ to the Jewish niasses.

Meir is most scandalized by the radicalism of tlie followers of Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Kotsk with regard to prayer. He clainis that they have taken tlie requirements for kar,ntrn prior to prayer to such a n extreme that, in its absence, they have virtually eliminated" the structures of prayer completely. In this earliest extant Rabbinic reference to the Kotsker sect, Meir complains:

I.'n,n~ this same bitter root there has grown a leprous wound and poisonc~us weed - a s ~ r t known as tlie Ki~lsk'r hasidim, may their names and memories ht. blotted out so th.lt they wi l l not be remembered together w i th our holy people. For, i n the absence of total k~rmrrn, they have eliminated prayer altogether. . .62

The study of kabbalah

Just as tlie mystical prayer, in which the hasidim encouraged the masses of their followers to engage, is, for R. Meir, only attainable by a select religious elite, so too must the study of kabbalah remain the unique domain of a limited circle of exceptional scholars. While fully accepting the sanctity and power of tlie mystical tradition, and himself obviously well versed in kabbalistic literature and doctrines," Meir, using the kabbalistic sources themselves in order to support his argument, warns against the premature study of Kabbalah without the requisite academic and religious preparations:

. I t is known that there are four levels i n the study of our holy Torah, signified by (the acrostic) PnrDCS, which corresponds to the four worlds of nssi,ynIr, hrriirlr, yr.lsir~r and r~lsilrrl. N o w just as it is impossible l o rise to the highest of these worlds suddenly and

'' O n R. Menahem Mendel of Kotsk's radical neglect of the proper times o f prayer and his absolute insistence on proper spiritual and mental preparation, see the sources collected by M . Schornfeld, Ertrrllr Mi-Kulsk Tiztrtrrlr, par. # 41-45 (pp. 27-28). A dis- cirssion of the Kotsker Rebbe's "rejection" of prayer i n his later thought can bc found i n Joseph R,x, K~llrlli Mr~rr~l~~.rrr Mrrni~*l cfKoIsk - A Bi~)gr~rplric~~l Slrvly, N.Y. 1988, pp. 112-115. I n the ch.ipter entitled "Tefillah" i n his epic work, Kotzk: 111 Crrnngrl Far E~rressdikrit, Vol. I, pp. 178-1W). Abraham Ioshua Heschel reviews the same material w i th little additional insi iht . \

I n all of his wrilings, Meir quotes richly from the Zulrar, Tikkutiirtr, Rrshilh Hokhrrmlr and other mystical wrilings. I n his commenlary to AwIII, h e refers his readers to the popular manual of Kabbalah by Shabetai Sheftel Horowitz, Sltrfa To1 (see, Derek11 A t ~ ~ l l r , p. 31)~) .

wilhout first gradually rising through the other worlds i n proper order, so i t is too with regard to study - i t is impossible to study kabbala and the secrets of the Torah without prior knowledge of the exoteric aspects of T ~ r a h . ~

Meir repeatedly accuses the hasidim of recklessly prescribing the widespread study of kabbalah, largely to the detriment of classical Rabbinic learning and normative halakhic observance:

Our Sages have explicitly instructed that God has nothing i n this world bcyond the four cubitsof halakha. Note that they said lrnlrrklradnd not lrrrsid~illr. But the hasidim distort the Torah and invent a new Torah from their hearts. . . Their cardinal transgression is the fact that they circumvent the simple, legal study o f the Torah's plain wnse. They claim instead that the essential thing is to prrfor ln the religious obligations wi th sprctacular i ln~rku l l~ , and to study the books of the kabbala and i~lvestigrte the secrets of the Torah, for these w i l l all lead to perfect union wi th Cod.

They thus have chosen to try and become elevated men, l o ascend suddenly to the heavens without any nloderation or gradations, and without thr prior study of the simple Torah. Now, while there is no question that the secrets of the Torall and the study of kabbalah are the highest values of our faith, as the following sources attest. . . Nonetheless, all this only applies to one who has first filled his stomach wi th the simple study o f the Torah, the gemara, and all of theearlier and later d i f i e r s . But i t is unheard of simply to replace all of this (rabbinic) study with the immediate consun~ption of these dangerously potent winesb5

Meir is critical specifically of the hasidic attempt to popularize the belief in divine immanence. Again, he insists that the correct comprehension of this theosophic notion lies beyond the capacity of the vast majority of contemporary Jews.

Al l of this is the work of Satan who tempts them (i.e. the hasidim) to rise to the highest places i n a precipitous, ungraduated manner. . . For who would dare to enter into the holy preparation - that is, without first havingstudied the exotericTorah and attained the (requisite level) of fear of God? Indeed, you must rebuke such a person and tell h im - "thu srcrets of G t d are only for those who fear Iiim," fvr "gdfearers" and not for heretics!"

Meir thus accuses the hasidim not only of reversing the traditio- nal hierarchy of scholarly priorities by replacing normative, man- datory Rabbinic scholarship with the study of highly esoteric kabbalistic doctrines, but also of trivializing and vulgarizing the sublime doctrines of Jewish mysticism themselves through their careless popularization.

This critique of hasidism's daring and aggressive propagation, to a wide audience, of such sublime endeavours as mystical prayer and kabbalistic study are rooted in classical mithnagdism's far

M i l l ~ i ~ ~ o t l ~ Adomi, p. 55. 65 Milbartrolh Adunai, pp. 70-71. " Mill~rrrtrutb Ailornri, p. 72.

more pessimistic evaluation of the cognitive capacities and spiritual potentialities of the contemporary ~ e w . ~ ~ Following the traditional, pessimistic rabbinic view that, with the progression of history, there is a continuous regression of the religious stature of success- ive generations, Meir objects to hasidism's daring optimism regarding the capabilities of all contemporary Jews to attain the most sublime religious experiences. In this sense, Meir faithfully follows in the footsteps of his mithnagdic predecessors whose dispute with hasidism was rooted not so much in objective theolo- gical differences as in a fundamental disagreement regarding man's subjective spiritual potentialities.

The rejection of hasidic monism

In one important respect however, Meir's critique of hasidic doc- trine transcends that of the earlier mithnagdini. Not content to limit his dispute with hasidism to the epistemological question of man's existential capacity for lofty spiritual attainment, Meir insists on a different perception of the essential relationship between ontological good and evil, both in the world and within man's soul.hn In sharp opposition to hasidism's celebration of the perva- sive presence of God in all of creation, including the realm of apparent evil, Meir presents a thoroughly dualistic understanding of both the cosmos and the spirit of man.

The critique of hasidism found in Milhamoth Adorlni is, in that sense, rooted in an axiomatic disagreement regarding the very nature and purpose of creation. In contrast to hasidism's monistic belief in the immanence of the divine in the created universe and tlie hasidic emphasis on man's task of uncovering and revealing divinity in every corner of the world, Meir insists on a dualistic

b7 O n the nature of the earlier mithnagdic approach to Kabbalistic study, and the critique o f the hasidic popularization, and vulgarization, of mystical doctrines, see my Rdi '~IIII of I.inrils, chapter 3.

I n my IWigiorr of ~irrrii$, I argue that the basis for the earlier mithnagdim's rejection o f hasidism's emphasis on divine immanence is epistemological; i.e. i t is rooted i n a limited view of the capacity of man, rather than any fundamental ontological disagreement regarding the actual immanence of God. Meir, as we shall now see, g w s considerably fccrtlicr .ind rcjects completely tlie hasidic belief i n divine immanence.

ontology in which good and evil, God and Satan, and body and soul stand in a permanent, incorrigible state of diametrical oppo- sition to, and perpetual battle with, each other. Relying on tlie Biblical verse, "Behold how God created both good and evil, tlie one opposite the other,"69 he maintains in good Lurianic fashion, that this reflects the inescapable objective state of creation, in which good and evil stand apart from, and against each other.

In hasidic thought, by contrast, any dualism reflected in the scripture, "r'eh gatn et zeh le-umath zeh as~lll ha-elokirrr" is no more than a depiction of the universe from the subjective human per- spective. It refers not to the real existence of autonomous evil within God's creation, but merely to the imperfect, limited human perception of the universe, which man is charged religiously to overcome and correct. The verse from Ecclesiastes is. moreover. a reminder that the source of this appearance to the human senses of evil in the cosmos is also divine in origin.70 In hasidic thought, man's most important spiritual task is to transform this frag- mented, perceived dualism of the created world and to arrive at an awareness of the pervasive presence of God, which unifies the entire cosmos. his monistic faith in the absolute immanence of God and the unreality of tangible evil in the world reached its peak in the acosmic doctrines of the HaBaD school. Its understanding of the relationship between God and the universe involved a total rejection of Lurianic dualism. As Rachel Elior has noted, in her study of the theosophy of R. Aaron Ha-Levi of Starosselje, the most noted disciple of HaBaD founder Shneur Zalman of Lyadi:

The traditional Lurianic conception of evil, characterized as i t was by a pronounced dualism . . . gave way, i n the thought of R. Aaron, to a philosophical simplification which co~nplctely neutralized the dualistic struggle, and which defined and restricted its interest i n evil as merely a means towards the final discovery of the pervasive reality of

* Ecclesinslrs, 7:14. ("ganr rl zelr le-untalb zelr avrk ha-rlokirn") See for example, Shneur Zalnian of Lyadi, Likvlei Torah, Zhitomir, 1866, "besha-

lacli," p. 4b:

"Zrlr It-rrsrnlh zelr nuk Im-elokirrr" teaches that i n this world there is a mingling of tlie two ~ s p c t s of good and evil, one i n the other. The divine w u l disguises itself i n the material body. I t is because of this ( m i ~ ~ g l i n g o f both this and that - zrhlzdr) that i t (i.e. this world) is called olnn~ 6it-zt~Ii".

Shneur Zalman's use of this verse to support his belief i n the total intermingling of divinity acid corporeality i n this world is clearly the very popular opposite of Meir's more tr.ildilitic~~i.ll, I.urianic u~idcrstanding.

272 A lbn Nndlet

Cod. Far from being the opposite of good, evil is, rather, the vehicle for revelation o f g l ~ . 7 1

The highest goal of the divine worship, for the HaBaD masters, was the transformation, through heightened human awareness that God is the only ultimate reality, of the apparently physical, evil realm of the senses into pure divinity. Rachel Elior has detailed .. the HaBaD technique of divine service through this "transform- ation" of evil, or b i th~ l I ra - l r i pp r l k l~ - the annulment of dualism.72 The HaBaD masters of Meir's time insisted that it is precisely in the human encounter with the realm of apparent evil, and the spiritual transformation of it into Divinity, that God's pervasive presence on earth becomes most manifest and magnified."

Meir ben Elijah was the only mithnagdic polemicist to display an evident understanding of hasidism's radical monism, and to con- tend specifically with its technique of "transforming" evil into good. In fact, he identifies this spiritual approach as the very "source and root" of the falsity of hasidic Using the precise term repeatedly applied in the HaBaD writings of his time to the paradoxical worship of God through the encounter with the realm of evil, i.e. hippr rk l t , Meir repeatedly castigates the hasidim for their habit of blurring the realms of good and evil. Meir is particularly appalled by the related hasidic practise of nzrodnh be-gashrn iyot r t l~

which he also characterizes as the "transformation of spirit to matter, and evil to good":75

Tliey trdnfortn the words of the l iv ing Cod into words of heresy . . . when they transform tlie re.ilni of g o d to evil, i n a spirit of joyfulness. . . Anyotie who cxdmities tlieir evi l ways wi l l f ind that almost al l of their allegedly good activities are based on the transform- ation of the Torah. . . I t is not enough that they liaveannulled much of theTorah and d o not observe its (dictates), but they go so far as to transldrm tlie divine worship into sinfulnes~. '~

71 Rachel Elior, Tornllt Hn-Eloltrrllr Br-Dor Hn-Sltrni s l d Hnsi~ir~llt HnhD, Jerusalem, 1982, p. 166. " See Rachel Elior, Tornlh Hn-Elorrlh Br-Dor tlndto/~ri Slrel Hnsidirl/l HnBaD, Jerusalem,

1982. p.irticr~larlv chapter 7. 71 see R. ~lio;, ;bill:, 1,~'. 245-257.

" The very first chapter of Milhn~rtullt Adortni includes Meir's dualistic depiction of the universe and his detailed refutation of hasidism's monistic conception which he already identifies as the "source andyroot" of its heresies i n the title of the chapter, on page 20.

75 See M i l l u ~ i t ~ ~ I l t Arionni, "supplement," pp. 9-10, where Meir accuses the hasidim of effectively changing good into evil as a consequence of their ostensible desire to trans- form evil into n~wd.

Meir, in sharp contrast to the HaBaD school, adopts the classic Lurianic understanding of the source, nature and place of evil in the world. God chose to create an essentially composite universe in which objective good and evil exist in perpetual tension with each other." He maintains that the abyss which divides the material and spiritual realms of the universe must not be obscured, for that will simply lead to the triumph of evil. Matter and form are diametrical opposites, and the strengthening of the one is directly proportional to the weakening of the other:

The general principle is that the spiritual forces and the corporeal forces stand i n opposition (I leb. oril111111~diar) to each other, when the one rises the other must fall, and when the one is fortified, the other must be ~eakened.~ '

Man, being the culmination of the creative process, represents an accurate microcosm of this dualistic universe, and thus har- bours within his own turbulent spirit, all of the warring cosmic forces of good and evil:

The Creator, Blessed be He, created man with remarkable wisdom, as the finale to the creative process. H e thus included withi t i man all of tl ic forces of the enlirc costiios - both material and spiritual; f rom the heiglits of the supernal worlds to tlie deptlis of the netherworlds. . .

Thus d id Cod form man i n such a way that all of these different forces from tlie univrrse would be opposing (tleb. ~~ r i l l r ~ tn~~ i i i ~ t r ) witl i in h i m and always struggling against h i ~ n . ~

It is man's challenge to cause good to triumph by actively sup- pressing the evil forces of his body to his essentially pure spirit until, in death, he can be liberated from the fragmented, dualistic, material universe and united with God in the world of the spirits.*

O n the Lurianic understanding of the nature and place o f evil i n the universe. see Isaiah Tisliby, Tor111 H~I-RLI Vrhnkclip Br-b~hrlullr 110-Ari, Jerusalem, 1%5.

7%ill~n~~rt~llr A$otrni, "supplement," p. 10. Millrn111ol11 Adonni, pp. 2 M 4 . Tishby summarizes the Lurianic view of the dualism of man's existential condition

as follows:

I t isevidc~it , at any rate, tliat man himself is split into twocamps. Thisdualism is most radical, since all matters pertaining to this world belong to the camp o l evil. . . This dualism transforms man into a stage for the confrontation of two warring forces. . . This confrontation reflects signs o f the (larger) war between the two forces of (good and evil) i n al l o f creation.

(Tisliby, Tom1 Hn-rr~ Vc'lmkeli~m. . ., pp. 108-109.)