Published in: Jewish Studies Quarterly 6 (1999), eds. Joseph Dan and Peter Schäfer, pp. 55-70.

Messianic Strains in Rabbi Israel Ba'al Shem Tov's 'Holy Epistle'[1]

By

Mor Altshuler

Israel Ba'al Shem Tov ('Master of the Good Name'), the legendary founder of Hasidism (1700-1760)[2] left hardly any writings behind him. One of the few pieces in our possession is an epistle addressed to his brother-in-law, Rabbi Gershon of Kutov, who had emigrated to the Holy Land in 1746 and settled in Jerusalem.[3] In writing this epistle, the Besht wished to share with Rabbi Gershon a mystical experience, 'the ascent of the soul,' which he had performed on New Year's Day, 5507 (1746).[4] The Besht used a certain technique - 'adjuration'[5] - which enabled his soul to separate from his body during the course of prayer. While his body remained on earth, his soul ascended to Heaven and met the Messiah. The epistle, containing details of this event, was originally dictated by the Besht to his disciple, Rabbi Aryeh Leib - "the Scribe the Rabbi Reprover of Polonnoye."[6] But the missive never reached its destination, perhaps due to an encroaching plague and the ensuing quarantine.

In 1750, during the fair of Luka, the Besht received a letter from Rabbi Gershon, from which he learned that his epistle had not arrived in Jerusalem.[7] Sometime later, probably in 1752, he wrote a second epistle[8] repeating part of the information contained in the previous one. He entrusted the second epistle to another disciple of his, Rabbi Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, to be delivered to Rabbi Gershon in Jerusalem. Yet, "due to an obstruction brought about by God, blessed be He,"[9] Rabbi Jacob Joseph cancelled his planned journey to the Holy Land, and thus the second epistle failed to reach its destination as well. It remained instead in the possession of Rabbi Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, and was published in 1781 as an appendix to his book Ben Porat Yosef (Korez 1781).[10] In this fashion, some twenty years after his death, the Besht's 'Holy Epistle' became sacred throughout the Hasidic world. The Korez version remained the only printed version until 1923, when David Fraenkel published another version based on a private manuscript.[11] Mordechai Bauminger reprinted the latter version in 1971, which came to be known as the Fraenkel-Bauminger.[12]

The first epistle was not published by the Hasidim, and scholars considered it lost. However, Joseph Rozani has recently discovered[13] that it had been printed in 1900, in Abraham Kahana's book Rabbi Israel Ba'al Shem Tov (Zitomir 1900).[14] Kahana gave no clue as to the source of the epistle, noting only that "The version of the epistle given here differs from the printed [Korez] version, and is printed according to [a copy of?] a manuscript of Rabbi Ishaia Dunevich, belonging to an acquaintance of mine, which I had the opportunity of viewing."[15]

Rabbi Isaiah Dunevich was a disciple of the founding fathers of Hasidism - Rabbi Pinchas of Korez, Rabbi Yehiel Mikhal, the Zlotchover maggid, and Rabbi Dov Ber, the Mezeritch maggid. He owned the manuscripts that were used to print Or Torah (Korez 1804) and perhaps Zavva'at ha-Rivash (1793?), two collections of Hasidic 'Hanhagot' (moral instructions) attributed to the Besht, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Premishlan, the Mezeritch maggid and the Zlotchover maggid.[16] Moreover, Rabbi Isaiah sponsored the initiative to copy and preserve a Shabbetaian composition, Sefer ha-Zoref from a manuscript belonging to the Besht's son and grandson.[17]

The fact that Rabbi Isaiah had access to manuscripts held by the Besht's offspring suggests that he was connected to authentic Beshtian material. Another point that may be significant is that Sefer ha-Zoref was copied by one of Rabbi Isaiah's disciples in 1782.[18] Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the 'Holy Epistle' was also copied around 1782. Still, it is not clear how many copies had been made before Kahana saw the manuscript. His comment about printing from the manuscript ""על פי העתקה מכתב ידו של ר' ישעיה מדונוויץis somewhat vague,[19] and could refer either to Rabbi Isaiah's handwriting or to a copy of his handwriting.

In 1980, Y. Mondschein published another version of the Besht's first epistle, based on the 1776 Rothschild manuscript JNUL 8 5979.[20] The first few sections of this Hasidic manuscript - which predates the publication of Ben Parat Yosef by five years - contain Hasidic 'Hanhagot,' typically ascribed to the Besht and his disciples. It also contains the 'Holy Epistle' and the 'Will of the Zaddik' of Rabbi Aaron of Karlin. Ail of these sections were copied during June-July l776, as mentioned explicitly at several points in the text[21] Separated by an empty page, the last section of the Rothschild manuscript contains the teachings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, the leader of the 1777 Hasidic immigration to the Holy Land. This part was not mentioned in the detailed table of contents on the first page, and probably was written some time after 1776.[22]

Some additional indications suggest that the manuscript belonged to one of the 1777 emigrants, who had copied Hasidic material - including the Besht epistle - to be taken with the group to the Holy Land.[23] The owner of the manuscript continued to write in his notebook after 1777, perhaps in order to preserve the oral sermons delivered by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in Safed and Tiberias.

The 1776 Rothschild version and the 1782[?] Kahana version are not entirely identical.[24] Some of the words in the Rothschild version were written with a comma in place of the last letter, while most of the words in the Kahana version are complete. It is impossible to determine whether the last letters were left out in the Rothschild version or added in the Kahana version.[25] Moreover, particular words and sentences in the one version differ from the equivalent words and sentences in the other. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the owner of the Rothschild manuscript copied from Rabbi Isaiah Dunevich or vice versa, but rather from a third version, either a previous copy or the original epistle itself, Another possibility is that one of the versions was copied from the original handwriting, while the other was copied from a copy. Either way, we can conclude that at least three versions of the first epistle - the original and two copies - already existed by the early 1780s. Moreover, the fact that in 1776 - five years prior to the 1781 Korez printing - the first epistle was already entitled 'The Holy Epistle,'[26] proves that it was regarded as an authentic piece by the Besht.

Currently, then, scholars of Hasidism have at their disposal two versions of each of the Besht epistles - the Kahana and Rothschild JNUL 8 5979 first epistles, as well as the 1781 Korez and Fraenkel-Bauminger second epistles. These sources are not sufficient to determine which of the versions of each epistle is more faithful to the original Beshtian epistles. However, they are broad and diverse enough to point up the differences between the first letter and the second one.[27]

В.

The first epistle has its own distinct structure and focus. Still, its text is not as fluent and clear as that of the second; words appear to have been lopped off from the sentences, perhaps due to some kind of censorship. For example, both of its versions omit the opening salutation and the closing greeting and signature, beginning immediately with the Besht's account of his ascent to Heaven. Consequently, the identity of both writer and addressee as well as the date and circumstances of the epistle's composition remain unknown.

As for the contents, the first epistle differs from the second one. It does not include the second 'ascent of the soul,' performed by the Besht in 1750 and described in his 1752 epistle.[28] This omission suggests that the first epistle was written prior to 1750, probably already by 1746- 1747.[29]

Another noticeable difference is the space devoted to the events in the communities of Zaslav, Siytovka and Dunevich, where Jews had been forced to convert and then been killed. In the 1752 epistle these events preoccupy the Besht to the extent that he appears to have ascended to Heaven on Rosh Hashanah 1746 mainly in order to forestall the decree of forced conversion. Contrary to the impression given by the later epistle, the subject of forced conversion is mentioned in the first epistle only in brief, while the Besht's attention is focused elsewhere.[30]

The focus of the first epistle is the messianic quest, as evinced by three topics which do not appear in the second epistle, only in the first one:[31] the Besht's reaction when told of his future death in the Diaspora, his interpretation of the divine rejoicing and the extended answer of the Messiah:[32]

"The vision that God has shown me in the ascents will certainly be a wonder to you and serve to gladden your soul, as it has been a wonder in my eyes as well, wondrous things known to you regarding the ascents of souls ... I saw wondrous things which 1 had never before seen from the day I reached maturity until now. That which 1 saw and learned in my ascent is impossible to describe or relate, even mouth to mouth …

I also witnessed the ministers of the nations of the world, who came and submitted as slaves before their masters, before the great angel Michael.[33] And many gifts were given to all the Righteous[34] and to all the world, so that they could countenance and endure the rejoicing and great delight, as when the Torah was given,[35] which is impossible to comprehend in worldliness. I was horrified and shaken by this vision, and said in my heart that this [the rejoicing] may have been for me and - God forbid - my time has come to depart from this world. And perhaps because of that it is the appropriate thing to do. Veda"l.[36]My soul grieved for myself and for my friends at the prospect of my dying abroad.[37]

I went higher until I actually entered the palace of the King Messiah,[38] and I saw face to face that which I had never before seen from the day I reached maturity until now. And what was revealed to me is not for you. Also revealed to me were wondrous and fearful things regarding the depths of Torah which I have not seen and heard and no ear has heard in many years. And it occurred to me to ask him - perhaps all this delight and rejoicing is in preparation for his good coming.[39] And when will the Master come?[40]And his lofty reply is not to be revealed.[41] But in this way will you know of it: when your teaching becomes famous and manifest in the world, and your springs are dispersed abroad,[42] that which I have taught you and you have comprehended, and they [others] will also be capable of performing unifications and having [soul] ascents as you do. Then will all the kelippot[43] be consumed, and it will be a time of grace and salvation. And I was astonished and I had a great sorrow about the extent of time involved, and when such a thing might be possible."

In the second epistle the Besht describes the ascent of his soul to the Palace of the Messiah, where "... I saw a great rejoicing, the reason for which I cannot fathom."[44] At first he attributed the rejoicing to the prospect of his imminent death, but it was made clear to him that his time had not yet come. Thus, the divine rejoicing remained a mystery to him - "... yet to this very day I do not understand the nature of the rejoicing."[45] However, the first epistle presents a previous explanation by the Besht for the rejoicing he encountered. When he met the Messiah, "... it occurred to me to ask him - perhaps all this delight and rejoicing is in preparation for his good coming." This sentence, which does not appear in the second epistle, reveals some of the Besht's hidden hopes and expectations of witnessing the immediate coming of the Messiah, as he ascended to the Messiah's palace.

Moreover, the Besht's first question refers to the Messiah's future coming. In the first epistle the Messiah's answer includes one significant sentence which does not appear in the second epistle: "And when will the Master come? And his lofty reply is not to be revealed.[46] But in this way will you know of it: when your teaching becomes famous and manifest in the world, and your springs are dispersed abroad, that which I have taught you and you have comprehended, and they [others] will also be capable of performing unifications and having [soul] ascents as you. Then will all the kelippot be consumed, and it will be a time of grace and salvation. And I was astonished and I had a great sorrow about the extent of time involved, and when such a thing might be possible."

The Besht asked for the exact date of the Messiah's arrival - "when will the Master come?" But the Messiah answered about the terms of his arrival and conditioned his future coming on the dissemination of the Besht's teaching - "and your springs are dispersed abroad." As a matter of fact, these terms were impossible to fulfil: The Messiah promised to arrive when the secrets he had taught the Besht would be known to others. Yet, he had forbidden the Besht to reveal these secrets even to Rabbi Gershon,[47] let alone to others. Such a paradoxical condition clarifies part of the Besht's reaction: "... when such a thing might be possible." Yet, the other part of his reaction: "and I was astonished and very sorrowful about the extent of time involved" is unclear, for the Besht could not have concluded the length of time that would elapse until the Messiah's arrival from his answer. Thus, this part of the Besht's reaction corresponds to the Messiah's answer only if part of the answer is understood as referring not exclusively to the terms of the arrival, but also - and perhaps mainly - to the exact date of this arrival:

"And when will the Master come?והיתה תשובתו הרמ' (And his lofty reply) is not to be revealed."

The expression והיתה תשובתו הרמ' refers to the verses in First Samuel, 7:15-17:

"And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went from year to year in circuit to Bet-El, and Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all those places. And his return was to Rama, for there was his house; and there he judged Israel; and he built there an altar unto the Lord."

The words תשובתו הרמהin Hebrew means 'his lofty reply,' but as a quotation -תשובתו הרמתה - it also means 'his returnto Rama,' the mountainous village that was the Prophet Samuel's home-town.

Moreover, ה'ר'מ'ת'הis also read as a numerological combination marking the year 1885 – תרמ"ה.[48] It seems that the Besht understood the Messiah's reply - תשובתו - to be designating the year ה'ר'מ'ת'ה (1885) as the year of his future coming: "and when will the Master come? And his reply ה'ר'מ'ת'ה." The rest of the sentence, "not to be revealed," is read both as a part of the Messiah's answer and as a clue directed to Rabbi Gershon, hinting that this information was an esoteric secret not to be explicitly written or revealed to others. This interpretation of the Messiah's answer clarifies the Besht's reaction: "And I had a great sorrow about the extent of time involved;" although the date is specified, obviously the Besht would not live for another 138 years to welcome the Messiah in his lifetime.

Thus, when read in sequence, the answer refers simultaneously to the date of the Messiah's coming and to the terms of his coming. Both answers lead to a dead end - the date is too far in the future and the terms are impossible to be fulfilled. The double interpretation stems from the enigmatic nature of the Messiah's words. Like the oracle at Delphi, instead of providing the questioner with a simple answer, he replies with a question that creates a contradiction or a paradox.

A similar ambiguity can be found in the Talmudic account of a previous dialogue between the Messiah and Rabbi Joshua Ben Levi, which was the sub-text of the Besht's epistle.[49] In this dialogue, the Messiah answers a question which was not directed to him,[50] while responding to the more important question in a most ambiguous way: "'When will the Master come?' asked he.'Today,' was his answer." The word 'today' was understood by R. Joshua as referring to a specific date, while Elijah completed the quotation-"Today, if you will hear his voice, "thus making the Messiah's coming conditional.[51]

Another possible explanation is that the Messiah's full answer to the Besht is a combination of two different versions of the answer that were pieced together. One version, probably in the first epistle, refers to the date:

"And when will the Master come? And his reply - 'ה'ר'מ'ת'ה'' - is not to be revealed... and I was astonished and I had a great sorrow about the extent of time involved."

The other version, probably in the second epistle, refers to the terms:

"And when will the Master come? In this way will you know of it: when your teaching becomes famous and manifest in the world, and your springs are dispersed abroad, that which I have taught you and you have comprehended. Then will others be capable of performing unifications and having [soul] ascents as you do. Then will all the kelippot be consumed, and it will be a time of grace and salvation… and when such a thing might be possible."