Misnagdim

This article is about the historical Rabbinic opposition to Hasidism from the 18th century, centred in Lithuania. For the non-Hasidic stream of Eastern European Judaism as well as the ethnic group of Lithuanian Jews, see Lithuanian Jews.

An anathema against the Hasidim, signed by the Gaon of Vilna and other community officials. August 1781.

Misnagdim (מתנגדים‎, "Opponents"; Sephardi pronunciation: Mitnagdim; singular misnaged/mitnaged) was a religious movement among the Jews of Eastern Europe which resisted the rise of Hasidism in the 18th and 19th centuries. ^{[1] [2] [3]} The Misnagdim were particularly concentrated in Lithuania, where Vilnius served as the bastion of the movement, but anti-Hasidic activity was undertaken by the establishment in many locales. The most severe clashes between the factions took place in the latter third of the 18th century; the failure to contain Hasidism led the Misnagdim to develop distinct religious philosophies and communal institutions, which were not merely a perpetuation of the old status quo but often innovative. The most notable results of these efforts, pioneered by Chaim of Volozhin and continued by his disciples, were the modern, independent yeshiva and the Musar movement. Since the late 19th century, tensions with the Hasidim largely subsided, and the heirs of Misnagdim adopted the epithet Litvishe or Litvaks.

Origins

The rapid spread of Hasidism in the second half of the 18th century greatly troubled many traditional rabbis; many saw it as heretical. Much of Judaism was still fearful of the messianic movements of the Sabbateans and the Frankists, followers of the messianic claimants Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) and Jacob Frank (1726–1791). Many rabbis suspected Hasidism of an intimate connection with these movements.

Hasidism's founder was Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer (ca.1700–1760), known as the Baal Shem Tov ("master of a good name" usually applied to a saintly Jew who was also a wonder-worker), or simply by the acronym "Besht" (Hebrew : בעש"ט); he taught that man's relationship with God depended on immediate religious experience, in addition to knowledge and observance of the details of the Torah and Talmud.

The characteristically misnagdic approach to Judaism was marked by a concentration on highly intellectual Talmud study; however, it by no means rejected mysticism. ^[4] The movement's leaders, like the Gaon of Vilna and Chaim of Volozhin, were deeply immersed in kabbalah . ^[2] Their difference with the Hasidim was their opposition to involving mystical teachings and considerations in the public life, outside the elitist circles which studied and practiced kabbalah. The Hasidic leaders' inclination to rule in legal matters, binding for the whole community (as opposed to strictures voluntarily adopted by the few), based on mystical considerations, greatly angered the Misnagdim. ^[5] On another, theoretical level, Chaim of Volozhin and his disciples did not share Hasidism's basic notion that man could grasp the immanence of God's presence in the created universe, thus being able to transcend ordinary reality and potentially infuse common actions with spiritual meaning. However, Volozhin's exact position on the issue is subject to debate among researchers. Some believe that the differences between the two schools of thought were almost semantic, while others regard their understanding of key doctrines as starkly different. ^[6]

Lithuania became the heartland of the traditionalist opposition to Hasidism, to the extent that in popular perception "Lithuanian" and "misnaged" became virtually interchangeable terms. In fact, however, a sizable minority of Greater Lithuanian Jews belong(ed) to Hasidic groups, including Chabad, Slonim, Karlin-Stolin (Pinsk), Amdur and Koidanov.

The first documented opposition to the Hasidic movement was from the Jewish community in Shklow, Lithuania in the year 1772. Rabbis and community leaders voiced concerns about the Hasidim because they were making their way to Lithuania. The rabbis sent letters forbidding Hasidic prayer houses, urging the burning of Hasidic texts, and humiliating prominent Hasidic leaders. The rabbis imprisoned the Hasidic leaders in an attempt to isolate them from coming into contact with their followers. ^[7]

Opposition of the Vilna Gaon

The Vilna Gaon

The bans of excommunication against Hasidic Jews in 1772 were accompanied by the public ripping up of several early Hasidic pamphlets. The Vilna Gaon, Elijah ben Solomon Zalman, a prominent rabbi, galvanized opposition to Hasidic Judaism. ^{[8] [9]} He believed that the claims of miracles and visions made by Hasidic Jews were lies and delusions. A key point of opposition was that the Vilna Gaon maintained that greatness in Torah and observance must come through natural human efforts at Torah study without relying on any external "miracles" and "wonders". On the other hand, the Ba'al Shem Tov was more focused on bringing encouragement and raising the morale of the Jewish people, especially following the Chmelnitzki pogroms (1648–1654) and the aftermath of disillusionment in the Jewish masses following the millennial excitement heightened by the failed messianic claims of Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank. ^[10] Opponents of Hasidim held that Hasidim viewed their rebbes in an idolatrous fashion.

Hasidism's changes and challenges

Most of the changes made by the Hasidim were the product of the Hasidic approach to Kabbalah, particularly as expressed by Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534–1572), known as "the ARI" and his disciples, particularly Rabbi Chaim Vital (1543–1620). Both Misnagdim and hassidim were greatly influenced by the ARI, but the legalistic Misnagdim feared in Hasidism what they perceived as disturbing parallels to the Sabatean movement. An example of such an idea was the concept that the entire universe is completely nullified to God. Depending on how this idea was preached and interpreted, it could give rise to pantheism, universally acknowledged as a heresy, or lead to immoral behavior, since elements of Kabbalah can be misconstrued to de-emphasize ritual and to glorify sexual metaphors as a deeper means of grasping some inner hidden notions in the Torah based on the Jews' intimate relationship with God. If God is present in everything, and if divinity is to be grasped in erotic terms, then—Misnagdim feared—Hasidim might feel justified in neglecting legal distinctions between the holy and the profane, and in engaging in inappropriate sexual activities.^{[ citation needed ]}

The Misnagdim were seen as using yeshivas and scholarship as the center of their Jewish learning, whereas the Hasidim had learning centered around the rebbe tied in with what they considered emotional displays of piety. ^[4]

The stress of Jewish prayer over Torah study and the Hasidic reinterpretation of Torah l'shma (Torah study for its own sake), was seen as a rejection of traditional Judaism.

Hasidim did not follow the traditional Ashkenazi prayer rite, and instead used a rite which is a combination of Ashkenazi and Sephardi rites (Nusach Sefard), based upon Kabbalistic concepts from Rabbi Isaac Luria of Safed. This was seen as a rejection of the traditional Ashkenazi liturgy and, due to the resulting need for separate synagogues, a breach of communal unity. In addition they faced criticism for neglecting the halakhic times for prayer. ^[8]

Hasidic Jews also added some halakhic stringencies on Kashrus, the laws of keeping kosher. They made certain changes in how livestock were slaughtered and in who was considered a reliable mashgiach (supervisor of kashrut). The result was that they essentially considered some kosher food as less kosher. This was seen as a change of traditional Judaism, and an over stringency of halakha (Jewish law), and, again, a breach of communal unity.

Response to the rise of Hasidism

With the rise of what would become known as Hasidism in the late 18th century, established conservative rabbinic authorities actively worked to stem its growth. Whereas before the breakaway Hasidic synagogues were occasionally opposed but largely checked, its spread into Lithuania and Belarus prompted a concerted effort by opposing rabbis to halt its spread. ^[7]

In late 1772, after uniting the scholars of Brisk, Minsk and other Belarusian and Lithuanian communities, the Vilna Gaon then issued the first of many polemical letters against the nascent Hasidic movement, which was included in the anti-Hasidic anthology, Zemir aritsim ve-ḥarvot tsurim (1772). The letters published in the anthology included pronouncements of excommunication against Hasidic leaders on the basis of their worship and habits, all of which were seen as unorthodox by the Misnagdim. This included but was not limited to unsanctioned places of worship and ecstatic prayers, as well as charges of smoking, dancing, and the drinking of alcohol. In total, this was seen to be a radical departure from the Misnagdic norm of asceticism, scholarship, and stoic demeanor in worship and general conduct, and was viewed as a development that needed to be suppressed. ^[7]

Between 1772 and 1791, other Misnagdic tracts of this type would follow, all targeting the Hasidim in an effort to contain and eradicate them from Jewish communities. The harshest of these denouncements came between 1785 and 1815 combined with petitioning of the Russian government to outlaw the Hasidim on the grounds of their being spies, traitors, and subversives. ^[7]

However, this would not be realized. After the death of the Vilna Gaon in 1797 and the partitions of Poland in 1793 and 1795, the regions of Poland where there were disputes between Misnagdim and Hasidim came under the control of governments that did not want to take sides in intra-Jewish conflicts, but that wanted instead to abolish Jewish autonomy. In 1804 Hasidism was legalized by the Imperial Russian government, and efforts by the Misnagdim to contain the now-widespread Hasidim were stymied. ^[7]

Winding down the battles

By the mid-19th century most of non-Hasidic Judaism had discontinued its struggle with Hasidism and had reconciled itself to the establishment of the latter as a fact. One reason for the reconciliation between the Hasidim and the Misnagdim was the rise of the Haskalah movement. While many followers of this movement were observant, it was also used by the absolutist state to change Jewish education and culture, which both Misnagdim and Hasidim perceived as a greater threat to religion than they represented to each other. ^{[11] [12]} In the modern era, Misnagdim continue to thrive, but they are more commonly called "Litvishe" or "Yeshivish."

Litvishe

"Litvish" redirects here. For the "Lithuanian" dialect of the Yiddish language, see Yiddish dialects § Northeastern.

Litvishe yeshiva students in Israel

Litvishe is a Yiddish word that refers to Haredi Jews who are not Hasidim (and not Hardalim or Sephardic Haredim). It literally means Lithuanian. While Litvishe functions as an adjective, the plural noun form often used is Litvaks. The Hebrew plural noun form which is used with the same meaning is Lita'im. Other expressions are'Yeshivishe and Misnagdim. It has been equated with the term "Yeshiva world". ^[13]

The words Litvishe, Lita'im, and Litvaks are all somewhat misleading, because there are also Hasidic Jews from Lithuania, and many Lithuanian Jews who are not Haredim. (The reference to Lithuania does not refer to the country of that name today, but to the historic Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which also included all of modern-day Belarus and, until Union of Lublin, most of Ukraine.)

Litvishe Jews largely identify with the Misnagdim, who "objected to what they saw as Hasidic denigration of Torah study and normative Jewish law in favor of undue emphasis on emotionality and religious fellowship as pathways to the Divine." ^[14] The term Misnagdim ("opponents") is somewhat outdated since the former opposition between the two groups has lost much of its salience, so the other terms are more common.

See also

• Degel HaTorah
• History of the Jews in Lithuania
• Schisms among the Jews

References

1. Garfinkle, Adam (1999-12-07). Politics and Society in Modern Israel: Myths and Realities. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN   978-0-7656-3084-1.
2. Grynberg, Michal (2003-11-01). Words to Outlive Us: Eyewitness Accounts from the Warsaw Ghetto. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN   978-1-4668-0434-0.
3. Sears, Dovid (1997). The Path of the Baal Shem Tov: Early Chasidic Teachings and Customs. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN   978-1-56821-972-1.
4. Arian, Asher; Shamir, Michal (2019-05-28). The Elections In Israel--1988. Routledge. ISBN   978-1-000-31632-2.
5. Glenn Dynner, Men of Silk: The Hasidic Conquest of Polish Jewish Society, Oxford University Press (2006). pp. 70–72.
6. Benjamin Brown, "'But Me No Buts': The Theological Debate Between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim in Light of the Discourse-Markers Theory". Numen , 61 (2014). pp. 532–533.
7. Nadler, Allan. 2010. "Misnagdim". YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe .
8. Bloomberg, Jon (2004). The Jewish World in the Modern Age. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. ISBN   978-0-88125-844-8.
9. Strom, Yale (1993). The Hasidim of Brooklyn: A Photo Essay. Jason Aronson. ISBN   978-1-56821-019-3.
10. Katz, Mordechai (September 22, 2011) [1993]. Yesterday, Today, and Forever: From the Babylonian exile to the era of the Chassidim and Misnagdim. Northwestern University: Feldheim. ISBN   978-0-87306-790-4.
11. The Haskalah Movement, Jacob Raisin, 1913
12. Heilman, Samuel C. (2000). Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry. University of California Press. ISBN   978-0-520-22112-3.
13. Zucker, David J. (2019). American Rabbis, Second Edition: Facts and Fiction, Second Edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 42. ISBN   9781532653254.
14. Marty, Martin E.; Appleby, R. Scott (2004). Accounting for Fundamentalisms: The Dynamic Character of Movements. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. p. 238. ISBN   0226508854.

External links

• Hasidim And Mitnagdim (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
• The Vilna Gaon and Leader of the Mitnagdim (jewishgates.com)
• Misnagdim: The Opposition to Hasidism (E. Segal, Univ. Calgary)