Messianism, Lesson 6

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We were in the middle of describing the historical phenomena, from which maybe we can try to extract the definition of a messianic movement from among the possibilities I laid out. So we talked a bit about the Christians, we talked about Bar Kokhba, and now I want to talk a bit about more modern movements, relatively speaking. So there are two that have similar characteristics: Alroy and Lemlein. Alroy was basically in the 12th century, a student of one of the great figures of that generation, Rabbi Ali, head of the Gaon Yaakov yeshiva in Babylonia; after that there was Rabbi Hofni ben Ali. It’s that kind of chain of Geonim in Babylonia. They were called Geonim, by the way. Meaning, the Geonic period in Babylonia lasted longer than we usually classify as the Geonic period.

[Speaker B] The Geonim of Babylonia, not the Geonim of the Land of Israel.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, the Geonim of Babylonia, right, to this day. Right. In any case, Alroy at some point was apparently a very, very talented man. At some point he declared himself the messiah, traveled among the Khazars in the Caucasus, and had ties with the Khazars.

[Speaker C] Were there Khazars in the 12th century?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Apparently yes, that’s how I understand it. I mean, yes, the 12th century is around the time of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, when he speaks about the Khazars—it’s roughly the same period. Then basically he says that the time of the messiah has arrived, and that all kinds of concrete actions have to be taken to bring him and bring the redemption. He changed his name—originally his name was Menachem—he changed it to David. David of course is connected to redemption, to strengthen his standing. He had some propagandist who worked on his behalf, some Ephraim, Ephraim ben Azariah the Jerusalemite. They wrote letters to all the Diaspora communities saying that the time had come to go up to Jerusalem and the messiah was coming, and so on. He performed many miracles—at least that’s what the stories say—and his disciples engaged in all kinds of prayers and ascetic practices and things like that. The gentiles laughed at them as a bunch of oddballs, and they really were broken by the fact that people laughed at them. Alroy left Khazaria, went to Kurdistan, moved through various places, forged ties with the Muslim leadership. Meaning, this is the political activity that usually accompanies a messianic movement. Messianic movements generally also engaged in political activity, in advocacy before gentile rulers. At a certain point they were persecuted because people began to fear them—by the way, that’s a feature of almost all of them—they began to fear them when they accumulated power and started to pose some kind of threat to the local regime. He explained that everyone would fly on the wind to Jerusalem; he had all kinds of theories. By the way, a lot of money was deposited with him for the needs of redemption. Again, it’s not clear whether this was actually corruption, or whether he genuinely thought he was simply collecting money in order to realize his messianic vision. I don’t know exactly—I didn’t fully understand from what I read, at least. Apparently this was a person with good intentions. He observed the commandments the whole time, meaning he didn’t abandon the path. He’s one of those who didn’t break traditions—we read that in Rabbi Yaakov Emden—so he too is counted among them. Some of the leading sages of the generation sent emissaries to him to get him to stop these activities because they started to worry, and he began mocking them: they’re delaying the redemption, they’re small in faith, things of that sort.

[Speaker C] Weren’t there leading sages who were drawn after him?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There were, there were. I don’t remember the details exactly. I wrote down things that I read a long time ago, so I can’t give you details right now. But yes, there were those who were, and there were those who weren’t. And there was probably also a difference between the beginning and the continuation. You understand—many times when something like this begins, you don’t cooperate, but suddenly when the movement starts to awaken, you say, wait a second, maybe this really is the real thing. But afterward it’s a kind of parabola, yes? In the end, later on, when the whole business doesn’t work and starts looking a bit problematic and starts going off the rails, then people retreat again. So there are pretty complex processes in the attitude of sages toward various false messiahs of this kind.

[Speaker D] It kind of reminds me of a bubble. What?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Kind of reminds me of a bubble. Right. Actually, any process that deviates from what we’re familiar with—at first people suspect it, when it succeeds they join it, and then when it nevertheless starts arousing suspicion and still doesn’t completely take off, then some people become mistaken. By the way, I don’t know. I mean, maybe bitcoin—in the meantime bitcoin is still with us.

[Speaker C] I’m not talking about bitcoin specifically, just that there are things that in the end really do turn out to be real.

[Speaker E] Today a hundred billion was wiped out. Today a hundred billion was wiped out.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean?

[Speaker C] From bitcoin.

[Speaker E] From the bitcoins.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What, it dropped?

[Speaker E] No, just—yes, apparently.

[Speaker F] If it was wiped out, then it dropped.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The whole process—I don’t really understand this process at all. What does “wiped out” mean? I didn’t get that part. Fine, I don’t know. In any case, I’m not great with these things. Anyway, Alroy also didn’t—even didn’t take, we talked earlier about the possibilities for defining a messianic movement—Alroy also didn’t take excessive forceful actions. He engaged in political advocacy, gathered the Jews, tried to get them moving to Jerusalem, but he didn’t go out to wars, unlike other false messiahs. So there was a phenomenon here that it’s pretty hard to put your finger on in what sense this is a messianic movement in the negative sense of the term. I said that we have to distinguish between a “messianic movement” in quotation marks and a messianic movement. A messianic movement is a movement that wants to bring the messiah, which ostensibly should be fine. But a “messianic movement” in the negative sense—we tried to look for criteria. And here it’s not entirely clear by which criterion. He didn’t take forceful actions, he didn’t do bizarre things. He basically wanted to bring the Jewish people back to repentance so that the messiah would come, because “Israel are redeemed only through repentance.” Belief in the messiah is of course flesh of our flesh within our tradition. So what exactly is the problem?

[Speaker G] Meaning, why do we think he’s a false messiah?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What, because he claimed it about himself? Yes, yes. So right, in the end, as I said, in terms of results it turned out he wasn’t. But I’ve already said more than once that I don’t think the outcome-based test is a good enough one. Like we said with Hezekiah, that we were not worthy, or things like that. It could be that he was a true messiah but we were not worthy. Meaning, the fact that in the end it didn’t succeed is not a one-way indication that there wasn’t a true messiah here, or a real messianic potential. And on the contrary, there are those who attribute it to smallness of faith. Because of smallness of faith, that’s why it didn’t work.

[Speaker C] If people really—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —had mobilized and really believed in it, then maybe he also would have succeeded. Yes, many times that’s the—there’s something here that feels a bit problematic to me.

[Speaker C] Why is the assumption that in order for us to see that he’s not the messiah there has to be—see—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —something problematic in his behavior that shows he’s not the messiah? It seems to me more that the assumption should be the opposite: in order for us to see that he is the messiah, besides there not being problematic things, we need to have a reason, a reason to believe that he really is the messiah. Yes, but there are reasons here. He stirred the Jewish people to repentance, he attained significant standing, he began bringing all the people up to the Land of Israel. Now let’s say we’re at this stage, before it failed and collapsed. Wait, who started bringing people up? Alroy. Was there really a mass settlement? No, there wasn’t a mass settlement, but people mobilized, people sold their property, people gave him money. In other words, the business started organizing itself. Now at that stage, why is it so absurd to assume that this man is the messiah? Unless you don’t believe at all. Right, as we said, that many times this sobriety with which we relate to these things—well, it’s a messianic movement—we… it comes from the fact that we’re not really willing to put our money on that belief. Meaning, we don’t really believe in the whole messianic matter at all. It’s easy to be rational when you basically… why?

[Speaker E] People—I think all in all the critical mass does believe in it, and the fact is there are Jews here. If not for this belief, the belief of people who believed that in the end they would be redeemed, that they would come to the land promised to them, and so on—if they hadn’t passed that on in that simple faith from generation to generation, it’s not likely people would be here today.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I understand, but on the other hand—

[Speaker C] Most of those who came here and built this—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, so that has nothing to do—

[Speaker E] —with messianism because they weren’t religious. Yes, but that’s what kept the idea alive.

[Speaker C] For two thousand years?

[Speaker E] Right. What did you think?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That it kept the idea alive, fine, but again you’re going back to that Leibowitz point—you know, that you hold onto the idea in order to advance processes. The question is whether it’s really supposed to be true, or whether it’s just useful because without it things wouldn’t have moved forward.

[Speaker E] But it is, it is supposed to be true—the fact is that it is being fulfilled.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What fact? Fact? I don’t see any fact here. Why? Certain people came here, that’s true. A lot of those people had no connection at all to belief in the messiah; they didn’t come because of that.

[Speaker E] No, but that’s not the point, that’s not the point. They didn’t believe in the messiah—not because—I’m not saying that everyone who came here necessarily believes in the messiah. Most don’t. On the face of it, there’s the impression that there was more than one messiah. Meaning, King David himself was a messiah. Saul was called “the Lord’s anointed.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “The Lord’s anointed” because he was anointed. That has nothing to do with the messiah in the sense of—

[Speaker E] So what does messiah of redemption mean?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Messiah means someone who was anointed.

[Speaker E] No, and in redemption?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That a king will return, who will also be anointed.

[Speaker E] That’s what I’m saying.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, but there it’s not messiah in the redemptive sense. It’s someone who was anointed as king.

[Speaker E] The one who redeemed them—it’s the same as Moses our teacher. He redeemed them from where they were, so they believed him, and they could also have chosen not to believe.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We’re talking about belief in the future messiah. Leave aside the whole process. No, that’s not it. Moses our teacher didn’t claim that he was that final messiah who is supposed to come at the end.

[Speaker E] I don’t know what happened there. There’s no source for it—we already said there’s no other source—so I don’t know if anyone claimed that at all. Fine, but this belief that someone would indeed redeem them—that’s what sustained this whole idea. Otherwise what? How do you have people for two thousand years believing in what? In someone who will redeem them and then they come here?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] When I say there is smallness of faith, what that means is that some people apparently don’t really believe in it seriously. Meaning, even if it appeared right before their eyes, they still wouldn’t join, not because it didn’t convince them, but because nothing would convince them.

[Speaker E] Okay, now you’re saying that maybe—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —there are such people, and there are people who do see. Fine, I didn’t say everyone is like that. But I did say that the ability to remain sober in the face of such a phenomenon doesn’t always mean that you’re simply a rational person, full stop. Sometimes it means you’re small in faith.

[Speaker E] Because Rabbi, we’re always starting from the assumption that there is some specific person who is the messiah. As if—there really aren’t many laws about this apart from Maimonides. I mean, apart from the law in Maimonides that describes—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s a law in Maimonides, it begins in the Talmud and Maimonides brings it as Jewish law. What more do you want?

[Speaker D] It’s also not a halakhic matter. Right, it’s not a matter of practical laws, it’s a matter of assigning historical weight.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, but—

[Speaker D] I mean, to this day I believe in the coming of the messiah, but to this day, from the examples we have—there have been zero successes.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, the question is whether these examples are a good sample. Because if in these examples, at the beginning of the process, I could point to why he wasn’t okay, then that’s not part of the sample. I’m asking: what will happen if someone comes who does meet all the standards, and there’s nothing about him that these examples pointed to? Will we in fact follow him? I wouldn’t bet my head on everyone following him, all those who declare that they believe in the coming of the messiah. I’m not talking about someone who doesn’t believe.

[Speaker G] If there were someone who was really right… Rabbi, I wanted to ask about the essence of the point at which you can say the messiah is false. Is that only after the fact? At what stage is it already—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, so that’s our topic. We’ve been talking about it the whole time.

[Speaker G] Yes, that’s what I’m trying—maybe there’s some point in time—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I’m trying to define the concept of a messianic movement; that’s all I’m trying to do.

[Speaker G] No, not a messianic movement. What is the point where you say, okay, from here we understand that this was a false messiah?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I have no idea. I don’t know. That’s what I’m trying to clarify. We’re trying to clarify exactly this issue: what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to violate Jewish law? Is he supposed to do unreasonable, irrational things? Use unreasonable forcefulness? These are all the options. In the previous lecture I talked about this. In other words, through these historical descriptions I’m trying to extract which of these options actually defines false messianism, or the point in time at which I can point to a false messiah. I already said that this is a concept that is more sociological and less halakhic. There is no halakhic prohibition on being a false messiah. We haven’t found that anywhere. There is a prohibition on being a false prophet; there is no prohibition on being a false messiah.

[Speaker B] There’s a prohibition on lying.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, there’s a prohibition on lying, that’s true. But that person may not even be lying. Some of them truly and sincerely believe that they are such people—they’re not lying. They may simply be mistaken, but there’s no prohibition on being mistaken. And therefore it’s also hard to examine this question using halakhic standards, in terms of Jewish legal sources. So I’m saying, there’s no choice: you have to look at historical phenomena and see what the attitude was toward those historical phenomena, and from that try to understand what we’re dealing with. The methodology here is inductive, because the topic is not halakhic and there are no clear standards, so we have to feel our way through it. Alroy’s cousin—not literally his cousin, but someone connected to the same kind of phenomenon—is Lemlein. This is in 16th-century Italy, much later than Alroy, four hundred years later.

[Speaker H] What happened to Alroy in the end?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Alroy in the end—I think he was killed.

[Speaker H] Did he violate Jewish law?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no, no. I said: he didn’t violate Jewish law. He has none of the clear features—not forcefulness, not violation of Jewish law. It ended with the fact that it didn’t work. What happened—what happened after that, whether there was some—

[Speaker H] No, did he just disappear, sort of?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t know. It doesn’t even say in my notes whether he died in the end or… of course he died, yes. That’s clear.

[Speaker F] Why?

[Speaker C] If he’s the messiah?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The messiah won’t die?

[Speaker C] He’ll revive the—

[Speaker G] —dead.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I didn’t even write it down, so I didn’t note that point for myself. But no—in short, none of the unequivocal features that I tried to suggest in previous lectures seem to be here, except for the result: it didn’t work. In the end it didn’t materialize.

[Speaker F] So how do you characterize him?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The fact that in the tradition—I don’t know, that’s what I’m asking—in the tradition he is accepted as one of the false messiahs. False? Yes, yes. And now I’m saying: in this case it’s only outcome-based. So when I’m looking for criteria, I want a false messiah to be standing before my eyes. I don’t want to get to the end and then discover that I was mistaken. I want to be able to point right now to the fact that he is a false messiah—meaning, in the course of the process. I’m saying: here is an example that makes things very difficult. There is someone here for whom there apparently were no clear indications, except perhaps that if someone looked at him soberly, he would understand that we’re dealing here with someone who’s having delusions. You see someone like that—maybe you can—

[Speaker I] Isn’t he seemingly in Hezekiah’s position?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? Hezekiah. Hezekiah. I’m saying, maybe. Seemingly yes. But I’m saying again: many times when you encounter something directly—after all, whenever we look for criteria, it’s only because we don’t know the thing directly. We need criteria. Sometimes when you see something, you just see. Meaning, you don’t need to look for criteria. We didn’t see. So we deal with—like, yes, an example just went up on the site too, with singing… There’s a famous example people bring up: Mary’s room. There’s an entry about it on Wikipedia. Mary’s room is an example like John Searle’s Chinese room; these are examples with the same basic idea. Mary was a physicist, right, dealt with optics, a genius. She knows the whole field of optics backwards and forwards, with all the equations and applications, everything. Fine? But she lives and works inside a room that is entirely black and white. And the equations are written in black ink. Fine? And the paper is white. Or the computer—everything is black and white, there are no colors there at all. And she is a world-famous expert in optics. Now she goes outside the room and sees the color red. The question is: did she learn something new?

[Speaker G] It’s not in her paradigm.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean?

[Speaker G] Because she was in black and white.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but I’m asking: did she learn something new? The answer is yes, obviously yes. Because before, she didn’t know what the color red is. She only knew that its wavelength is such-and-such, and what happens to it when it encounters a grating with such-and-such a structure. She knew all of optics and everything. But what is the color red?

[Speaker C] Do you think she couldn’t imagine it? But…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, from the equations you can’t imagine it. There’s no connection.

[Speaker C] Even not from the equations, just from hearing people who—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You can know what the color red is? Can you describe to someone what the color red is if he—

[Speaker C] —has never seen it in his life? No, not exactly.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Maybe… fine. I don’t see how that could be done.

[Speaker B] There are people who manage to see into—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Into infrared? So they describe it as a very dark red. Yes, there are people who see infrared. If an infrared spotlight is turned on, it doesn’t blind them, but they see… they see where… so they see it. So now you ask him: what is infrared?

[Speaker B] I see… no, because I know what red is and I know what dark is. You can explain to me that it’s a dark red.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But someone who doesn’t know what colors are, or has never seen red in his life—what will you tell him? How will you convey to him the idea of red? So it’s clear that she learned something new, but that something—it’s not because anything was missing in her physics. Nothing was missing in her physics. Her physics was perfect. Nothing at all was missing in her physics. There’s a difference between grasping something directly and describing it within some theoretical framework with a collection of rules. Like a dentist who is a top-level professional, absolutely first-rate, but in his life never had a filling, never had a cavity, never had anything—his teeth never hurt. Right, exactly. Any doctor who has never experienced pain in his life. Then a patient comes and complains of pain; he has no idea what pain is. But he knows that if someone says it hurts, you should give him such-and-such a medicine. It’s the same thing. There’s a difference between grasping… Now, this is true in many, many fields. Very often when you know something directly, you need criteria less. So criteria have theoretical value—they’re interesting—but they’re not something necessary for everyday functioning. When do you need criteria? When you don’t know the thing. Okay? So here too: we’re dealing with various false messiahs whom we never met. Okay? So I’m looking for a criterion by which to judge them. But the possibility always exists that, listen, when you stand before one of these people, you understand that the man is delusional. You simply see it directly. I don’t know whether through one criterion or another. Like returning a lost object to a Torah scholar based on visual recognition. A Torah scholar, through visual recognition, identifies that this lost object is his. He can’t necessarily tell me exactly what the identifying signs are. He sees it, he recognizes it. And that’s an analogy for this issue.

[Speaker G] Now regarding this whole matter of messianism, could it be, as you said from the other side of the paradigm, that maybe circumstantially the generation wasn’t worthy and therefore it didn’t come into effect, and therefore he’s not necessarily a false messiah? Even if it didn’t materialize, then the falsehood is not in him but in the lack of readiness. You see something interesting in the weekly Torah portion regarding the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, turns to Moses our teacher and says, “And I too have heard their groaning.” But in the Covenant Between the Pieces it says, “And they shall enslave them and afflict them four hundred years.” So maybe the stopwatch only started ticking from when “their cry went up to God.” Meaning, before they actually—as people say today, “if only you would listen to His voice today,” like “the gates of tears are not locked,” and things like that. The moment the children of Israel cried out in their groaning, it says, “And I too have heard their groaning.” Meaning, then the matter of “and they shall enslave them and afflict them” was fulfilled.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And you’re saying that if they had not—if they had not—

[Speaker G] —cried out—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —then the potential would not have come out, and in fact they would not have been redeemed.

[Speaker G] Exactly. So the same thing here: if the people themselves were not ready—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s what we said. That’s exactly the problem with the outcome-based test. The outcome-based test does not necessarily indicate that there was a problem in the process, because it may not have materialized for side reasons, and not because there was not genuine messianism here. Fine. In any case, in this respect Alroy comes from the exact opposite direction from Lemlein. He was not such a talented man; he was frustrated by that. And part of the story is that later he mocked all the pilpulists and all that, because apparently—as people write—he was simply less successful in that field, and that frustration took him in mystical and redemptive directions and all the rest. He tried to find expression in a place where he could find expression. In the world of the study hall he was apparently less successful.

[Speaker B] There are a lot of those today. What?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There are a lot of those today. What? The awakeners? Yes, the awakeners. So he was one of the awakeners, yes. He went and brought the people back to repentance so that they would do—and again, he did everything properly and didn’t deviate from Jewish law, and he brought all the people back to repentance; everything was fine. So in Alroy’s case it was super-talent, and in his case it was under-talent. But in the end, what difference does that make? It’s permitted to be talented, and it’s also permitted not to be talented. In the end, what they did—this is why I put them in the same category—basically met all the criteria we described except for the result, because the result didn’t work. More than that, a hundred years later—and what happened to him in the end?

[Speaker C] He just disappeared.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I think the details are known. It’s just not written in my notes, so I can’t say.

[Speaker D] Isn’t Torah knowledge one of the criteria? What? Torah knowledge—isn’t that one of the midrashic criteria?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Look, Alroy certainly knew Torah. Lemlein was less talented. What does it mean, “knew Torah”? And if he was less talented but still knew it? What, does he specifically have to be the leading sage of the generation? I don’t know—where is that written? In Maimonides, maybe? What, that he has to be the greatest sage of the generation?

[Speaker C] Not the greatest sage of the generation, that he should be a great sage.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, okay. I’m not sure to what extent one can really determine that categorically here, but maybe, fine. Look, the author of Sefer Haredim, who lived a hundred years after Lemlein, says that his father smashed his oven—his matzah oven—because it was clear to him that the next year they would already be in Jerusalem and he wouldn’t need his matzah oven anymore.

[Speaker C] What, because of Lemlein?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because of Lamlein. Uh, okay. Meaning, now I’m talking about, I assume, I don’t know, a Torah scholar; meaning at least the Haredi one was a Torah scholar, I don’t know what his father was. And he didn’t dismiss it out of hand. He showed that apparently this really was a phenomenon that could have misled people. Meaning, there’s nothing unequivocal here. He didn’t say, fine, but he was an ignoramus, so why would anyone even think he could be the messiah? It seemed he didn’t reject him; from the Haredi source it sounds like he also treated him with respect, meaning he didn’t see it as something necessarily negative. It didn’t succeed, but still, really, both regarding Alroy and regarding Lamlein, even if you see this as false messianism, usually whoever talks about it sees it as a phenomenon of false messianism, but not in the same sense as Shabbetai Tzvi. Meaning, no, they don’t see it as a corrupt phenomenon on the same level as Shabbetai Tzvi, and therefore it may really be just a statement that, in the end, it didn’t work out, that’s all. And maybe it really isn’t right to put these phenomena under that category of a messianic movement in the negative sense, in the dangerous sense, in the sense that one must not join it, like that dangerous sense. Dangerous—again, I also don’t know, but I can only guess. It doesn’t say in my notes that this was a mass movement, but surely there were some here and there who, when they were disappointed, abandoned everything. Meaning, that happens almost after every such movement. Now, there wasn’t anything massive here, and so I really think that’s why they aren’t classified in a clear-cut way. Jerusalem at the beginning of the 20th century.

[Speaker C] An example of something that caused a mass crisis even though it wasn’t originally tied to violating Jewish law or anything like that.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I think in Jerusalem that was the story.

[Speaker C] Why isn’t that a mass crisis? Jerusalem is something very local—how many thousands of Jews were even in Jerusalem?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, okay, “mass” in the sense of worldwide. How many worldwide examples were there of messianic movements that really spread that broadly? There were a few, but not so many.

[Speaker C] Sar Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] How would I know? I don’t know. Again, I don’t have numerical data on exactly how many followed them. He was in Khazar, he was in Kurdistan, he made a bit of noise on the world stage, but I don’t know how truly mass Alroy’s movement really was. I don’t know. Various books were written about it; there’s a book by Leiman, if I remember correctly, on Alroy. Leiman, by the way, treats him in the opposite way—he says history, part of Jewish history. He doesn’t come to condemn him. The attitude toward them—true, they’re always counted in the lists of messianic movements—but it’s definitely possible that this was a messianic movement in the sense that its messiah didn’t succeed, but not in the negative sense like Shabbetai Tzvi, like Christianity, or things like that, not even like Bar Kokhba. Because Bar Kokhba, as I said, acted very forcefully. He says, “Do not help and do not hinder the Holy One, blessed be He,” and there are rabbinic descriptions with problematic statements there. With Alroy and Lamlein, as far as I read, such things are not recorded. In the wake of Lamlein, as it says in my notes, there were quite a few who actually converted. But unlike Shabbetai Tzvi, it wasn’t together with him; it was simply the breakdown that followed from the whole thing not succeeding. By the way, when he died there was another wave of conversion. There were several waves of conversion there

[Speaker G] With Lamlein.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Conversion to Christianity? Yes, I think so. In any case, again: people with good intentions, who didn’t violate Jewish law, didn’t do overly forceful things, but still stirred up things that… Now, clearly, if someone knows about himself that he is not the messiah and does this intentionally, and it’s obvious he’ll fail, that’s a problematic thing. He’s a fraud.

[Speaker G] Yes, exactly, just a plain fraud.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly, just a plain fraud. But usually that isn’t the situation. Usually we’re talking about people who probably genuinely believe that they are messiahs. Okay, the next pair is David Reuveni and Solomon Molkho. David Reuveni also appeared at the beginning of the 16th century. By the way, at the beginning of the 16th century there were several such figures, like what I said earlier about Alroy—there were all sorts of others. Lamlein, there were several such cases. The beginning of the 16th century is of course after the expulsion from Spain.

[Speaker E] What is that messianism based on? What do you mean?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] On history books. Where did I read it? I don’t even remember—my notes summarize it from various places I read, but it appears in various places; it’s part of history. Where is your information about Napoleon from?

[Speaker E] No, I’m asking—we learned it.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] These too are historical events that were recorded, just as history is recorded.

[Speaker E] No, there aren’t Jewish writings like that, right? Why? There are.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There are Jewish history books that also describe these false messiahs. Okay, so Google is already a secondary place. In any case, Reuveni also appeared at the beginning of the 16th century. He presented himself as a traveler from the Ten Tribes. He was in Italy, he was in Europe, passed through Italy, Germany, Egypt, and afterward arrived in the Land of Israel, got to this area. But he presented himself as someone from the Ten Tribes, which is very exotic, very much seems like this is really part of some process in which things are coming back. Someone who comes from the Ten Tribes already gets points in his favor because it basically means it’s true.

[Speaker C] Or else it has to be either a total lie or the truth.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t know, by the way—I didn’t find any statement that it was a lie. He claimed that he came from the desert of Habor, from the Arabian deserts there, and that there are Jewish tribes there, Jewish tribes that are the Ten Tribes. And there were such people; meaning apparently there are such tribes.

[Speaker C] What? That they’re from the Ten Tribes?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Apparently yes—some kind of remote Jews wandering around there in the Arabian deserts, and the accepted assumption is that they are from the Ten Tribes. By the way, there’s Eldad the Danite, there are various ancient travelers who also report things like that, and people treat this as credible testimony. There are Jewish tribes there, after all, in those areas. And those tribes apparently do not belong to the two-and-a-half tribes we know about. These are probably really some remnants of the Ten Tribes, I don’t know—like, say, the Ethiopian phenomenon, right? Those who were exiled even before the destruction of the First Temple, during the First Temple exile. Okay? What about being from the house of David?

[Speaker C] What? His grandfather was from the house of David?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, so he could say he’s from the house of David, meaning—or think that he really is from the house of David. After all, you can also imagine that you’re from the house of David. I told you that my grandmother once told me that I too am from the house of David. Huh?

[Speaker C] How did he come from the Ten Tribes?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He asked how he came. He crossed the Sambatyon and came by kayak. I don’t know. What was his family source? What? No, no—he himself came from the Ten Tribes. Why did he call himself Reuveni? He claimed he was the prince of the tribe of Reuben.

[Speaker C] No, but if he’s the prince of a tribe—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] a tribe, then he’s not the Davidic messiah? What? Ah, right, so apparently he really didn’t present himself that way, נכון. Alroy said he was Davidic; this one said he was the prince of the tribe of Reuben. And he also said he had a brother; he had a brother from the house of David—that also counts.

[Speaker E] Wait. A brother from the mother’s side? Yes, that could be.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] His brother, yes, his brother Joseph rules over tens of thousands of people from the two-and-a-half tribes, meaning Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh. No, not King David—Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh. Okay? And he claimed that, I don’t know, maybe he was the herald of the Ten Tribes as part of the process of redemption. It could be that he didn’t present himself as the messiah from the house of David, but rather as his deputy, yes? Or his assistant for the matter of the two-and-a-half tribes east of the Jordan. Fine, it doesn’t matter. But I’m saying, the process by which he was received by the pope and negotiated with kings and dukes—meaning, he had status, significant status. A great many Jews followed David Reuveni, and he aroused enormous hopes because he told all the stories about the Jewish warriors from the desert of Habor, with the tribe of Khaybar. There’s even Eliezer Smoli—do you know those stories from the beginning of Zionism? So he tells there about someone who arrived from there—apparently an imaginary story—and said he would bring his whole tribe to join us here in the Land and help us in the wars. All the people here who came from Europe don’t know how to fight. So they were terribly happy that someone was coming who also knew how to ride horses like all the local people here and would help them, so that we too would have people who know what to do with force. In any case, he had plans to conquer the Arab lands including Mecca with his heroic warriors from Habor. He, by the way, unlike Alroy and Lamlein, did undertake forceful actions and actions that were unreasonable in terms of… at least he tried. Yes. Meaning, he really did try to call for war; he even stirred up conflict between kings. Meaning, he tried to persuade the pope and the Christian kings to go to war against the Muslims and all kinds of things, to set them against one another.

[Speaker C] He tried to persuade the Christians to sell him cannons so that he could conquer the Land of Israel from the Turks.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Could be, that fits him. I don’t specifically remember that story right now, but it fits him. Meaning, he did all kinds of things like that; maybe he did that too, and if not, then he did things of that kind in any case. Okay? Now, at that time the Church was waging war against the conversos. This man arrived there as the leader of the Jews, was received with honor, also in Spain—that is, even in places of the Inquisition. And all the Jews pinned tremendous hopes on him, meaning they thought he would save them from all the persecutions. We’re talking about the century immediately after the expulsion, the expulsion from Spain. There were many great Jewish sages who treated him with great respect, with great respect—meaning, apparently with some real chance that he was the messiah. Among them, by the way, Rabbi Ovadia Sforno, for example, yes? He came to visit him. What messiah? He was Sforno… Okay, never mind—part of a messianic movement, you’re right, he wasn’t from the house of David, but he was part of the movement, a real movement. Okay? And there were fears among the authorities, and they started pursuing him, it doesn’t matter, all kinds of things of that sort. In the end, the secretary of the king of Spain, who himself was from a converso family, his name was Diego, himself followed Reuveni when he arrived in Spain and was received there and so on. Just think what conversos thought in such a situation, when a Jew arrives and is received by this establishment that has been murdering and persecuting them for decades, received with royal honor, forms ties with them, and organizes the redemption of the Jews. I don’t understand at all how this fit with Christian theology. The redemption of the Jews is something that contradicts the theology. Did he manage to fool them? Yes, maybe. In any case, honestly, I don’t know—that’s a question. Again, I haven’t researched it, so I don’t know the details. I’m trying to give some kind of general description. In short, this Diego, who was an assistant to the king, Hebraized his name and called himself Solomon Molkho. And then he became Reuveni’s secretary—yes exactly, messenger, messenger, exactly. By the way, it could be that he really was some descendant, I don’t know. And yes, Reuveni went around with entourages, horses, and carriages, of course. Meaning, he conducted himself with royal customs. Meaning, this too is a common phenomenon among false messiahs. Solomon Molkho begged Reuveni to circumcise him; Reuveni did not circumcise him, doesn’t matter, in the end he circumcised himself. Apparently, by the way, this Molkho was also a talented man, and he became a Torah scholar—he studied, meaning he became a Torah scholar and apparently was also charismatic. Maharalbach, the leading sage of Jerusalem at that time—whoever remembers him from the ordination controversy, the one who headed the movement that opposed ordination—he opposed this too. Meaning, he apparently didn’t like all these revolutionary movements. Yes, maybe he was one of those who slow things down, but he also really came out sharply against this matter. But even among the greatest Torah scholars of that time it was very unclear, very unclear. Many of them thought—or at least gave it a chance—that this man was really going to bring the redemption. Molkho started moving around and became Reuveni’s prophet. Meaning, he acted on his behalf, preached, and had very great influence both on Christians and on Jews. Meaning, somehow all of them—again, I’m not sure how this works with Christian theology—but the fact is that it really did work. He warned of disasters, floods, and apparently succeeded—at least according to the stories, again I don’t know how much of this is myth. There are many legends about miracles and wonders they performed, also something very characteristic of these people. But again, these legends—you have to understand, there were such legends about Herzl too.

[Speaker C] What, he performed miracles?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, obviously. There were legends about all sorts of things. Ordinary people would create legends around anyone charismatic, someone who leads and has that elevated, lofty sort of presence. So it’s not certain that this in itself is problematic, because it’s the way of ordinary people to produce all kinds of legends around charismatic people. It happens a lot. Meaning, the question is how much he himself really promoted this. I mentioned the Lubavitcher Rebbe here with Rabbi Shach, who told him to tell that to his Hasidim—no, no. In short, he fled here and there, and in the end Reuveni tried to persuade the German emperor to convert to Judaism. He tried to convert the German emperor, meaning he was completely a kind of megalomaniac, but apparently it worked—that is, he had influence. But they also pursued him. In the end, Solomon Molkho—they separated, yes, he tried to return to him, didn’t try to return to him—in the end the emperor threw both of them into prison. The Inquisition burned Solomon Molkho at the stake. They offered him to convert to Christianity and he refused; in the end Solomon Molkho died sanctifying God’s name. And therefore, in practice, Solomon Molkho is an admired figure among many Jewish sages to this day. Meaning, he does not receive the attitude of a false messiah, even though Molkho and Reuveni were more false prophets than the previous two, Lamlein and Alroy, because they really did put on royal airs, also the forceful actions, the attempt to stir up international politics among great powers—meaning, they did things that were a bit unrealistic.

[Speaker D] So can we understand Molkho as a prophet?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I don’t think he presented himself as a prophet. I’m not sure that’s really what is meant, I don’t know. Rather the point is that, you know, just as Elijah heralds the coming of the messiah, he heralded the coming of Reuveni. Rabbi Yoselman—yes, also in a book by Lehmann. Lehmann wrote about many such events. Rabbi Yoselman too was one of the activists there in the court of the German emperor at that time; meaning, he basically helped him. Rabbi Yosef Karo brings extraordinarily high praise of him in Maggid Mesharim, about Solomon Molkho. And the Tosafot Yom Tov says the same. Meaning, we’re talking about a person who not only during his activity, but even afterward—after he had already failed and in the end died sanctifying God’s name—still receives this kind of regard. Now here, of course, this factor also plays a role, that he died sanctifying God’s name. Meaning, once he died sanctifying God’s name, he paid the price—exactly—it can somewhat atone for things that maybe… let’s say for example it’s clear that Solomon Molkho receives much more admiration than Reuveni, even though in terms of conduct they behaved similarly. Okay? So if this is a false messiah, then that too is a false messiah. But yes—he ultimately died sanctifying God’s name, so somehow… So you see, again, I’m showing you how difficult it is to come up with some sharp criterion to determine what a false messiah is, or what false messianism is. It’s some combination of many things that in the end it’s not clear can be defined. Okay, on Shabbetai Tzvi there’s no need to elaborate. Shabbetai Tzvi was also forceful, also converted in the end, also destructive—but he too started differently. He started the way they all start; I spoke about this in previous sessions too. He started with the idea that one must repent, and he began with ascetic practices and was righteous.

[Speaker E] There was something genuine there, no? There has to be something genuine, otherwise you don’t get started.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but again, I mean genuine not in the cynical sense.

[Speaker E] No, no, it’s—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He apparently really did proceed from a genuine direction. He really believed in it. And he repented and practiced self-mortification and all that. And at the same time, at some stage, suddenly there began feasts and revelry in there alongside all the asceticism. One day he practiced self-denial, and another day all kinds of feasts. And then, yes, what they say—success went to his head. Meaning, then came all sorts of royal airs and again world wars and redemptions, and he completely lost his mind, really. And in the end he also developed a system that deviated from Jewish law, and of course there were also mystical problems found in his teachings. The whole polemic of Rabbi Yaakov Emden against Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz over Sabbateanism—this did not come through violation of Jewish law. Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz did not violate Jewish law. Rather, Rabbi Yaakov Emden identified Sabbatean characteristics in Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz’s mystical doctrine. And that, by the way, may be true. Meaning, there may be such characteristics there—I don’t understand enough to judge it, but it definitely could be. Why? Because Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz was convinced that this really was a correct interpretation of Kabbalah; he didn’t violate Jewish law. Meaning, Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz was one of the greatest halakhic decisors. He was not—he was a God-fearing and upright Jew, but his mystical doctrine had Sabbatean shades in it. Maybe, I don’t know. Even if that’s true, from Rabbi Yaakov Emden’s perspective that was enough to attack him furiously. But really, it may be that he accepted Shabbetai Tzvi’s mystical interpretation, and that’s perfectly fine. So what happened? Accept the truth from whoever says it. If he believes in it and that is the interpretation he proposes, then what’s the problem? But the fear was so great and the crisis was so great that anyone who had some Sabbatean nuance in him—world war. Because people were terribly afraid of it. It was something that remained. Afterward there were the Frankists and all kinds of continuers of Shabbetai Tzvi who themselves created messianic movements, because the whole thing didn’t calm down. Meaning, Shabbetai Tzvi didn’t really die, in the essential sense. It kept going for a long time afterward, a long time. And therefore the fear was a terribly great fear that it would return and reawaken.

[Speaker G] Maybe there’s a connection between these movements—Shabbetai Tzvi and the Frankists—and the way the Baal Shem Tov’s Hasidism was initially received, regarding the suspicion toward it? I didn’t understand. Is there a connection between those messianic movements—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] why they opposed the Baal Shem Tov, because maybe some of the things… I can guess yes; I don’t know how to say for sure.

[Speaker D] There are some historians who point that out.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Could be. I’m not familiar, but it sounds very plausible. Meaning, it’s pretty obvious. After all, the period is not that long afterward—we’re talking about 150 years later or less, 100 years later. Meaning, clearly there was still Sabbateanism. There still was Sabbateanism at that time, and therefore obviously when you suddenly see some new movement beginning with all sorts of things, who knows what’s going on there, one that undermines many very basic ethoses—it’s obvious to me, I have no doubt, that they were suspicious of that too.

[Speaker C] And also the fact that all along he supported him as messiah? What? Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz all along supported him as messiah until the end?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz came after him; he wasn’t from his time. But there were characteristics in his doctrine that reflected Sabbatean Kabbalah. And Gershom Scholem wrote about this and others as well—what exactly characterizes Sabbatean Kabbalah, meaning what his innovations in Kabbalah were, those of Shabbetai Tzvi. And apparently those innovations somehow entered—I assume, again I don’t understand enough to know this—but those innovations apparently entered even among genuine kabbalists, and they adopted that interpretation and it entered into their doctrine. Meaning, interpretations can be found coming from all sorts of places. We once spoke about the problematic nature of the history of ideas. Once at Bar-Ilan there was a conference on Pnei Yehoshua. So I spoke about Brisker characteristics in Pnei Yehoshua’s doctrine. An anachronistic discussion. Meaning, Brisk is of course the beginning of the 20th century, say, while Pnei Yehoshua is the 18th century. So what? The point is that there are characteristics one can identify even though that wasn’t his usual way of learning. But there are places where you really see completely Brisker statements, with two separate legal categories, really Rav Chaim-style moves, here and there. And before I showed a few examples of that, I prefaced it with some introduction that in the history of ideas it’s really very hard to put your finger on the source of an idea. Meaning, the sources of influence are many. There’s Zeitgeist, of course—the spirit of the age influences, and all kinds of things like that. There are influences in all kinds of forms. And therefore the fact that someone is influenced by something—first, it’s not at all certain he’s even aware of it, not certain that he knew it. Influences arrive in all kinds of ways. And second, it’s also not certain that this disqualifies him if the source is problematic, even if the source is problematic. Fine, so you take something from a problematic source but adopt it. For example, I think there are significant Christian influences in Hasidism. There are things there that, in my opinion, have meaningful similarities to Christianity. So what—does that disqualify Hasidism? Absolutely not. You can disqualify it for other reasons, but that in itself does not disqualify it. Meaning, you can adopt all kinds of things and absorb them into your own system, and that’s fine, because that’s what you think.

[Speaker D] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch consciously adopted four-part singing. One more time? Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, yes—when he introduced it in his synagogue in Frankfurt, he wouldn’t agree to bring in the organ, of course, but he did agree to bring in four-part singing, which is basically a choir.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Four parts is basically a vocal ensemble.

[Speaker D] Yes, a vocal ensemble.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And that’s basically what they do here from time to time at cantorial performances.

[Speaker D] Yes, the structure.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, right.

[Speaker B] Well, that’s less significant.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, of course—it’s not really like a mystical interpretation. But yes, influences do come in all sorts of ways, and as long as it’s indirect—if it were direct, people would wage total war against it. But if it’s indirect and somehow it arrives here and there, fine, then it gets absorbed and that’s it. The source of an idea does not necessarily testify to its quality. One has to accept the truth from whoever says it, as Rabbi Abraham son of Maimonides says. Yes, he brings in his father’s name, in the essay printed at the beginning of Ein Yaakov. He brings there the Talmud in tractate Pesachim. The Talmud says there was a dispute between the sages of Israel and the sages of the nations of the world whether the celestial sphere stands still and the constellations move, or whether the sphere moves and the constellations stand still. And then the sages of Israel retracted and accepted the view of the sages of the nations of the world—that the sun goes below at night, and I don’t know if it heats the waters; they have all kinds of proofs like that, which are of course utterly incorrect. But fine—they had a proof, and they accepted the opinion of the sages of the nations of the world. So Maimonides says: do you really think they are coming to teach us astronomy there? They are coming to teach us that one must accept the truth from whoever says it. That’s the lesson the Talmud is teaching. Meaning, even if the sages of the nations of the world argued with the sages of Israel, if the sages of Israel became convinced that the sages of the nations were right, then they accept it. What’s the problem? Why not? Meaning, the fact that a certain source is a problematic source does not mean the idea is problematic. Exactly like when all sorts of proposals come up—or I don’t know what—for changes in Jewish law, and immediately it earns the label “Reform,” invalid, because it’s Reform. Meaning, even if I drew the idea from the Reform movement, if I offer an argument that holds water, meaning one that I can ground in Jewish law, so what? Why not? There are legitimate changes within Jewish law. The fact that I may even have drawn inspiration from the Reform movement does not disqualify the idea in itself. We have some tendency to disqualify things because of their source. I don’t think that’s the right way to do it. All in all, we know that things come from places.

[Speaker E] It’s easy to understand that, by the way.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I can understand it psychologically; I don’t accept it substantively. I don’t accept it substantively. I understand psychologically why it happens, obviously, but I think it’s a mistake that needs to be overcome. So I brought Rabbi Yaakov Emden’s classification of those who did not break traditions and so on. I’m continuing to read another passage from his book where he refers to Shabbetai Tzvi. “The deranged scoundrels”—that’s the next category. Yes, those who did not break traditions, we read how he described them: “foolish deceivers, like Ben Koziva, like David Elmosar, Rabbi Solomon Molkho, Rabbi Asher Lamlein, and others like them, who make use of adjurations and practical Kabbalah, eventually transgressed and were punished,” yes, all kinds of things like that. That’s the seventh type. But the next type is “the deranged scoundrels.” “The deranged scoundrels, like the apostates, like Shabbetai Tzvi, Bary Kerdizo, Chayon, the Frankists, and Chayon including the continuers of Shabbetai Tzvi and their sect—may their names be blotted out—as destructive leaders, companions of Jeroboam, who misled Israel and caused the many to sin and denied Him publicly.” From his point of view, I think it’s pretty clear that one of the criteria is the mysticism involved. Now, there is legitimate mysticism. You know, after all he wrote a book on the Zohar, and there are always major debates about how Rabbi Yaakov Emden related to Kabbalah. How did he relate to Kabbalah? And in the end he dealt with the Zohar, he cites things from the Zohar. He just said that not all of the Zohar is ancient. He was basically one of the later authorities—the first among the later authorities to say this openly. I don’t know if the first, but certainly the most prominent among the later authorities to lay on the table what scholars today say in a sharper form. But clearly he had all sorts of limits: there are forms of mysticism that are acceptable and forms that are not. Okay? And here, the use of divine names and practical Kabbalah and things of that kind, for him that too is an indication of a messianic movement. Okay? Here I have no doubt there would be those who disagree with him—those who are willing to accept such uses.

[Speaker G] One could bring criticism of Rabbi Akiva, who basically—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, we discussed that. We talked about it in one of the previous classes, when I discussed Bar Kokhba.

[Speaker G] But seemingly the question is what it depends on more—on the person carrying out the so-called revolution or the attempt to achieve messianism, or on the great spiritual leader of the generation.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What, the great sage of the generation isn’t what interests me. I’m asking myself now who the person was. Now the fact that Rabbi Akiva judged him that way can also cause people to judge him that way, but the question is who he really was. That’s what ultimately determines it. Meaning, if Rabbi Akiva erred, he was still a false messiah. That is, it doesn’t matter. The question is whether Rabbi Akiva was wrong or right, not what Rabbi Akiva said. Okay? So with him it seems that the use of mysticism and practical Kabbalah and all kinds of things of that sort is also one of the criteria for messianic movements. But of course with Shabbetai Tzvi it isn’t only that—there’s much, much more. Shabbetai Tzvi is a false messiah in the fullest sense. Meaning, all the characteristics of every type we brought, all the suggestions I offered, all three that are really five suggestions I offered, all of them are present in Shabbetai Tzvi. So here there is no doubt at all.

[Speaker G] About the ascetic practices—is that supposed to be something accepted? What? That he basically advocated 40 ascetic practices?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There were many Jewish sages who advocated ascetic practices, yes. The Hasidei Ashkenaz, obviously. They said that’s how one atones for sins. Eighty-four fasts, I don’t know, eighty-four fasts, sorry, all kinds of things like that, yes, of course. Rolling in the snow. Noda B’Yehuda, the greatest of rationalists, against “for the sake of the unification” formulas and against all sorts of things—he opposed everything. He has a responsum about what snow-rollings one should do as repentance for such-and-such sins. Even HaEzer, section 35; there’s an interesting responsum there. There’s some man there who committed adultery with his mother-in-law, and the question is whether he has to tell his father-in-law. Because if he committed adultery, then she is forbidden both to her husband and to the adulterer. On the other hand, the father-in-law may choose not to believe him; one witness is not believed. The father-in-law can choose not to believe him. So the question is whether he is obligated to reveal it or not. An interesting responsum. But truth be told, in the end he also arranges for him a process of repentance, meaning what he should do in order to… That man was a penitent, meaning he wanted the Noda B’Yehuda to help him. He cites the Rokeach and several other medieval authorities (Rishonim) who indeed laid out such processes of repentance, all kinds of things of that kind.

[Speaker D] Can’t you reduce it to “one witness is believed regarding prohibitions”?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because… regarding prohibitions, yes, but not with sexual prohibitions. A matter of sexual status is like a monetary matter; it requires two witnesses.

[Speaker D] And if you’re right, and the woman is believed—the woman? What? Is the woman believed?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, but this is a matter of sexual status.

[Speaker D] Isn’t niddah also sexual prohibition?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Niddah is a prohibition… no, it’s not…

[Speaker J] It’s a prohibition; sexual status doesn’t… It appears in the section of forbidden relations. What?

[Speaker C] Yes,

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s forbidden to have relations with her, but it isn’t “sexual status” in the categorical sense. A niddah is forbidden to everyone. Meaning, forbidden relations in the basic sense are always cases where she is permitted to someone and forbidden to someone else. Even a married woman—she is forbidden to almost everyone in the world, and there is her husband to whom she is permitted. Meaning, forbidden relations are generally—not generally, all of them—partial prohibitions. Niddah is simply a state. We once discussed this when we talked about holiness and the profane, if you remember. We discussed Tosafot in Bava Kamma 14, where he explains why the prohibition of niddah does not belong to holiness. Right? Because it is not a prohibition with respect to her husband specifically. Meaning, the prohibition upon the husband and the adulterer in the case of a woman who committed adultery is called impurity in the Torah, that she became defiled. Why? Because it is damage to holiness, because the prohibition is a prohibition to her husband. But if the prohibition is universal, then it is not connected to damage to holiness. That’s niddah: she is forbidden to the whole world, not only to her husband. Okay? In short, yes—so with Shabbetai Tzvi there was… There was Nathan of Gaza, of course, and he too had his own prophet. Though Nathan of Gaza actually did present himself as a prophet. Meaning, it wasn’t like Solomon Molkho, I think. And he was Shabbetai Tzvi’s prophet, who in effect advanced the Sabbatean idea and the Sabbatean movement. By the way, he was a very great Torah scholar, a student of Mahar”i Hagiz. And it is told that he had three orders of the Talmud by heart, meaning the man was apparently a very serious Torah scholar. At some point he moved to Gaza, apparently before the disengagement, and there he began engaging in Kabbalah and various visionary experiences and things of that kind. Then he writes: “Our brothers, the children of Israel, it is known… known to you that our messiah was born in the holy community of Smyrna,” that’s Izmir, “and his name is Shabbetai Tzvi, whose kingdom will soon be revealed, and he will take the royal crown from the head of the king of Ishmael and place it on his own head.” You already understand—to write something like that in a letter to all Israel, that Shabbetai Tzvi is going to take the crown from the head of the Muslim caliph, yes? “And the king will go after him like a Canaanite slave, for kingship is his.” You understand these are crazy fantasies. “And after that our messiah will disappear from the sight of all Israel, for he is a prophet”—so he tells us everything that will happen afterward, yes, this is Nathan of Gaza—“and they will not know where he has gone, whether he is alive or dead, and our messiah will go beyond the Sambatyon River. And Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, has a daughter named Rebecca, whom our messiah will take as a wife.” Moses’ daughter—I don’t know. “And Moses our teacher awaits the coming of our messiah, and when our messiah comes, the sons of Rechab or the sons of Moses and the Ten Tribes will fall and cross the Sambatyon River, which is known that no person has ever crossed there.” In short, he has entire visions, a whole prophetic book of how this whole thing is going to happen. Okay. And I once saw in some Breslov book—I was bored enough to open it during the reader’s repetition at Minhah, I remember in Netanya on a Sabbath—so it says there how Rabbi Nachman is sitting above in a great field and overseeing all the flock grazing there. And who is the flock? Abraham our father, Moses our teacher, King David. Meaning, that is the flock over which Rabbi Nachman of Breslov watches. Fine, okay—so that’s more or less the same thing.

[Speaker E] That’s what he writes? Huh? That’s what he writes?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Could be yes, could be no. I told you, I’m not sure. Like with the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I’m fairly sure not. Okay, in any case, an extremely large messianic movement naturally arose—Sabbateanism—and it really swept broad sections of the Jewish people, both in Europe and in Islamic lands. In all sorts of places he set out toward Constantinople with the aim of removing the sultan’s crown. Meaning, there were really deeds there that pass every one of the criteria I presented, in all their varieties. Here there’s no need to hesitate. By the way, there were sages who came to examine his messianic claims there too. There were sages who came to test his messianism. Some were convinced, some were not convinced. In the end, of course, it became clear that no. But at the beginning of the process, again, he brought all Israel to repentance, he practiced asceticism, he succeeded in arousing this messianic movement, it really gained momentum. It looked like the whole thing was heading in a serious direction. Again, notice how hard it is to distinguish this. There is the book Tzitzat Novel Tzvi by some German sage who wrote very sharply against Shabbetai Tzvi, and he took heat from many of the greatest Torah scholars for that. He was attacked for it, because people did believe in him. Meaning, I think even the Taz visited him—visited him in prison, the Taz—and was impressed. I don’t remember whether he explicitly determined that he was the messiah, but he did not reject him.

[Speaker D] Was there already Islamization?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? Was there already Islamization? No, no, obviously not. At an earlier stage he went through many developments. I haven’t checked, but obviously not. In short, in Izmir itself at that time, where he was born, there were 150 prophets—people who presented themselves as prophets as part of the messianic movement—in one city. You need to grasp the scale of the phenomenon.

[Speaker G] Were they all Jews there? What? All Jews?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I don’t know. No, no—Izmir was a major Jewish city. What, Izmir was… Rabbi Yosef? In that whole period of the 16th and 17th centuries, what heavy hitters there were there. This was really among the Turks: Rabbi Chaim Palaggi, the Mishneh LaMelekh, Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes, the Machaneh Ephraim, Alfandari, Michtav MeEliyahu. All of Spain went there. There were tremendous lions there.

[Speaker C] Michtav MeEliyahu—isn’t that Rabbi Dessler’s book?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of Rabbi Dessler, yes, but there is an earlier Michtav MeEliyahu by Rabbi Alfandari, the holy elder Alfandari. Okay, in any case, so these are the points. What are we basically learning from these examples? As I said, it’s hard to derive unequivocal criteria, but we do see that if all the criteria are present, then it’s clear. If only some of the criteria are present, then I no longer know how to determine which criteria are needed and which are not. And the fact is that someone who was ultimately killed sanctifying God’s name—yes, then we relate to him differently from someone to whom that didn’t happen. One was forceful—that already makes him more suspect. You see that it matters. Someone who starts using practical Kabbalah too. Someone who did nothing, like Alroy and Lamlein—fine, overall people treat them leniently, even though in the end it didn’t work. But then, I think the suggestions I offered earlier—I don’t know how to derive from these examples what the criterion is in the end. What I do know is that there is a scale. Meaning, you can take all the suggestions I offered earlier and say: the more these suggestions are fulfilled, the more it is a messianic movement. I don’t know how to draw a line, I don’t know how to set a criterion, but it does establish a kind of ranking. So someone who fulfills all of them is a false messiah in the fullest sense. Someone who fulfills most of them is less so, and someone who only at the beginning there meets the first or second criterion, then apparently less so.

[Speaker G] It’s more of a gradient. What?

[Speaker F] It’s more of a gradient.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly, yes.

[Speaker G] If we can take an example not related to false messiahship—the matter of Pinchas son of Elazar the priest with Zimri son of Salu. Meaning, if he hadn’t succeeded in doing it, that would imply that “one who has relations with an Aramean woman—zealots may strike him” didn’t apply.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What does that mean? There, “one who has relations with an Aramean woman—zealots may strike him.”

[Speaker G] Right, but that doesn’t mean they’ll succeed.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning, he might not succeed.

[Speaker G] The Talmud says that it is judged by the test of the result, doesn’t it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, it isn’t judged by the test of the result. Either he succeeds or he doesn’t succeed, but in both cases he was permitted to try. It could be that he wouldn’t succeed. The Talmud says that if Zimri had turned around and killed Pinchas, he would not be executed for it. There is a law of a pursuer regarding Pinchas, and Zimri would have been allowed to defend himself.

[Speaker G] I’m saying, things are perceived through the test of the result.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no—that’s exactly what I’m saying: it is not judged by the test of the outcome, quite the opposite. Pinchas’s act is precisely an example of something that is not judged by the outcome. Whether he had succeeded or whether he had not succeeded, he would have deserved praise. The fact that he didn’t succeed—fine, what can you do, he didn’t succeed—but the act he performed was a positive act. Not only because in the end he succeeded and then retroactively it turned out to be positive—no. “One who has relations with an Aramean woman—zealots strike him.” Now, no one promises the zealots that they’ll succeed. On the contrary, I think the permission given to the violator to defend himself is there to make sure that the person getting up to kill him is a genuine zealot. Meaning, it’s not for nothing that he was given permission to defend himself. I think it creates a kind of barrier in front of all the Pinchases, yes, in front of the zealots, so they know that they themselves can die here too. In other words, only if this is important enough to you, and you’re willing to take risks, then we’ll allow you to do it. It seems to me that this is a criterion that helps sort out real zealots—the fact that the victim is allowed to defend himself. Okay. Now, dealing with mysticism and practical Kabbalah and all those kinds of things really does raise questions that come up in other contexts. For example, kabbalists who perform various rituals to bring the messiah, say, Hasidic rebbes who carried out different actions of that sort. There too there was hesitation about how to relate to such things, but it’s clear that there were also those who saw these as entirely legitimate acts. Okay? There’s no doubt that Rabbi Yaakov Emden would have said about them the same thing he said about these people. Clearly, if someone is doing all kinds of kabbalistic magic with the aim of moving things in the world, from his perspective that already crosses the line of legitimacy. But that isn’t agreed upon. The fact is, there were important Jews who did this and did not lose their status because of it—they truly believed it was legitimate. Now this also takes me further, to what happened with Chabad messianism in the last generation. It’s a very interesting question, because all in all they more or less kept Jewish law—I mean, Chabad’s Jewish law, of course, they have their own files. But fine, overall they keep Jewish law. On the contrary, they promote Jewish law, they want to bring the Jewish people back in repentance, they do a tremendous amount of kindness. In other words, there are phenomena there for which you can’t deny them the credit they deserve. Not to mention that the Rebbe, of course, was a great Torah scholar and a Jew who accomplished extraordinary things—no one disputes that. Whoever does dispute it is simply ignoring facts.

[Speaker G] And does it make a difference if he’s no longer alive?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, that’s already a question about the outcome. But before the outcome—when he was still alive. Now the question is: what do we do? Rabbi Shach did say that this was already the sect closest to Judaism. Meaning, he judged it that way while he was still alive and well. On what basis? Again, the same question: on what basis? Even if we go through a whole class, we still won’t know how to distinguish—and I don’t know how to distinguish either.

[Speaker D] Based on probabilistic weights that he assigned to it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why—what probability? What? He estimated that most likely maybe… that’s exactly what I’m asking: based on what? When the real messiah son of David comes, he too will make the same estimate.

[Speaker D] Up to now all the attempts…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But by that logic, then with every messiah we won’t cooperate with him; even with the true messiah we’ll say, probabilistically, you’re not the messiah, and we won’t cooperate with him.

[Speaker D] Okay, so really, whoever came out against it—the odds were in his favor. I didn’t understand.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course. But why do you come out against it? You’re telling me that after he came out against it, because of the phenomenon, the odds are that he was right. I’m asking: why did he come out against it? You can’t do that on the basis of that probabilistic consideration, because otherwise you’ll also come out against the true messiah. Right. And that can’t be.

[Speaker D] And that’s the risk.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean, that’s the risk? But that’s a risk you’re not allowed to take. Why not? You’re not allowed to take that risk—even if there’s a 99 percent chance that you’re right. Why? Because if you come out against him without signs that justify it, then you’ll also come out against the messiah. In other words, that’s unreasonable.

[Speaker E] Rabbi, “But they will not believe me.” Moses himself raised these very questions to the Holy One, blessed be He. He says to Him: I’m going to them, and I’m going to tell them what?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning,

[Speaker E] Fine, because

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But where from—who said the people of Israel were okay? He knew that’s what would happen, but…

[Speaker E] It doesn’t say the people of Israel were okay. I imagine that when they came to Rabbi Shach and told him that this was it, he said: leave it, this isn’t it. Why? Because it was the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

[Speaker K] Right, but we’re talking about the true messiah.

[Speaker E] I’m saying, I imagine that if they had come to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m just saying what will happen when the true messiah comes.

[Speaker E] So I’m saying that when the true messiah comes, it’ll probably be something like what he said to the Holy One, blessed be He. Exactly. You’ll understand.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Could be. But I think it was more than that. Meaning, apparently what was taking place around him was problematic in two respects. First, they decided he was the messiah before anything significant had happened. The fact that a person is charismatic, and helpful, and does a great deal of kindness—that still doesn’t make him the messiah. The messiah is also supposed to make some kind of political move, supposed to advance something. That wasn’t there. In other words, those characteristics weren’t enough. So on what basis did you decide he was the messiah? The moment you decide someone is the messiah without justification, that itself means there’s some kind of false messianism here—even though, again, I can’t determine that he isn’t. But if you determine that he is without justification, then that itself is a problematic movement. Okay? That’s one thing. And second, it could be that he really saw that all sorts of things were emerging there that really were problematic. Meaning, there were phenomena there that were not marginal. Not completely marginal. Again, I didn’t do statistics—of identifying him with the Holy One, blessed be He. Listen, that already…

[Speaker D] That’s really marginal—very extreme and isolated.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, but I’m saying, it depends on the level of identification. You understand? Sometimes they pray to him, sometimes they pray through him to the Holy One, blessed be He—which Maimonides defines as idolatry, praying through an intermediary. And sometimes the boundary isn’t clear whether you’re doing one or the other. And therefore I think the phenomenon was not as marginal as people think. There’s something here—they’re attributing to him certain powers that do not come from the Holy One, blessed be He. They see him at the center, not the Holy One, blessed be He. It’s hard to pin down, but I think that was a very strong feeling that accompanied this process. And I think that was also one of the reasons Rabbi Shach understood that apparently this wasn’t… something here isn’t kosher, it doesn’t make sense, it can’t work this way. Okay. But really this is not a simple question. I mean, I believe there are many God-fearing Jews, Torah scholars—what do you mean I believe? I know. Many God-fearing Jews and Torah scholars, not Chabadniks, who did not relate to it this way. Meaning, they certainly saw him as charismatic beyond measure—that’s obvious. Most of them, I think. But… but it may be that some of them were even prepared to accept the possibility that he was the messiah. Let’s wait and see; I can’t rule it out.

[Speaker J] He did… he did miracles, like…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Of course—miracle stories, you have those about every…

[Speaker J] No, no, but fine, people heard that he performed miracles.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly. He made… he created… a global movement, there was…

[Speaker J] A global movement is something else.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Miracles—well, there are miracle stories about every one of these figures. And bringing the Jewish people back in repentance—everyone did that. You have to understand, every messianic movement begins that way, including the history of false messiahs, including Shabbetai Tzvi himself.

[Speaker E] Everyone

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] started by saying that we need to repent, sanctify the divine name, and eliminate evil.

[Speaker E] Because that’s a necessary condition. What?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, of course, and that’s why I’m saying that the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe did that does not clear him of all suspicion. It doesn’t add anything in favor of his being the messiah. True, you don’t have an indication… not everyone who brings the Jewish people back in repentance is a false messiah—that would be absurd, of course. But the fact that he brings the Jewish people back in repentance still says nothing about whether he is the messiah or not, because they all did the same thing. So we need to understand that when we see a phenomenon today, we… somehow it seems distant to us, these false messianic phenomena. It’s not that simple. There’s a book by someone named Berger, Rabbi Berger, I don’t know what… Rabbi Berger. Berger, not Berg. Berg is that guy with the Kabbalah. No, no, that’s something else, I’m not… that’s nonsense. I’m talking about… I’m talking about Berger, some American guy, some American rabbi, who wrote The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference. A very extreme book, and I think somewhat tendentious, but still… from Yeshiva University?

[Speaker D] I don’t know where he’s from.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What, some American rabbi, I don’t know exactly from where. And there he brings problematic characteristics—I didn’t read the whole book, but I read excerpts from it—there are very problematic characteristics. There are problematic characteristics, and still it’s hard to determine unequivocally. Meaning, Rabbi Shach was sharp enough to be decisive; many others were less decisive. In other words, it’s hard to determine. You have to understand: these phenomena are really not… not simple. Okay. I’m actually getting to… I see I’m not going to get there today—but the last chapter actually brings us to Zionism, which Hamburger was also trying to get to in his book, and I’d like to… to deal a bit with that issue, and from there move on to additional topics, meaning topics that intersect with the issue of messianism.

[Speaker D] I just wanted to ask: in terms of his political standing at the time, where he was—after all, Rabbi Shach really had no other choice here.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean?

[Speaker D] A few years before the outbreak of Chabad messianism, when it erupts, right? Right. There’s the split in Agudat Yisrael into two parties, Degel HaTorah, and basically he’s managing his struggle with the main Hasidic stream.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, which is a bit bigger than him numerically.

[Speaker D] Now, he took a very, very clear position.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He didn’t come out against all Hasidism; he came out against Chabad.

[Speaker D] Right, right. But in such a struggle, in his struggle with the main Hasidic stream, he had to take a very clear position, because otherwise he basically had no…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Look, I don’t know. Those are motives I don’t know—I’m not familiar with indications of whether that really was the motive or not. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t examine kidneys and hearts. It may be that he wanted to present the outcomes that Hasidism can lead to—that this is the extreme outcome—so that people would understand there’s a problem in the whole thing itself, and then you fight them, but really maybe… I don’t know. But that’s speculation. Maybe yes, maybe no. In the end, this brings the concept of messianism a little closer to us, because we see that we too stood before such a movement, and it seems to me that most of us did not hold Rabbi Shach’s position. Meaning, we couldn’t determine categorically that this really was a messianic movement in that sense—meaning, in the style of all the examples I brought earlier. And therefore this is not a simple question. And I say that in both directions, because now when I move on to the Zionist movement, it may look as though that’s nonsense, just a projection, not at all similar to everything we’ve discussed until now. And that’s really not so clear. I’ll talk about it a bit and we’ll see.