As Hasidism spread through Eastern Europe, it developed into many different shapes, both in form and substance. I have described elsewhere many of these differences. But one thing that stands out is the divergent approach to rabbinic leadership. For the first two generations, in the mid 18th century, until the early 19th century, things were pretty much as I described in my previous post. Dynasties of rebbes came in after this, largely established by willful tampering with texts in 1814. In some cases, these were amazing individuals, each preserving the unique insights and approaches of their for-bearers. Some, on the other hand, were quite ordinary men, doing their best to maintain the communities their ancestors had founded. Often, after a Rebbe's death, all of his sons, and many of his close students, would become rebbes in their own right; some scrupulously continuing their groups direction, some boldly founding new directions. In the third generation of leadership, the geographic center of Hasidism had moved from the central Ukraine to Galitzia; a large section of Poland, much of which now comprises the Western Ukraine. The Rebbes of Galitzia founded a number of unique forms of Hasidism. But they were all characterized by great figures who were intimately concerned with the lives of their followers. Often, they would travel the countryside, seeking out those in physical or spiritual need. They would encourage, uplift, and even raise money for those in distress. They were, in essence, the souls of their communities. They were always available to those in distress, feeling their pains as well as their people's joys. Often, they were known and loved by their personal names, with few, if any, rabbinic titles. Further east, in Ukraine, where the movement started, the picture was not nearly as rosy. There were, to be sure, great men among the rebbes, but something sinister had come in. Some rebbes gained, or inherited, their own "turf", covering vast areas of land. Other rebbes living in those areas were under their power and control. A challenge to their authority, or a show of independent thinking, could lead not only to strife, but even to violence. Many of these men were no longer spiritual heads, but more like strongmen, maintaining their positions through fear and intimidation. The wealthy supported them financially. In return, there were many marriages between the children of rebbes and the children of the wealthy. I want to stress again that there were many exceptions to this trend, but a trend it was. This is the background to the fierce persecution of the Breslover Hasidim from the 1820s on. While the view of the people towards the Galitzian rebbes was one of a friend, confidant and father, the Ukrainian rebbes were mostly seen as wielders of both spiritual and worldly power. In White Russia,Chabad was the predominant form of Hasidism. The rebbes of Chabad did not outwardly show exuberance as their colleagues in Ukraine. Rather, they were medittative, contemplative, and concerned with connection to G-d, and committed to an inner struggle of each person's conquest of good over evil. As the movement was very large, each individual Hasid had little personal contact with the rebbe. A system of "mashpi'im" ("influencers") arose, where more spiritually advanced Hasidim were available to the public for guidance in all matters, with only major issues referred to the rebbe, who became sort of a Moses figure. The first Chabad Rebbe had even written a book, the Tanya, that outlined the spiritual struggles of a person, and how to deal with them. He writes in his introduction that those who know, must help and guide those who don't. He even criticizes those Hasidim who go to rebbes with mundane problems. Upon his death in 1812, a great dispute arose as to whether a new rebbe was needed. Although the first two rebbes of Chabad dealt primarily with a spiritual elite, the third generation saw a reaching out to the larger community, for which Chabad became famous ever since. Already in the mid-nineteenth century, they were training Hasidim to go out to distant areas in order to guide the often neglected common people. In Hungary, a very different leadership arose. Hasidism arrived late in Hungary, roughly at the same time as Reform. The hostility between the Hasidim and their opponents, so rampant in other areas, did not occur there, as they faced a common "enemy", in the shape of those who wished to redefine Judaism. Hasidism was seen not as a revolution against the old forms, but as a nuanced variation on a theme. In fact, most Hungarian rabbis simply became rebbes when Hasidism came in. But they were a different kind of rebbe. They were self-deprecating. They were opposed to any near deification by their followers. They were sharing the communities' problems and concerns. They were examples to their followers of how to keep themselves Jewish in the same way their ancestors were, despite a rapidly changing world. They embodied, as it were, the community! In Hungarian Hasidic circles, the emphasis is on community rather than the rebbe. He is respected, but not taken over-seriously. It is well known that there was a great deal of hostility between the rebbes of Satmar and Lubavitch. Although some of it was politics, at the heart was their feeling that the Chabad rebbes had allowed too much of a personality cult to arise. A very telling story illustrates this beautifully. At a public gathering, a young man went up to Rabbi Yoel, the Satmar Rebbe, and told him that he had noticed that the Rebbe had neglected to say a blessing after a cup of tea. The Satmar Rebbe smiled, and said thank you, but I said the blessing quietly. A prominent rabbi who was present, protested the young man's impertinence. The Rebbe said "No, this is what I want. I don't want them to say I'm infallible. If they do, they will soon say my table is the altar, they will put a pig on it and call it a sacrifice, and say I am the High Priest".I was privileged to have had several audiences with both the Lubavitcher and Satmar Rebbes. The greatness of each is embedded in my mind, as well as the vast differences. All of these differences can be seen reflected in the modern rabbinate. There are loving father figures, no-nonsense enforcers, those who maintain a community's local tradition at all costs, and those who demand obedience and respect.I will now turn to the coming of Reform. The difference in the understanding of the place of a rabbi in non-Orthodox Judaism will be my next installment.
No comments:
Post a Comment