Jun 15 2008
Ma’ariv Interview with Yalahk
Yalhak to interviewer
"There are also the so-called “Chulent People,” a movement of young yeshiva-trained, formerly Charedi men and women (about whom the N.Y. Times has had at least one feature article) who are exploring alternative approaches to “Judaism” and spirituality, including, to some degree, our own Neo-Sabbatianism.
קבל חטא חטא
הוא המיר את דתו לאיסלאם, נצרות והינדואיזם - אבל במטרה להרוס אותן מבפנים; הוא אוהב להפר איסורים ומצוות (אם כי רק בדמיון); רבי יעקב לייב הכהן הולך בעקבות שבתאי צבי ומאמין שכדי לגאול את אלוהים צריך לשחרר את ניצוצות הקדושה מיצר הרע. ראיון עם ניאו-שבתאי פורק עול click here for Hebrew article in Maariv
רבי יעקב לייב הכהן
The noted Israeli newspaper, Ma'ariv, just published their interview with Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain in its Spirituality section. An English version of the interview is attached, and a Turkish translation is in now in the process of being done.
According to Yonatan Levi, editor of Ma'ariv who conducted the interview, "The interview is up and our dialogue received already appreciative feedback. the title is "Kabel Het-Het", which in military slang means "well done" (het-het as acronym of postive enforcement - "hizuk hiuvi")."
MA'ARIV INTERVIEW WITH REB YAKOV LEIB HAKOHAIN
MA'ARIV: Why neo-Sabbatianism? What does this approach have that other religious streams, in or outside of Judaism, lack?
REB YAKOV LEIB HAKOHAIN: First, we are not a "religion." Neo-Sabbatianism seeks to destroy religion, not to compete with it. Religions — all religions (and most especially the so-called "Abrahamic" religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) — are the Kellipot surrounding and entrapping the Glory of God. Jews worship Judaism; Christians worship Christianity; Muslims worship Islam — we Neo-Sabbatians worship God, not as a supernatural being but as an infinite, boundless, undefinabable Mind possessing no corporeality or substance, yet having self-awareness, intelligence, emotion, will, and intention. All things that ever were, are and will be are in this "God," but in potential rather than physical form. This "God" is energy, not entity — at first, before creation, Energy in its potential state but, during and after creation, energy in its kinetic state as well. Like energy, and because it is energy, this "God" can neither be created nor destroyed. It corresponds more to the Ayn Sof of Kabbalah than to the Yahweh of Judaism. Strictly speaking, we Neo-Sabbatians don't "worship" or pray to this "God" but seek to know It, communicate with It and assist It in its return to the wholeness from which It has fallen by the act of creation. We do this not "out there" as religions do, but "in here" as the so-called mystic does. We do this not through religious creed and ritual — which we consider deterrents rather than aids to knowing "God" — but by the direct inner experience of It through the power of Ze'ir Anpin, or what C. G. Jung calls "the One who dwells within [us], whose form has no knowable boundaries, who encompasses [us] on all sides, fathomless as the abysms of the earth and vast as the sky."
MA'ARIV: The last article of yours we published aroused much interest but one topic was ostensibly missing: the practice. What sins do you actually practice, how do you chose them, what are the consequences, the price, the reward?
REB YAKOV LEIB HAKOHAIN: We're not concerned in Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah with the "practice" of sin, but with the transformation of unholiness into holiness — again, not "out there" somewhere but "in here" where it exists without our needing to "choose" it. Furthermore it is on the level of thought not deed that this transformation of the unholy into the holy — this "redemption through sin" — takes place for us. As the Ba'al Shem Tov said, "The Evil Thoughts come to man even in the midst of prayer. And they come to him as to their redemption. When an evil or alien though arises in a man, it comes to him in order that he may redeem it, and let it ascend." In other words, for us "sin" is not an outer ritual to be acted out through the body, but an inner encounter with evil in what the Zohar calls the "heart-mind" for the purposes not of enjoying the evil, but of transforming it. To quote the great poet and Sufi master, Rumi:, "To do evil is only reprehensible when it is done for its own
sake. But when evil is done for the sake of the good, then it is not reprehensible" which corresponds almost directly to the Ba'al Shem Tov's statement, "In truth, there is no opposite between good and evil, for evil is the throne of good."
MA'ARIV: Could you elaborate on the issue of religious conversion? How has your own religious experience changed as you took on yourself Christianity, Islam and Hinduism?
REB YAKOV LEIB HAKOHAIN: To begin with, the point of my multiple conversions — like those of Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank before me — wasn't to change me, but to repair God. In fact, the entire emphasis in Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah isn't on me – not on my salvation or my transformation — but on the salvation and transformation of God. Martin Buber put it best, I think, when he said, "No soul has its object in its own salvation True, each person is to know themselves, purify themselves, perfect themselves, but not for their own sake — neither for the sake of their temporal happiness nor for that of their eternal bliss — but for the sake of the Tikkun which they are destined to perform upon the world." Therefore, the Holy Apostasies of Sabbatai Zevi, Jacob Frank and myself were not conversions "of-the-flesh," as it were, but conversions "of-the-heart." The goal of converting to each religion was to retrieve and liberate the Holy Sparks imprisoned there, rather than to become a practicing member of its religious communion. Actually, in a way, the purpose of such Neo-Sabbatian conversions is to destroy the religion one enters into, much in the way the worm destroys the apple, rather than to become a practicing member of it.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION SENT TO 7FATCOW BY YALHAK
thank you, interesting.
i just actually read , what load of BS.
Yashar Koach!
hee hee.. this is cool on so many levels..
How cool?
What levels?
Please explain…
Dear Bovines,
Thanks for the uncharacteristic praise. (For one terrible moment there I thought that Tzemach actually liked the piece, but I was relieved to see that he changed his mind and didn’t.)
Actually the interview is part of a larger, ongoing project the editors of Ma’ariv asked my permission to undertake a few months ago — to translate and publish my Neo-Sabbatian writings in Hebrew as feature articles in their Spirituality section. The first of those translations, “The Holy Sinner & Redemption through Sin,” has already been published by them a few weeks ago at http://www.nrg.co.il/online/15/ART1/725/678.html and this interview appeared in last Friday’s edition. There’s more to come in the months to come.
And before anyone asks the obvious question, the answer is: “No, I don’t get paid for this. It’s supposed to be an honor and I suppose it is, although there are always those who disagree.
Kutsal kıvılcımların yukarısına soruyor,
להרים הניצוצות הקדושים יחד
Yalhak
you can buy nehedar cd’s at indiemerch.com/nehedar
i will explain my interest in a free thinking radical version of my born/chosen religion while simultaneously discussing the state of the radical jewish music scene.
help me pay my rent!
Saying “Sabbatianism seeks to destroy religion, not to compete with it. Religions — all religions” is plain dogma. They to have spiritual belief the practice of which we call religion. Religions are expressions of spiriruality.
“seeking to know It, communicate with It and assist It in its return to the wholeness from which It has fallen by the act of creation. We do this not “out there” as religions do, but “in here” as the so-called mystic does. We do this not through religious creed and ritual — which we consider deterrents rather than aids to knowing “God” — but by the direct inner experience of It through the power of Ze’ir Anpin,”
Torah works achieve the same. Tefila is attachment which is knowing.
Evil is only elevated by its negation, or doing that which would be called evil for a good end and then it is no longer evil at all.
Torah was given on Shavuot not confusion
ultimately all that was good that has been given over by the ancient prophets of Yisrael will be fullfilled. It will be great for those who work towards their fullfillment , and so not sow seeds of confusion. We will see as Jeramiah said :
” Behold the days are coming says YHVH I will perform the good thing which I promised to the house of Israel, and to the house of Yehudah. In those days at that time, I will cause an offshoot of righteousness to grow up for David and He shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Yehudah be saved and Jerusalem shall dwell safely and this is the name whereby she shall be called YHVH is our righteousness. Thus says YHVH David shall never lack a man sitting on the thrown of the house of Israel. Neither shall the Cohen and Levites lack a man before me to offer Burnt offerings and to burn Meal offerings and to do sacrifice for all days “(33:14-18)
These JEWISH RELIGIOUS things, rituals will come again as the prophet said. Don’t be left out !
godssecret.wordpress.com
In Addition
I’m talking to You Bs”d
There is a way to prevent the next 9-11, tidal wave and nuclear holocausts. It’s up to you.
Things are not as they seem. The prime minister, presidents senators are not really in control. You are, we are. But we are asleep. We have been sleeping for generations, a sleep of forgetfulness.
Wake up
I’m calling you from the endless worlds, I’m calling you.
What we think, what we see is not what it is. Reality looks something like this :
The Divine faces called Father and Mother are secret of the lock. Darkness of the face called Mother makes power to raise the manifestation of the Divine presence as it is now become closer to a perfect revelation according to Divine understanding.1 Yhv”h is the face called Father by Ahy”h the face called mother hides the face called Father . The face called Father is the secret of Yhv”h in direct light , drawing direct light. The face called Mother is the opposite aspect of Yhv”h drawing returning light. There are 1000 years masculine and 1000 years feminine. “H” of the Name is the secret of feminine Divinity on wisdom with the power to create. This is the returning light on wisdom with the power to create..3 The expanded consciousness of the face called Father are 3 full spellings of the name Ahy”h.4 Quantity quality and the way of revelation of the face called father is in the Quantity quality and the way of revelation of the face called mother in head of the source of the “ruach”, emotional soul . There descends the Quantity quality and the way of revelation of the face called father and mother until it illuminates the 4 brains of the source of the “ruach”, emotional soul. This is the secret of the internal light. There are 3 brains of internal light in the source of the “ruach”, emotional soul and a forth that shines continually as a surrounding light. Wisdom with the power to create and Divine understanding, powers of reasoning of the source of the “ruach”, emotional soul are the secret of drops that go out of kindness and restriction from the source of revelation of Divine will. (When the source of the “ruach”, emotional soul , does kindness. This is the kindness of the source of the face of will of the God coming from the black light, the line of measurement”) 5
1. 1sulam on zohar Barashit p. 147
1. 2Matok mdavash on tikkuny zohar p.910
1. 3Aor Yakar Vol 2 p.21
1. 4Shomer emunim p.118
1. 5shar bait hacavanot,R. Semach Idra p.114
So you don’t understand, no one does as Divine wisdom is endless. Try to and you will be given your keys, to everything.
We have forgotten our way home but here is the map. We must learn to read again, these are the streets of your neighborhood, our worlds.
But know your house our world is on fire, its burning up. This is no illusion. How many bombs does it take to destroy the world ?
You must begin by waking up and remembering the way home. How you are in charge of the ship of the world. A shipwreck is not necessary. We have been given the map, the charts we have almost all of them now. Our world does not have to be left in the hand of Demons to do as they please.
It is time for you to stand up for our world, really do something. The hours are getting late.
Here is the way to work in the intergalactic joint chief of staffs, the big board room in the sky, the council of the Angels above :
The name Yhv”h it is not our custom to pronounce in its own letters. It rides on our voice. By this is built your relationship on the names. And this is the elevation of elevations. Becoming a master of the names and working in them. The way of the voice of Yhv”h that reveals its work. This is the elevation of elevation. It is closed and concealed, not revealed. If one becomes accustomed to pronounce it in its letters there is revelation of the markava (Divine chariot), but this is hidden. So it is not pronounced, but it is the power of ruling the highest elevation upon all the world of Atzilut (emanation). If it were pronounced it would rule all the sefirot that are comprehended, but this is not so. It rules all in a hidden way. But Ahy”h guards upon the Hosts so to guide showing revelation of the Emanater. Pronounced shows concerning works that will be accomplished in the future, now and what has already passed. This thing cannot be comprehended at all, but it is a concealed thing.1 The internal aspect of Voice is not heard or revealed (by all), this is the great voice. It does not go out of inequity. “In my throat there goes out Yhv”h in silence”, it is fine and concealed.
1Aor Yakar Barashit Vol 2 p.176
I can and want to show you the way. But know “ There is a road no simple highway between the dark and the light of night and if you go no one may follow as that path is for your steps alone” (GD)
I can only show you the way to get there
Please help !
Hear Yisrael Yhv”h is Elohenu Yhv”h is One……………………
Hear world Yhv”h is Elohenu Yhv”h is One……………………
We will talk again
godssecret.wordpress.com
jahfiltefish died out of fear that this thing would live as a parasite on it. that is quite an affirmation of power.
???? i’m not shopping for a religious awakening, but if i were, maybe i’d go for this.
Yalhak was mamish the catapult.
Remember this?
http://jewschool.com/2006/07/26/the-end-of-jahfilte-fish/
I had no idea!
Yalhak,
Fascinating stuff…congratulations and yasher ko’ach…a clear and informative presentation of your own path in destinction to (and also as a continuation of) Zvi and Frank…
Mariv’s Spirituality Section - i think it’s takeh moshiach’s tzeiten…kol ha-kovod - may you continue to spread your light and teachings in health and in joy ad me’ah ve-esrim. Amen.
I had a few questions which i hope you’ll feel like answering (even though i know i’m no fancy interviewer
)…I’ll understand if you don’t.
If all the sinning is only virtual then how is it related to Sabatianism and Frankism (as opposed to say, general Hasidism where we find these practices as well)? - does it consist in the idea of destroying all religions (which i assume derives from Frank)? I.e. - You talked a lot about the NEO aspect - but what about the Sabbatean part? (I realize that your family has strong Sabbatean roots but i’m asking about the doctrine…)
Are you aware of any Sabbatean sources that speak of the virtual performances of sin in the manner you do or is it an insight you discovered on your own?
How do more traditional Donmeh members take your reinterpretation of Sabbatianism?
I really liked your distinction between the first five commandments (which we outwardly desecrate and inwardly affirm) and the last five (which we outwardly perform but inwardly desecrate) - but where does one draw the line between the two types in regard to the broader range of torah obligations?
Best,
ag
do we find sinning through kavana as a practice in chassidus? where?
Atgate,
I’m touched and grateful for your kind words, particularly since I have so much respect for your knowledge of Torah.
As for your interview about my interview, let me answer your questions one at a time, beginning with this one:
“How do more traditional Donmeh members take your reinterpretation of Sabbatianism?”
There are, of course, three “families” of Turkish Ma’aminim — the largest and most traditional being the “Karakash” family. As I said in the interview, the leader of the Karakash family was instrumental in helping me establish Donmeh West on the internet and has been a friend and advisor ever since.
In addition, i think it is fair and accurate to say that the younger Ma’aminim (same age range as the cows and chulenters) have embraced me and my NEO-Sabbatianism with open arms.
In fact, hundreds of Turkish Ma’aminim have joined my new Facebook group for “Neo-Sabbatian Ma’aminim” at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15812736467 and they have invited me to join and even lead their own, more traditional groups as well. Many of them even call me “Abba.”
For example, here is what one of the leading young Ma’aminim of Turkey wrote to me:
“I just read your exquisite interview with the Ma’ariv. Your views and especially your explanation of the concept of Neo-Sabbatianism are so striking, vivid and powerful. It made me feel proud about the legacy of my ancestors. Sir, I’m very honored to call you a friend.”
and from another:
“According to my belief, If God loves someone, he/she endears beloved one to people, I think God loves you, and your perception of God is the proper. God bless you too, take care.”
and yet another:
“It is a honour and a pleasure, to reach out and touch your outstretched fingers of friendship.I shall watch your back as you ascend the ladder to illumination,always happy at yours victories,as they will send sparks of light down on all our souls–ever till you are one with infinity.”
and from a Ma’amin who has recently been appointed to a visiting professorship at Brandeis:
“[Your] interview, I am sure, is going to create a new interest in Israeli scholarhip.”
On the other hand, one non-Ma’amin, who fancies himself an expert on Sabbatai Zevi because he lives in Albania, under the shadow of what he claims to be Amirah’s grave, has been less than complementary.
And, to be fair and balanced, only one reaction from the literally hundreds I’ve received from the Turkish Ma’aminim was hostile, but he was a kid (only 19) and going through the hormonal changes of ultra-machismo that Turkish young men (and especially it would seem Donme young men) undergo at that age and sometimes get over.
Anyway, so much for that question. I’ll answer the others you raised in separate posts. To do it all at one time would just be too much.
Yalhak
P.S. There is one very important thing I forgot to mention in my answer to your question about how the Turkish Ma’aminim are receiving me.
In addition to the interview with me that Ma’ariv of course published, they did a separate interview with one of the leading young Turkish Ma’aminim, which (for one reason or another) they did not. Here, in part, is what this Turkish Ma’amin said:
“…The overwhelming majority of us are no longer believers… But I hear rumors that there are a few exceptions among the people from the Karakash sect over the age of 60. However, I haven’t yet met anyone who still believes Sabbatai Sevi to be the Messiah…
“And, as you know from publishing his works in Ma’ariv, Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain, founder of the Donmeh West, has been working for decades now (and with considerable success, I might add) to restore the spiritual if not “religious” components to Neo-Sabbatianism, while broadening it to include what he calls “Ma’aminim-by-Choice” as well as “Ma’aminim-by-Birth.”
But isn’t Frank bigger than shabtai tzvi?
Good God no. There are no more “Frankists.” The cult died only a few years after his death. But there are living breathing Sabbatians in Turkey. Where the hell did you get the idea that Frank was “bigger” than Sabbatai? Even in his own lifetime, Frank (who had a huge impact on the world) still didn’t have half the impact sabbatai did. In fact, there would have been no Frank if there had not been Sabbatai.
Read Gershom Scholems 1000-page historical masterpiece, “Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah” for god’s sake.
I’m still shaking my head in disbelief, Shachar. I cannot fathom how and from where anyone — especially someone as bright as you — could have come to such a WRONG conclusion, and then repeat it as if it were a fact.
And as if it had any possible relevance (which it does not) to the complex issues I was discussing in the interview.
Hitler, for christ’s sake, was “bigger” than Sabbatai Zevi, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything i was talking about?
Yalhak,
Thanks for the reply - looking forward to the rest…
That interview with the Maimin from Turkey you quoted is very interesting - “The overwhelming majority of us are no longer believers…” - Not at all surprising but it is something i was not aware of…
Atgate,
Yes. Notice from what he says, it’s a generational thing — the older (60+) Ma’aminim still following the traditions with the younger Ma’aminim not.
I’ve long suspected that’s why the leaders of the older, traditional Ma’aminim have been so supportive of my work from the beginning, and why the younger ones embrace it now — that is, as the interview points out, we are reviving Sabbatianism as a SPIRITUAL rather than “religious” movement. This gives the younger Ma’aminim something to take hold of, while giving the older ones some hope for the future.
I’ll get to the next question in your “interview” (which, btw, I think is as good or even better than the one by Ma’ariv) in the next day or two.
Yalhak
Shaalam Redneck Rebbe NR”V,
Long time no chat, not since going to Turkey. Yasher koyakh for the article. Well presented. I couldn’t pull up the photo of your great-grandma. Wonder if there is any resemblence. Can you please post it? Thanks.
I met B. K. “by chance” in front of the Ortakoy mosque (a.k.a. the Büyük Mecidiye Camii, Grand Imperial Mosque of Sultan Abdülmec) in Istanbul. I had no idea that he was there (I thought he was in Izmir). My assistant called out my name to rush back to the boat we hired to go up & down the Bospherus, when someone standing next to me responded to my name & asked if I am me.
I quickly figured out who he is, & we embraced & hung out on the party boat, watching sunset, eating, shmoozing, until it was dark. The next week when I returned to Istanbul Barry came to the concert we organized. Since I was working the whole time, I wasn’t able to spend more time with him.
Anyways, I am bringing this up on this public forum in reference to the earleir discussion about the current state of Sabbatian youth, for here we have someone, B., who is relatively young (in his early 30s), & is passionate about his heritage, & wishes to keep it alive.
(I also spoke to Jewish leaders in Izmir, & according to them the Donmeh there know very little about their heritage & practically nothing about Judaism (the little they know comes from what they pick up in the Freemason lodges based on the Bible). They seem to know more about Islam, & are not necessarily devout Muslims at that. There also seems to be those who started “marrying out” at least 60 years ago. Even so, some may be considered hereditarily Jewish via mother’s-mother’s-mother. But they don’t view themselves as such; Judaism for them is more of a curiosity.)
Yet speaking with B. & others, it seems that for some reason the Donmeh took a turn to secularism, with Donmeh youth attending the best universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). So my question to Yalhak (or others) is: how did a movement that were not merely believers, but redefined what “emunah” is, & to a most extreme & personal way - how could they have devolved into an atheistic entity? (Even Sabbathian hob-nobbing with the “maskilim” of 18th c., was more a situation of “the enemy of my enemy…” than true love.)
As for atgate’s question about the “virtual,” I think we discussed this a while ago to the effect that this is the 21st century internet version of it. While exact sources still need to be located, my hunch is that with the Sabbatians’ high & vivid sense of imagination (prophets by the bucket), coupled with their stress on (simplified, non-Lurianic) kavanot, that they did accept the notion of mental, non-literal associations with a given sin, of “doing it” by thought. Sure the “machshovoh” element is less so than in the Magid et al., but we can say that with the Sabbatians it was implied or a given (the reason why there is no as much discussion of this than in chassidic texts may have to do with that chasidus in general is more openly geared for psychological advice etc). (Still, there is much dealt by Noson Butzina Kadisha & others’ writings about Amirah’s/God’s machshovoh etc.)
When discussing Sabbatanism in a graduate seminarback in the day, Professor Yerushalmi was making the point that Yonasan Eibeshitz was a Sabbatian. Being still under the impression of my upbringing, I fired back at him, “What do you think, Reb Yoynasn locked himself up in his study on Tishah b’Av & ate a plate of gefilte fish??? To which Yerushalmi smiled & said something to the effect of “Why not?” (especially his son) and then to the effect that “he didn’t have to actually eat it.” At the time I had a more black-&-white view of Sabbatians. But the truth is that many, if not most, were moderates, i.e. they kept halachah to the max etc. (see the intense pietistic observances of Noson as recorded by his students in many versions.) So how/where does the sinning come in? There seems to be one probable answer: by virtualizing it. That until Amirah reveals himself & the Torah of Atzilut fully, we adhere practically to the Torah of Beriah - yet our psyches are focused beyond that. There should be enough Sabbatian sources to make this point; for another occasion. One that I’ll mention is the known amendment of Noson & others to once again observe all the fasts (according to some sources, this was ca. 1672, i.e. 7 years after the first nullification of the fasts), only that they should not cry or wail or lament (i.e. “break the fast” in their hearts). (This is very similar to the attitudes of certain chassidic groups too, e.g. the story with the Karliner on Tishah b’Av, Chabad with berelach, etc.) What gives? It seems that from then on, the ma’aminim of this group at least (i.e. those who did not convert) learned to rechannel their sinning into an “internal” state of mind rather than actually break the law. This also explains the frequent discussion in second & third generation sabbatianism about “pnimiyut,” to be true to your inner self, i.e. internal virtual (regardless, or in spite of, the chtzoniyus” external). (This is very similar the Chabad’s obsession with this concept.)
Yalhak: There is more that transpired in Turkey etc., but I think email will be a more appropriate venue to discuss.
ZoroIslamoYid,
Thanks for your update on the meeting we set up for you with Barry Kapandji. Very informative.
On your point about whether the Ma’aminim practiced “redemption” through sin literally or virtually, according to my family and all the scholars, it was LITERALLY — which was why so many Ma’aminim, like my family, fled to this country to escape the acusations of Jews that they were Mamzerim. Any “virtual” practice of redmption through sin (such as we bring down in our Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah) would have been more or less a personal abberation.
As for your excellent question about how the younger Ma’aminim could have become secularized (and remember, so many of these young secularized Ma’aminim have embraced our Neo-Sabbatianism even to the extent of calling me “Abba”) you must understand the persecution the Ma’aminim have suffered for 400 years. The Muslims have hated and hunted them down for being “false” Muslims and the Jews have hated and persecuted them for being apostate mamzerim. It’s very much like the secular Jews of Israel, about whom exactly the same question could be asked and the same answer given.
I’ve been intimately associated with the older “orthodox” and younger “secular” maaminim most of my life and i have to tell you its difficult to speculate on anything about them on the basis of second-hand, scanty knowledge.
I once asked Prof. Elqayam at Bar Ilan U. — himself a leading scholar of Sabbatianism, himself from a prominent family of Turkish Ma’aminim and one of the early founding members of our Donmeh West — very much the question you asked me. I’m not permitted to tell you his answer. But elsewhere he wrote on a related subject, “Yakov Leib HaKohain has shown great original insight in his concept of Sabbatai Zevi as the ‘Kapici Bashi,’ or Gate of God.”
That will have to do for the time being.
Yalhak
P.S. I’ll email the photo of my great grandmother to the cow editors. Whether they post it here or not is up to them.
But for those cows who are on Facebook, they can see it, along with other photos, on my Facebook profiles at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30037122&id=1186190400.
oh, wait! i just remembered that i have your email address. i’ll send you the two photos i have of her that way. she’s the one on the far right in both of them.
_____
Bingo! That link works — unless you’re not a registered Facebook user, in which case, ver gornisht helfen.
_____
sorry, that link doesn’t work either. Try this one which will take you to my Facebook profile and then look for the photo album there with her picture:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1186190400
I mean, the bottom line is I wonder how carefully you actually read the entire interview. At one point the editor of Ma’ariv asks me:
“You have mentioned that the redemption of evil is done only by thought. this was not the case, of course with Sabbtai and even less with Frank, who followed the Jewish understanding that the deed is holy, therefore the mitvah habaa beaverah must be accordinglt acted out. could you comment on that?”
He is expressing there what everyone, including the maaminim, has known — that the antinomianism of the sabbatians and frankists was LITERAL and not virtual — and also why it is that what i’m teaching now about it being done “virtual” is “news” and worth the attention his Ma’ariv readers.
_____
In other words, the editor is saying that the Sabbatians and Frankists LITERALLY practiced violating the law to fulfill it, but I, on the other hand, bring down the new idea of performing the forbidden deed VIRTUALLY, through the “Gate of Imagination” instead. My answer to his question, if you’ll recall from the interview, was as follows:
MA’ARIV: You have mentioned that the redemption of evil is done only by thought. this was not the case, of course with Sabbtai and even less with Frank, who followed the Jewish understanding that the deed is holy, therefore the mitvah habaa beaverah must be accordinglt acted out. could you comment on that?
REB YAKOV LEIB HAKOHAIN: I didn’t mean to suggest that the only way to redeem evil is by thought; I’m only suggesting that there is another way of “acting out” the dictum of mitzvah haba b’averah. besides through the body. This is where the “neo” of Neo-Sabbatianism comes in. Let me elaborate on that with a quotation from the Zohar: “For nothing is revealed while the person is still under the spell of the body” — thus suggesting that a deed performed physically through the body is somehow less holy than the same deed performed spiritually through the mind because the things of the body lead to the consequences of the body, while the things of the spirit lead to the consequences of the spirit, and the consequences of the body are death and decay, while those of the spirit are union with God and life everlasting.
So, yes, our understanding, like that of Sabbatai and Frank, is that the deed itself is holy, but where we part company with them and with conventional Jewish wisdom is in our further understanding that there is more than one level on which a deed itself can be performed. What we know now that they did not know then is that a deed can be accomplished just as effectively (and perhaps even more so) on the virtual level of spirit (that is to say, in the mind) as it can be on the literal level of action (that is to say, in the body). For example, quantum-mechanics physics proposes that anything one can imagine in his mind either already exists or literally comes into existence in some parallel universe as a result of his having imagined it.In this regard, the Zohar says, “God is unknowable. No one has ever been able to identify Him. How, then, can you say: ‘Her husband is known in the Gates?’ (Prov. 31:23) when ‘her husband’ is the Blessed Holy One. But, indeed, God is known in the Gates. He is known and grasped to the degree that one opens the Gates of Imagination! The capacity to connect to the Spirit of Wisdom, to imagine in one’s heart-mind, that is how God becomes known.” In conclusion, then, as I’ve already said, a deed performed in the body leads to the consequences of the body, which are decay and death, while a deed performed in the soul leads to the consequences of the soul which are union with God and life everlasting.
______
This can be summed up and put to rest with a quote from Scholem about Nathan of Gaza:
“Spiritual views [such as Nathan’s] kind often tended to an EXPLICIT antinomianism, and Sabbatianism is no exception to this rule . . . As long as incest taboos are in force here on earth [Nathan wrote], ‘it is impossible to perform the unifications above;’ in the mystical suspenscion of the prohibitions of incest, man will become [according to Nathan], ‘like unto his Creator in the mystery of the Tree of Life’.” (Gershom Scholem, “Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah,” p. 810)
______
Thus, when Sabbatai blessed and ate the cheleb it was interpreted to be specifically an abrogation of the law of incest which then became a positive commandment, LITERALLY acted out among the Ma’aminim ritually.
That has continued, I know for a fact, among the 60+ Turkish Ma’aminim (particularly of the Karakash sect, from which my own family comes) but abandoned by the younger Ma’aminim, particularly among the Kapandji sect of which “Barry” is one.
Again, the reasons the reasons these younger Ma’aminim have gone secular and abandoned these LITERAL antinomian rituals is because to be an active ma’amin means being persecuted (even killed) by the Muslims, hated and placed under herem by the Jews and thought to be depraved sexual deviants by the rest of the world.
______
As I said elsewhere, I think it’s in this NEW understanding of the virtual rather than literal deed that NEO-Sabbatianism brings to the table that the younger maaminim are finding something to take hold of and that the older, more traditional Ma’aminim see as hope for the future.
As our friend and fellow Ma’amin, Barry Kapandji, who you talked to and is one of them who calls me “abba,” said in an interview that he himself did with the editors of Ma’ariv:
“The overwhelming majority of us [younger Ma’aminim] are no longer believers… But I hear rumors that there are a few exceptions among the people from the Karakash sect over the age of 60. However, I haven’t yet met anyone who still believes Sabbatai Sevi to be the Messiah…
“And, as you know from publishing his works in Ma’ariv, Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain, founder of the Donmeh West, has been working for decades now (and with some success, I might add) to restore the spiritual if not ‘religious’ components to Neo-Sabbatianism, while broadening it to include what he calls ‘Ma’aminim-by-Choice’ as well as ‘Ma’aminim-by-Birth’.”
Sorry to be so long winded, but I borrowed from the time I promised Atgate I would give to answering his questions to answer yours.
Yalhak
I had no idea Frankism died a few years after his death
I always assumed Jacob frank kept the Shabtai movement alive.
Schachar,
You can set yourself straight on this misunderstanding you have about Frank by reading the chapter on him in Scholem’s “Major Trends In Jewish Mysticism” where you’ll find everything I’ve been telling you, and more. Also the chapter on Frank in Harris Lenowitz’s “The Jewish Messiahs.”
The Ma’aminim of Turkey — literally the descendants of the 300 Jewish families who followed Sabbatai Zevi into Islam but continued to secretly worship him as the Jewish Messiah while engaging in very secret antinomian rites — they continued indendently of Frank.
Frankism — which was the European offshoot of the original Turkish Sabbatianism which has continued to this day –ended when Frank died, but the Turkish Ma’aminim, the hereditary followers of Amirah who were (and still are)outwardly Muslim but secretly Sabbatian “Jews,” they continued long past Frank’s death and grew from 300 Jewish families who converted to Islam in 1666 to an estimated 15,000 Turkish Muslims today who are crypto-Jews and literally the genetic descendants of those original 300 families.
(For the most part, the Turkish Ma’aminim have not married outside of their own people, not even to marry other Jews or Muslims, which has given rise to a certain amount of inbreeding that Prof. Cengiz Sisman of Brandeis has written about extensively.)
______
Leonard Cohen has a great lyric that really expresses the problem you and others are having with understanding who the Ma’aminim are. He sings, “And the dealer wants you thinking that its either black or white / thank God it’s not that simple in my secret life.”
______
And yes, Frankism died with Frank. His daughter Ewa tried to keep it going after his death but ultimately all the Frankists left her and either returned to Judaism or simply became regular Catholics. She died in relative poverty.
_____
On the other hand, Frank’s LEGACY continued long after his death and the death of his movement — many scholars believe that the American and French revolutions were fomented by people who although no longer actively Frankists were profoundly influenced by Frankist ideas.
_____
Yasher kheylokh YaLHaK (which is YUD and HEY in shiluv with the LAMED which reaches above and the KUF which reaches below). Thanks for your extended comments, which illuminate somewhat more this inyan (and we know what “inyan” meant to the ma’aminim).
I agree with you that there were/are ma’aminim, especially from the (former) Ottoman Empire & Podolia who were outright antinomians. This is undisputed. But what I am adding is that there was a large segment of ma’aminim, especially from the direct circles of Noson & Cardozo (those who did not convert yet were regarded as fellow believers by the converts), who for all intents and purposes were halachah abiding Jews. Even if they ate a piece of chelev once a year, they are no worse than a vegetarian who eats a stake once a year. (Of course it is worse, for it is being ritualized and with the intention to desecrate; as a friend a vegetarian told me, “I don’t love animals, I hate vegetables.” But we would not consider the person keeping the law %99 of the time as antinomian.)
But the evidence seems to indicate that they did not even do that. While going through Sabbatian primary texts printed over the years in journals etc., I was amazed as to how much of this sector of the ma’aminim were pious both in intention and in practice. Whereas, as you quoted from Scholem (which I read in the original), Noson surely espoused antinomianism, with emphasis on sexuality or even incest (which, by the way, is a paraphrase from the Tikunim as to the Messianic state) this is (1) not stressed as an obligation for now, and (2) not for all (sometimes he says it is only for a select few [letter of 1673], sometimes he says that it is only for Moshiach.)
For example, look in the writings of the students of Noson (Avraham Ravigo, Shlomo Ailiuan, Binyomin Kohen, Chaim Malach, etc. - all this was printed by Meir Benayahu in “HaTenuah haShabtait b’Yavan”) and you will see that it reads like the communiques and instructions of the Chasidei Ashkenaz or the Perushim. Extreme piety in thought and action was the norm and the demand. At least 5 versions of Noson’s minhagim and practices were recorded by them, and except for the instruction to return to abiding the fast days (which indicates that they were breaking the fast for several years) there are no references to Noson breaking the halachah, especially after 1672. (One cannot say that they “covered this up,” for these ledgers contain top secret names of fellow ma’aminim, dates of the Sabbatian holidays etc.) This was a group of learned halachasist Rabbis and activists of “normative” Judaism. From the secret inscriptions in Ravigo’s journal, it seems that the main preoccupatioon of this group and others like it was the “sod hoemunah” WITHOUT all-out antinomian practice. See too the end of the Epistle “Magen Avraham,” written ca. 1668 (Scholem went back and forth on its authorship, between Cardozo and Avraham Peretz; Liebes from Hebrew U., Elqayam’s mentor, states that it was the latter, who was a close disciple of Noson), after he explains and proves about the antinomian nature of the Messianic age:
“And you must be careful with utmost scrutiny, that just because I revealed all this to you that you you may cast the rope after the bucket to permit or be lenient even if it is a minor issue and even if it is from the Rabbis (divrei sofrim) or the latter legislators (poskim acharonim) - heaven forbid, heaven forbid (chalilah chalilah) - and guard and be vary careful that your thoughts do not stumble you even a strand, for you will not understand the elevations (ma’alot) of the conduct of the Tree of Life in you don’t complete the measured height of the Tree of Knowledge in its entirety, i.e. the fulfillment [ZIY=in Scholem’s print it says “kodem” (”before”), but it does not make grammatical sense here, so I am almost certain that it should read “kiyum,” I’ll look up older prints to see if it is the same (he could be saying that one must “first” (kodem) fulfill Torah etc., but then it is a clause without a verb, although both readings imply the same point).] of the Torah and Mitzvot with its garments and minutae as it is organized now [ZIY=as ppossible reference to the “Shulchan Aruch”], and this is the mystery (sod) of “six days of ordinariness (d’chol)”, and as for the time and date [of the era of the Tree of Life. i.e. the Messianic Age] - no creature can reach this knowledge, only MH”M (=Melech haMoshiach, King Moshiach, i.e. Shabatai Tzevi) can, and therefore whoever does not follow his instructions (tzivuyov) does not have any rectification (tikun) for eternity.”
What follows a half page later is very interesting, especially in light of what we are discussing (i.e. that Yalhak says that they were antinomian whereas I am saying that there were many who were not):
“…my true acquaintances and knowledgeble kabalists who preoccupy themselves in Zohar [study], and guard yourselves and guard your souls very well not to stray to the right or left, and even if you will see full-fledged scholars (chachamim shlemim) and so too many [others who] stand in opposition [i.e. with the opposite belief, that now one must break halachah], nevertheless do not worry about them [ZIY=another reading: “do not weaken because of them,” or “do not be concerned about their replies”], for during the days of Moshiach there must be two camps with [differing] opinions, those who prohibit and those who permit (”halalu osrim v’halalu matirim”)…”
“Those standing in opposition” most likely refers to the anti-Sabatians, especially the anti-kabalists (since he states right after this that there is not one true kabalist who who can refute the “belief”). But this is somewhat problematic, since just before this he states to observe the prohibitions, yet here he says that there are “those who prohibit and those who permit” - so who opposes who? Therefore it seems that there is a deeper reading here too: that he is telling his Sabatian chavurah not to be persuaded by the other Sabatians, the antinomians, and moreover, that the reason why there is no uniformity of opinion about this even within the Sabatian community is because this is the divine scheme of 2 opposing groups in the days of Moshiach. (Another possible reading is that “halalu osrim v’halalu matirim” is a play of terms, akin to “the nay sayers and the yea sayers,” i.e. those who make Sabatianism prohibited and those who make it permissible.”) Although the dating on this letter is still too early for there to have been distinct organized camps yet within Sabatianism, we can at least learn from this that the differing views within Sabatianism itself is seen as part of the divine plan.
This is supported by the many report that AMIRAH converted only selected followers, and that Noson warned his students NOT to visit AMIRAH during his illuminations, lest he compel them to convert. So we see that each ma’amin had his/her own specific role to play on earth as part of his/her soul’s mission. Some were destines to convert, some “only” to break the law (and at varying degrees), some not even that and to fulfill the sins just “virtually,” or not even that and just to believe in AMIRAH and that he alone is destined to all this.
The same goes for Cardozo and his ilk, where we also find their vehement denunciations of conversion or abnegating the law in the present day. It is getting late so we can go into this later.
The point is that off course you, Yalhak, have a tradition one way, especially from your mishpachah, but we must not forget that not even in Turkey were the Donmeh monolithic (with the Izmirliyim being the most “conservative” even in sexual mores); even more so when we include the Italian ma’aminim who were influenced from early Salonikan, pre-1683 conversions, circles. Whether this is a European versus Oriental dichotomy is too
general to posit.
If we do accept that the European Sabatians were generally more halachasist than the Ottoman ones, especially the Donmeh, we can equate the beliefs and yearning for the Torah of Atzilut of Nson’s aforementioned students to the Jewish diaspora yearning to serve God in its entirety (sacrifices etc.) as He is worshiped in Israel. The Donmeh of the Ottoman empire, especially those who donned the turban, were already in the promised “land of Tzevi” and therefore took on the “New Torah” and lived accordingly; the rest of the Sabatians however, especially those with European Rabbinic roots, were still in “exile” and therefore not to live the full antinomian lifestyle yet. (Compare the writings of Noson versus those of Yehudah Levi Tovah as to whether this new torah is already here: YL”T, a die-hard inner circle turban-donner (his whole family converted in the mass conversion of 1671; he was only around 11 years old), believed that the torah of atzilut was already revealed in 1671; Noson however believed that was not yet revealed, and that after AMIRAH’s occultation of 1676, we still yearn & anticipate for that future time when it will be revealed.)
I just found an interesting passage in Yisrael Chazan’s Commentary on Psalms (selections of which were printed by Scholem). Chazan was a die-hard believer and Noson’s student/secretary. It was written ca. 1679, after AMIRAH’s concelement and right before Noson’s passing. Here is what he says:
” ‘And ye shall return (V’shavta) to God you Lord” - [this means] that he [AMIRAH, shavta=shavtai] will ascent a great ascention (aliyah gedolah) that he will reach to such a level that he will be called by the name of God you Lord, so to speak. And therefore, ‘And ye shall listen to his voice’… And it is due to this that that the doubt rose concerning the two camps amongst the ma’aminim themselves. For there is one camp that says ‘We only have the word of the son of Amra”m’ - for this is how AMIRAH is called, Am [or, “Im”] Ra”m - and all that he tells us [to do] we shall obey, for so had God our Lord commanded us ‘And ye shall return…and ye shall listen to his [i.e. AMIRAH’s] voice all that I command you today’… even concerning the issue of the turban, and this is the true opinion according to me. And there are those who hold a different opinion, which is the opinion of those wise ones (chachamim) who renounced his word concerning the turban, and their opinion was like this: ‘And ye shall return to God…all that I command you,’ that you should not leave from [following the] command[ments], which is the torah of Moses [i.e. pre-AMIRAH torah]. And [because] of this they did not do his words, and they renounced his mouth - they shall carry their sin (avonam), for it is possiblethatbecause of them the redemption of Israel has been delayed.”
Although Chazan places himself in the radical camp, there is stlll the recognition of differing trends within the movement, even in its early period.
Earlier on he actually divides his fellow Sabatians into 3 groups (this is in relation to the different groups of Israelites who ate the manna in the desert, according to the MIdrash):
“Israel, meaning the ma’aminim in this true amunah, are divided into 3 groups. One group, the most superior, are the youth (bachurim)…for God chose (bochar) them from all the rest if Israel…for they say ‘It is impossible for the world to be rectified and for Isral to be redeemed except through AMIRA”H, and there is no other redeemer but him’…This is the highest group that God in his mercy merited us (zikah otanu - so Chazan clearly puts himself in this league) to be servants before them [ZIY=possibly AMIRAH and Noson, since Chazan was Noson’s assistant], those who carry the vessels of the holy king.
“And there is a second group of ma’aminim who are compared to elders, whose energy is weakened due to age, and they too are great chachamim… and they intention is that when they find something sweet like honey they indulge [lit., “sweeten”] in it and eat, but when there is something hard [i.e. difficult, especially in the new Sabatian ways and teachings] they would distance themselves and stand by passively, and therefore, they ate as much as they labored over this issue…their emunah was so small, like a kernal or a seed, and they did not enter the [promised] land…So too these, they did not enter into the true emunah with their whole heart and soul.
“And the third group is compared to a baby… like a child who changes his mind, one moment [he is] a chacham, the next moment [he is] a fool, for his intelligence is not yet fully developed. So too the third group is a combination of varying attributes…these aforementioned youngster are always turning over [from emunah to kefirah], and we also find that at times the demons and kelipot turn them over from the straight path and they return another time to believe… And with all these three aforementioned groups, there is no doubt that they are from the holy seed, from the holy children of Israel.” (He then goes on to mention the “opposers” as being those who lack faith - which is very similar to the aforementioned epistle “Magen Avraham,” even by loosely associating the half-hearted ma’aminim with the full non-believers.)
814
Zoro,
Now I see what you mean. Yes, the Ma’aminim were, as you say, by no means “monolitic”. There were the three “families” who literally converted to Islam while secretly remaining Sabbatian “Jews” — the largest being the Karakash. But over and against these there were the Ma’aminim — and I think these are the ones you’re talking about — who did NOT follow Amirah into conversion, who remained outwardly stricktly observant Jews (even “attacking” Sabbatai and the believers) while secretly believing he was the Messiah.
This 4th smaller group — mostly in Europe, but some in Turkey — were marginally “Sabbatian” in that they remained Jews, continued following the Torah, remained members of the Jewish community, were not particularly antinomian, but DID believe in and “worship” Amirah as Moshiach and even, in some cases a living incarnation of God — one whom, as they would say, “achieved to the level of Zeir Anpin.”
As I say, these were mostly a 4th “fringe” group, primarily in Europe — of whom Eibeshutz is a good example — whose main claim to being “Ma’aminim” is that they secretly believed Sabbatai to have been Moshiach and, possibly even a divine incarnation. But the vast majority of Ma’aminim in Turkey and their hereditary descendants at least until the present day, were far different — they were outwardly Muslims, secretly Sabbatian “Jews” and, according to all accounts, radically antinomian — especially the smallest of the three families, the followers of Osman Baba, but the Karakash and Kapandji as well.
So I think you’re talking about this 4th fringe group, as I call it, of mostly European Jews who remained Jews but secretly, and in their own way, “followed” Amirah. These were questionably antinomian in the way the vast majority of hereditary Turkish ma’aminim were and have remained until this younger generation, and I agree with you that to the extent that they may have been marginally “antinomian” it was most likely a “virtual” antinomianism as compared to the literal antinomianism that characterized the majority of Turkish hereditary Ma’aminim.
So the bottom line is that I understand what you’re saying and agree with you — but with a QUALIFIED agreement.
Yalhak
P.S. You really must translate the primary texts you’ve studied. I think it would be a major contribution to Sabbatian studies if you did. So get busy; the world is waiting and the numbers growing.
pps. Did you get those photos I sent you of my great grandmother Peli Goldman (”Goldman” is a well-known Donme surname in Turkey)? Wasn’t she something else?
I also have my grandmother’s birth certificate, in Ottoman Turkish, identifying them all as “citizens of Turkey.”
Harris Lenowitz’s “The Jewish Messiahs.”
Thanks, Im getting it!
Yes. But even more importantly, Gershom Scholem’s “Major Trends In Jewish Mysticism”
Thanks YALHAK. I received the pix. Very revealing & a representative image of the Donmeh: the elders being more traditional (in dress) while the youngster more modern looking.
As for the 4 groups - yes, that was my point & we agree. The only point I’d add is that this “4th group”
was not fringe & not monolithic per se. There seems to have been a wide network of these halachic Sabatians, and there were differences between e.g. the close followers of Noson & those of Cardozo etc. We even find Cardozo himself sometimes belittling Noson (e.g. that he was not a fiull prophet). Even more so, we have letters where AMIRAH openly chastises Noson, particularly for not accepting the turban.
As mentioned in the earlier post, this may be an issue of POV: that Westerners tended to lump all those in the East as one group, although there were obvious differences between the K(a)rakashis (aka Kunyuzus, aka Congos, aka Honieros), Yaqubis (aka Arapados, aka Tarbushlis, & Kapandjis (aka Agalars, aka Populars, aka The Elders, aka Cavaglieros) (see Ben-Tzvi’s intro to “Hymns and Praises of the Sabatians” [heb.], translated by Elqayan in one of the “Kabalah” journal volumes, where he goes into their different modes of dress & haircuts).
The Eastern ma’aminim too, usually lumped their Western brethern as one group, not unlike Yalhak does.
(Let’s not forget that even from these so-called European moderates ther emerged radical groups, some who even converted to Christianity, e.g. Eibeshitz’ son Wolf. This was separate from the Frank converts, who were actually “reformers” of Sabatianism & even speak of overturning Shabatai’s teaching & that he didn’t go far enough; see “Words of the Lord” in the beginning).
This is not a matter of right or wrong, just a matter of where your POV is centered.
One must also remember that during AMIRAH’s life & on there was a war between the Ottomans & the Christians (Viennese), so there was a distinction between the two countries. Moreover, it made more sense that for residents of a given country to convert to their sovereign’s faith, rather than, say, a Jew in Bursa converting to the faith of the Vatican. And since according to most opinions (not to mention Maimonides), Islam is not (as much) a abomination as compared to Christianity, there was less taboo for Jews in an Islamic country to convert than those from the West. It was only later generations, when there were those who proposed to go further than AMIRAH & to adopt his ideas to a Christian context (mid 1700’s on), that we see the embrace of conversion to Christianity (too).
(From Cardozo we see that he held that there are those who need to “only” go through the Christian conversion but not the Islamic one, like himself (Moshiach ben Yosef) who grew up as a Christian (Marrano).
One thing that the Eastern ma’aminim gradually lost & that the Western ma’aminim maintained was writing their teachings & interpretations in a learned, even Rabbinic, fashion.
Another crucial point to be made about all this “conversion” stuff: whereas in Sabatian texts, both East & West, there is much elaboration on Torah concepts & even Rabbinic sources, we never find any exegesis or even direct quote of any passage from the Hadiths or even Suras. Any discussion of Islam is merely symbolic (turban, Ishmael, mosque, etc.), but no in-depth teachings or even points about the details of Islam. One can make the claim that Avraham son of Maimonides was more influenced by Islam (& Sufism) than the Sabatians, going so far as attempting to adopt Muslim prayer rituals in the synagogue.
This superficial, even “disingenuous,” attitude of the Donmeh ma’aminim towards Islam is further emphasized by some of the 18 “commandments” of the ma’aminim (according to some, proposed by AMIRAH himself). From the end of “Tzmichat Keren Ben David”:
“16) Observe [only] some of the laws of the Ishmaelites, that came to him to blind their eyes and to destroy their eggs [i.e. perform only some of the shariah to that they think that we are Muslims], and as for the the fast they adhere to [i.e. Ramadan], do not be concerned about it [i.e. there’s no need to actually fast, only behave as if you are fasting], and the same for their goat sacrifices do not be concerned about them, and those things that are visible to their eyes, do them [i.e. do them only to appear that you are Muslim, but do not do them by yourselves for real].
“17) Do not marry them [the Muslims], not in their lifetimes and not in their deaths, for they are vermin (sheketz) and their women are reptiles (sheretz), and concerning them the verse states, “Cursed be he who sleeps with any animal (behemah).”
This work then ends withthe following:
“…For with these eighteen orders (sedarim) I [AMIRAH] desire [that you observe], even though some are from the Torah of Beriah [ZIY=many of the 18 orders are similar to the 10 commandments of Moses, e.g. Do not steal, Do not murder, Do not commit sexual misconducts (niuf) etc.], for the throne has not been completed until Israel seeks retribution from the Samael and his entoroge. At that time [the ultimate Messianic age] all will be equal: no prohibition (isur) and no permission (heter), no profane (tumah) and no purity (taharah), for ‘All will know me, from young to old.’ And beware the comrades that are ma’aminim and did not accept [lit., “enter”] the turban, for this is [their] battle to be cautious to observe the Torah of Beriah and the Torah of Atzilut, they shall not miss out [i.e. avoid observeing] anything until the time of Revelation [i.e. that those who did not convert are to still follow ALL the laws of traditional Judaism until AMIRAH’s ultimate revelation], and from thereon they will be enclothed in the Tree of Life and all will be equal [i.e. both the converts and non-converts]. May it be the will that he reveal himself speedily, amen.”
From here we see, as Scholem points out in a footnote, that AMIRAH himself recognized the distinction between those ma’aminim who still remained within traditional Judaism, that they are to adhere to ALL of Torah of Beriah and also to (some?) of Torah of Atzilut, whereas the ma’aminim who convertedare to keep only SOME of the Torah of Beriah, but all of it.
It is worth quoting one more of the “orders”:
“10) You are not allowed to bring in any person to [accept] the turban, even those who are strong believers, for he who is of the war-farers (ba’alei milchamah) will enter on his own with a complete heart and desiring soul without any trace of force at all.”
From here we see that AMIRAH did not have any prostletising program, and recognized that there is a separate group of believers who are not to accept the turban. They too are his followers and believers.
Zoro,
We are, as they say, on the same page. Even so far as your pointing out that i wrongly call the 4th group “fringe.” As I thought about it afterward, i realized that, in Europe at least, they were hardly “fringe” but probably quite wide-spread.
Also your point about the Ma’aminim being disengenuous about Islam is right on the money. (I don’t think there’s much disagreement any more that Amirah himself wrote the 18 Commandments.) The fact is, from what I understand, that Nathan absolutely despised them.
On the other hand, you have to remember that the 18 commandments forbid the Ma’aminim from marrying Muslims, but also regular Jews. (About ten years ago, one of the leading Sabbatian scholars in Israel sent me the 18 commandments and asked me to publish them on Donmeh West. I refused, saying the Ma’aminim of Turkey were persecuted enough by the Muslims there without further inflaming the latter by publishing such clearly anti-Islamic dicta.)
This anti-Islamic orientation of Amirah’s also speaks to a very important point about his so-called “conversion.” Although he made Shahada, he NEVER actually practiced Islam but continued as Moshiach to his followers. The Sultan knew this but, contrary to Islamic law, did not excecute Amirah as required, In fact, in a letter written by Amirah’s brother he says (and I’m quoting from memory here) “And the greatest miracle of all was that the Sultan allowed him to live, even though he did not practice Islam after the conversion.”
I could not agree with you more about POV. In fact, ALL interpretation of historical events — just as all interpretations of holy scripture –comes down to POV, and just because two POV’s differ doesn’t mean either of them are right — or wrong.
“Truth” is highly overrated — especially by those who believe they’re the only ones who possess it.
This has been a good discussion.
Yalhak
P.S. when I just wrote, “the fact is Nathan absolutely despised them”, i meant the Arabs, not Amirah’s 18 commandments.
pps. I also apologize to you and posterity for my ATROCIOUS grammar and syntax in what I’ve written. But I write quickly without proofing it. maybe I should.
luving you bro…
Zoro,
erkek kardeş. Seni seviyor çok.
Yalhak
[my turkish is terrible, but it’s the thought that counts. or so i’m told.
from “Redemption Through Sin” in Gershom Scholem’s “the Messianic Idea in Judaism”
“Moderate Sabbatianism, which we shall consider first, was a view shared by many rabbis and was represented by men like Nathan of Gaza, Abraham Cardozo and Abraham Rovigo…
According to the “moderates,” the apostasy of the Messiah was not intended to serve as an example for others. To be sure, Sabbatai Zevi had done what was necessary, but to attempt to follow in his footsteps was to belie the significance of his act, which was performed in behalf of everybody. In the words of Isaiah 53: “The Lord hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all.” Strictly speaking, “all were [originally] under the obligation to convert,” but God in His mercy permitted the apostasy of the Messiah to atone for the sins of his people. Besides being strange and scandalous in nature, Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion was in a class by itself and was not an object of imitation. the Jew was expected to remain a Jew. True, a new world-era had undoubtedly been ushered in, the spiritual worlds had undergone tikkun, and their structure now was permanently altered; nonetheless, as long as the redemption did not manifest itself outwardly in the realm of objective events in history, as long as the external bondage continued and the phenomenal world remained unchanged, no aspect or commandment of the Torah was to be openly tampered with except, for the small number of innovations, such as the cancellation of the fast of Tish’ah be’Av (the day of the destruction of the Temple), which had been proclaimed by the Messiah and his prophets as symbolic tokens of the redemption’s commencement. Even on this point, however, there was disagreement, for several Sabbatians, including Abraham Rovigo himself, decided to reinstate the fast after a period of hesitation lasting a number of years during which they disregarded it - not because the had “gone back” on their beliefs, but because of the questionable nature of the practice itself, as witnessed by the fact that Rovigo’s disciple Mordochai Ashkenazi had been bidden by a maggid or “spiritual intelligence” to desist form it. On the whole, it was the view of the “moderates” that during the transitional period under way the kelipot still retained a good deal of their, which could only be eliminated by continued performance of the mitzvot: the “facade” of rabbinic Judaism must be allowed to remain temporarily standing, although great changed had already been taken place within the edifice. One unmistakable testimony to this inner transformation was the abandonment by many of the “moderates” of the mystical meditations (kavanot) of Issac Luria….”
yiush,
absolutely so. Even more, Amirah did not ask any except a very few special people (but not even Nathan) to follow him into Islam. The original 300 who did — and who became the ancestors of the present hereditary Ma’aminim of Turkey — did so not because he asked them to, but because they elected to do so, even though unasked.
No one is disputing that the original Sabbatians were “moderate” even, in a sense, quite “moral.” The issue is what the Ma’aminim BECAME after Amirah’s death and REMAINED until recently — largly through “Fathers” like Osman Baba who radicalized the teachings.
I’m not sure what your point is in bringing down this quote. But, as I say, the issue isn’t so much what Nathan and other so-called moderates” INTENDED Sabbatianism to be as much as what it unquestionably BECAME among the Ma’aminim and their leaders after Sabbatai’s death.
If you haven’t already, you really should read Scholem’s monumental, 1000-page historical study titled “Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah” for the context of the other quote you bring down.
“Moderate,” when applied to Nathan and the others who were like him, doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as it would when applied to others in other situations. It’s the difference between someone who uses salt in moderation, for example, versus someone who is “moderate” in their use of hallucinogenic drugs. Both may be “moderate,” but what they are being moderate ABOUT is radically different. Thus, Nathan and others may have been “moderate” about their antinomianism — but they were, nevertheless, ANTINOMIAN.
Again, I’m not sure what your point is in citing this quotation, but I hope I’ve addressed it to your satisfaction. (Which, quite frankly, I doubt.)
Yalhak
(Incidentally, my Muslim name, that I took when I made shahada many years ago, in Turkish, is “Aziz Mehmet Efendi oglu Yakup” — which means, “Yakov, Beloved of Aziz Mehemet Effendi” (Aziz Mehemet Effendi being the muslim name given to Sabbatai Zevi when he himself made shahada.)
______
On the other hand, it must be remembered that Sabbatai DID do other, highly antinomian “ma’asim zarim” which he DID ask his followers to do in imitation of him. Just a few:
1. He blessed and ate cheleb with the blessing, “Baruch atah adonai, elohainu melech ha-olam, matir issurim” (which was intended by him and taken by others to be an abrogation of ALL sexual prohibitions.) He also encouraged his followers to do this as a religious rite.
2. He spoke the forbidden name, YHVH (”as written”) out loud and encouraged his followers to do the same. (Which greatly distressed them, but they did anyway.)
3. He caused his followers to watch his wife having sexual intercourse with a group of young men and called it a Tikkun.
4. He had anal intercourse with an arab youth in the presence of his ma’aminim while wearing the rosh teffilin and called that also a tikkun.
etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, he reinstated certain mitzvot, long abandoned among the Turkish Jews, such as such as growing peyot, wearing tzitzis, having daily ritual emmersion, and others.
So go figure.
Aziz Mehemet Effendi Oglu Yakup
______
oh, and other less sensational, but still antinomian acts he performed and required (or at least suggested) others should follow:
1. He changed Shabbos from Saturday to Monday
2. He changed the 9th of Av (his birthday) from a day of mourning to a day of celebration.
3. Although he never practiced the Islam he “converted” to, he studied and loved the Qur’an along with the Torah
4. After his “conversion” he began hanging out and dancing with the Bektashi Sufi (i.e., “Whilrling Dervishes”). In fact, Osman Baba formally converted to Bektashi Sufi and was buried in the Bektashi graveyard.
Those were just a few of the “moderate” antinomian actions performed by Sabbatai — but it must be remembered that the more IMMODERATE antinomian actions he performed and his followers adoped before and during his death (particularly those involving the violation of the sexual prohibitions) were at least as many, if not more. And it was those IMMODERATE antinomian actions which came to define the hereditary Turkish Ma’aminim for the next 300 years at least.
Ya’qub ibn Aziz Mehemet Effendi
______
add to the list of “moderate” antinomianism that he allowed and encouraged women to be called up to read from the Torah.
Again, however, the IMMODERATE antinomian practices which Scholem also discusses in the part of the quotation from him that you conveniently omit were at least as many if not more than the moderate both during Amirah’s lifetime and most certainly after.
Yalhak et al.:
F.Y.I., “someone” will be discussing the writings of Nathan of Gaza tonight at Cholent. From the email:
“This week’s topic: The Sabbatians, In Their Own Words
“Part 1: Selected Writings from Nathan of Gaza - Prophet, Scholar, Kabbalist, Activist
“Sabbatianism is a Jewish Messianic movement from the 17th century, whose Messiah, Shabatai Tzvi, converted to Islam. Nathan was his most
important follower.
We intend to begin at 9:30 PM”
Yasher koach!
“Whoever devotes himself to Amirah — even if it is by telling stories only — it is as if he has studied the mysteries of the Merkabah.” — Nathan of Gaza
I just hope you’ll remember that the only reason you’re even talking about Sabbatai Zevi and Sabbatianism is because of the revival of interest in him that the republication of my writings by Ma’ariv and their recent interview with me are creating.
It’s always nice when someone acknowledges the driver of the bandwagon they’re jumping onto from behind.
ZIY,
The point that we find in Sabbateanism a sort of groundwork for the virtual understanding of “redemption through sin” is tricky. While it may be the case that Nathan and others’ recognition that the torah of atzilut has not been manifested in the physical and that we must still adhere, at least outwardly, to the torah of beri’ah appears to point to the differentiation between actual and virtual sin, it definitely does not correspond to Yalhaks theory where the virtual implementation is “higher” than actual bodily sin in that it does not lead to the “consequences of the body” (I believe Yalhak was implying as much in his reply post). I think that Nathan’s hesitance toward actual sin reflects more his ambivalence about the present status of torah (i.e. at what point does the new torah take over and what is the significance of this new torah vis-à-vis practical mitzvot) than any ideas about the avodah of “redemption” through sin.
I don’t recall Nathan elaborating on this peculiar type of avodah (though of course that doesn’t prove anything - ZIY do you know where he might speak about this?) He does go to great lengths to “justify” the sins of the Messiah himself – but that does not necessarily apply to the general doctrine, incumbent on everyone, of redemption “through” sin. I mean it is quite possible that Nathan saw STz’s sinning as trying to manifest the torah of atzilut but before other are to follow in a wholesale manner this manifestation must be complete.
The distinction you make between keeping the torah of beri’ah (as with fasting) and focusing our intentions toward torah of atzilut (i.e. not crying) does not necessarily imply that one is sinning virtually while keeping the commandments in actuality – it seems to be more about the proper kavanah/intention of the very “fulfillment” of torah de-beri’ah than advocating anything like the visualization of actually “eating” instead of fasting. But it would be interesting to compare other such examples from Nathan’s writings.
In short, the doctrine of “redemption through sin” is to be distinguished (at least conceptually) from the revelation of the torah of atzilut. They are often found together inextricably in Sabbateanism but you can easily have (and in fact did have) one without the other…It would be interesting to trace this distinction in Nathan’s thought (if it hasn’t been done yet).
PS – one can argue that “redemption through sin” itself is predicated on the state of torah of beri’ah – where there is still a concept of sin – but with the revelation of torah of atzilut you are not sinning anymore but in fact fulfilling the torah (and fulfilling it NOT by abrogating it but by actually “fulfilling” it’s newer and truer nature as manifested in torah of atzilut).
Atgate,
I think what you wrote is brilliant on its own right, and also shows a deep understanding not only of redemption through sin in general, but my reinterpretation of it in particular.
I also agree that Torah d’Atzilus and redemption through sin are incorrectly conflated by most people. To begin with, I think the entirely of the Torah d’Atzilus is summarized in one scripture from jeremiah:
“Yahweh said, When I FIRST brought your ancestors out of Egypt I gave them no commandments about holocausts and sin offerings. I gave them ONE commandment and ONE commandment only: LISTEN TO MY VOICE; then I will be your God and you will be my people.”
In other words, the entire “spiritual” Torah D’atzilus — the FIRST torah given to the Israelites — consisted of one commandment and one commandment only: LISTEN TO THE INNER VOICE OF GOD rather than performing outer rituals.
Now that one commandment was immediately violated by and the torah d’atzilus revoked because of the sin of the golden calf — which was fundamentally a sin of displacing the inner spiritual god onto an outer bodily ritual.
The proof of this, I submit, is that Moses burned the golden calf, mixed the ashes with wather and forced the Israelites to DRINK it — thus returning to the “inside” what had been displaced on the “outside.”
Yalhak
but even then, as I said earlier, “Truth” is greatly overrated — especially by those who certian they have it, and are just as certain that other people don’t.
CORRECTION: “Truth” is greatly overrated — especially by those who are certain they have it, and just as certain that other people don’t.
“Rumors of [Sabbatai Zevi’s] libertinism increased considerably after the apostasy [to Islam] and, judging from what the believers themselves said on the subject, not without reason……Recently, important and weighty information has come to light, to the effect that Sabbatai prided himself on his ability to have intercourse with virgin women without actually deflowering them. The same source mentions, in addition to this example of erotic perversity, instances of antinomianism such as treading tefillin under foot or tearing up a Torah scroll and trampling upon it. This behavior agrees well with the mood exhibited by Sabbatai’s benediction ‘[blessed art thou, Lord our God] that hast permitted that which is forbidden.’ [i.e., ‘Baruch atah Adonai, Elohainu Melech ha-olam, matir issurim.’].” — Gershom Scholem (Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, p. 671)
“the sin of the golden calf — which was fundamentally a sin of displacing the inner spiritual god onto an outer bodily ritual.”
Gevald, holy rebbe, that’s some really high torah…
atgate,
todah rabbah.
a very wise rabbi came to visit the chofet chaim,he followed him around for three days without saying a word,the rabbi new torah,and knew not to speak in the presece of one wiser,the chofet chaim also knew,and after three days,they engaged in torah,here on the cow,that time has been wittled down to three minutes,deherst,,,,,,,love,,,,,,,yesod
Yesod,
ROTFL!
abba
Here’s another story, supposedly true, and equally apt for the occasion:
When the Princes of the Catholic Church first looked through Galileo’s telescope and, for the first time in church history, saw the stars moving in orbit around the sun they said, “This cannot be. Aristotle doesn’t mention it.”
Let them what got ears, hear.
Abba
good points atgate. just to mention in relation to this:
1) in sefer haberiah (from what i saw quoted) noson stresses that thought never leads to action, only to more thought, which is why action comes from the “light w/o thought” which is higher than the “light w/ thought” (these concepts are brought throughout noson’s teachings). meaning that action reaches/is from HIGHER than thought. btw, “light w/o thought” correlates w/ “pursuing destruction” (mehader achar churbonoh), whereas “light w/ thought” is “pursuing construction” (mehader achar binyonoh). so if according to this action is destruction & thought is construction, action would reflect the destruction of torah of beriah. the only question is when to we actualize this.
2) as for torah of atzilus vs. redemption thru sin etc., we need further inspection how this developed in noson’s teachings. but from others, especially those who took to the turban in 1671 in seems that they did equate sinning now w/ torah atsilut (see the writings of yehudah levi tovah). for noson, he saw torah of atzilut as in the future (only with the second coming of amirah). in the present (in noson’s life) we are not yet there, ergo we do not (fully sin).
3) according these sources, the definition of torah of atzilus is the REVERSAL (or reconfiguration) of torah of beriah itself. so even when it is atzilut, it is predicated on beriah (or rathe, beriah is predicated on atzilut).
3) 2 definitions of mitzvah haba’ah ba’avera: 1) revealing that we reach the higher than mitzvah of beriah THRU the sin, 2) the mitzvah is IN the sin. the difference being if sin remain sin qua sin as we fulfill the mitzvah of sinning. it appears that the latter is the main approach (which is why “redemption THRU sin” is a misleading translation, as yerushalmi would say). so let me ask you: if torah of atzilut is the reversal of sin of beriah, so why is it a SIN if we follow atzilus? to the contrary, it is more akin to fulfilling the ultimate MITZVAH (e.g. those laws that apply only to messianic ages, e.g. all 10 cities of
refuge that maimonides brings down at the end of laws of kings, or that pig will “return” to be pure, etc.), but how does it remain a SIN then? which is why there is justification to say that the real way to fulfill the sin is while there is still a torah of beriah, & still we abrogate it. in which case, “redemption IN sin” is specifically now, before the torah of atzilut, when we still follow bariah. but how is this done? this is why amirah states (as i quoted above after the 18 orders) that those who did not take on the turban (includes noson) should fulfill BOTH torahs until the time of the 2nd coming. but still, how? PERHAPS, that when one fulfills (in action) a mitzvah of beriah his intention (the virtual) is to fulfill it in an atzilut way (i.e. the opposite, for otherwise, he is “breaking” the mitzvah of atzilut!), but when he commits a sin of beriah, his intention too is IN the sin itself as in beriah by the definitions of beriah (for if he thinks [the virtual] ala atzilut, then he is not sinning!). yet even (especially) in the latter the paradox remains, for the reason why he is committing the sin is because he was commanded to…
so in a way, the real form of sinning (& paradox) is davka in the days of torah of beriah (as atgate alludes to in his PS)…
which is why there is no contradiction to say that e.g. fasting while having intention to eat is in the beriah itself - for the person’s kavanah of eating reinforces that it is a sin of beriah (precisely because it is “only” in thought), while at the same time “liberating” the action to be a mitzvah too. so atgate is partially right: the kavanah of sin during mitzvah is because of fulfilling beriah itself (that this is “true” beriah) - but only because it is not (because it is a atzilut state-of-mind). yet since action is “higher” (reaching to the light w/o thought), the intention is ancillary & there almost as a via negativa tool to (1) define the sin, & (2) unify it with that which transcends it (atzilut).
this leads to an interesting speculation: if in the times of the complete revelation of torah of atzilut one observes a mitzvah of bariah - is this a “sin” of atzilut?
to which we can say: that all this discussion of paradox of beriah to atzilut is only a posterioti (i.e. from a POV from down here looking up), but as for an a priori perpective (from atzilut down) it can be both simultaneously. more so, that this id how it is defined: both absolute (atzilut) & relative (beriah, yetzirah, asiyah).
still i agree that we need to find more prooftexts, especially in noson.
814
“All the faiths and conducts and all the books that have been written till today — everyone who reads in them is like someone who has turned his head backwards and is looking at things already dead. All of it comes from the Gate of Death. But the wise man’s eyes are ever in his head, so he must look toward he-who-walks-in-front.” — Jacob Frank, Dictum 62
Zoro,
I guess Ma’ariv interviewed the wrong man and is translating and publishing the wrong man’s Neo-Sabbatian writings. Clearly it should have been you. But it wasn’t and won’t be no matter how hard you try. You remind me of the person Sabbatai said to, “You have stolen my God out of jealousy.”
Yalhak
b’shem shalom,”Another characteristic expected of the learned man is that he not be impatient to give his opion but on the contrary, whenever possible, think twice and be extremely careful. Only when he is asked about something which he knows to be explicity expressed in the Qur’an or tradition, or definitely accepted by catholic consent(ij`ma), or analogy(qiyas), should he give his opion. But whenever he is confronted with something about which he has some