Tzava’at Harivash is one of the early publications of
Chassidism, but was printed later than the works of the Maggid and R. Ya’akov
Yossef of Polnoy. Thus one cannot ascribe to it special significance, because
most of its teachings appeared already in those earlier books. Nonetheless, it
became a primary target in the attacks by the opponents to Chassidism. Their
criticisms against Chassidic teachings refer specifically to Tzava'at
Harivash and they had public burnings of the book. 1 Two reasons may account for singling out this work:
1) Tzava'at Harivash is a very small book. It may even be
called a pamphlet. The first editions consisted of 48 small pages (including the
title-page), approximately 3 by 5 inches. Thus it must have been quite
inexpensive, allowing for wide distribution. Moreover, the smallness of the book
as a whole, and the brevity of its individual teachings, make it a very readable
text for friend and foe alike, unlike the earlier texts that were much bulkier
and much more intricate. Little wonder, then, that it gained great popularity:
there were at least seven editions between 1792 and 1797! 2 This must surely have concerned the Mitnagdim (adversaries
to Chassidism) and aroused their ire.
2) Tzava'at Harivash is a specialized anthology of Chassidic
teachings. It consists of pericopes that present explicit guidance, “instructions
and rules of proper conduct,” taught by the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid, the
founders and leaders of the Chassidic movement and Chassidic philosophy. It is a
manual for the religious life and observance of the chassid. It addresses the
masses no less than the scholars. Our text can then be seen as an easily
identifiable manifesto of Chassidism. Thus it became the logical choice to be a
prime target for those who opposed Chassidism.
The adversaries’ accusations against the teachings in Tzava'at
Harivash are as follows: 3
(a) Sect. 41 is a denigration of Torah and Torah-study. 4 (b) The segment
of sect. 44-46 furthers illicit frivolity. 5 More
specifically, sect. 44 errs in dismissing depression and in calling thoughts
leading to depression “evil”; 6 sect. 45 (as well as sect. 107) errs in dismissing
weeping in prayer; 7 and sect. 46
suggests anti-nomianism. 8 (c) Sect. 64 (as well as sect. 96), dealing with yeridah
tzorech aliyah, suggests anti-nomianism. 9 (d) Sect. 68 is crude imagery leading to
licentiousness. 10(e)
Sect. 74 is a denigration of Torah-study and the normative religious lifestyle.
11
(f) Sect. 87: i. To say that one need not fear anything but God is absurd and
contradicts Scripture. ii. To say that a Divine life-force is vested in all
beings, including animals, is blasphemy. iii. To say that everything happening
to man is by Divine Providence is to justify all wrongdoing and to exempt all
wrong-doers from punishment. 12 (g) Sect. 108: to say that in prayer one becomes unified
with God is unfounded “worthless illusions.” 13 (h) Sect. 109 furthers
licentiousness and anti-nomianism by suggesting the indulgence of all desires.
14 (i) Sect. 120 is blasphemous for stating that the Shechinah
is vested in all human beings. 15 (j) Sect. 127 errs i. in relating the Divine glory to
creatures; ii. in stating that there is a Divine emanation in all beings; iii.
in stating that one is to love and fear God alone; and iv. to identify speech
with the vital force of God inherent in man is a blasphemous attribution of man’s
lies and evil speech to God. 16 (k) Sect. 137: i. To say that one must always
be “merry and joyous” is wrong, because rejoicing is restricted to the
celebration of the festivals in the Holy Temple, and is not allowed even in
prayer. This statement thus proves that “they are of the cult of Shabbatai
Tzvi,” because it assumes that the Messiah has come already. ii. To believe
that “the kindness of God dwells upon man and embraces him” contradicts
Scripture which relates that Jacob was afraid in spite of the Divine promise to
be with him everywhere (Genesis 28:15). Thus “one cannot establish this kind
of trust in God.” iii. To say that “man sees God and God sees man” is a
blasphemous ascription of corporeality to God. 17
Not surprisingly, there is an implicit attack on the concept of sublimation
of alien thoughts, 18 though without a specific
reference. 19 The over-all criticism by the Mitnagdim of the
Chassidic adoption of the Lurianic-Sefardi liturgy 20
also touches upon Tzava'at Harivash, for sect. 143 explains a
notable difference between that text and the Ashkenazy one.
Eight of the references cited above appear in the slanderous accusations
before the Czarist regime by Avigdor Chaimovitch of Pinsk against R. Schneur
Zalman of Liadi. Avigdor submitted two depositions: the first was addressed to
the authorities, and the second one was to be given by them to R. Schneur Zalman
for his response. There are notable differences between the two: Avigdor is much
more careful with the criticisms in the second deposition, omitting many of his
alleged refutations. He must have realized that they were blatantly absurd, thus
easily dismissed. Even so, there is a consistent thread of misquotation and
distortion running through both. 21 R. Schneur Zalman exposes these
distortions, and offers clear and convincing explanations which vindicated Tzava'at
Harivash and the Chassidic philosophy, and brought about his acquittal and
liberation from imprisonment. 22
The criticism of sect. 120 was again submitted to R. Schneur Zalman in a
private (and apparently friendly and respectful) communication from Mitnagdim.
His elaborate response, analyzing the relevant principles in great detail,
implicitly answers also most of the criticisms against sect. 87 and 127. It
overlaps in many respects with his lengthy response on sect. 87 in the
court-case. 23
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
