closed circles of authorized individuals. Not only did they downgrade the general importance of the Zohar; they denied its halakhic significance entirely81 and demanded a sharp separation of halakhah and kabbalah. Kabbalah was to be relegated to the private field of pure speculation and was not to have any influence on religious praxis and legal decisions governing the daily life of the Jews. Its study was to be confined to the members of establishment.
The Brody and Konstantynów pronouncements raised the process of framing the battle against Sabbatianism as the condemnation of illicit kabbalah to its highest point. A hundred years of polemics had caused the radical polarization of both parties’ positions vis-à-vis the nature and mutual relationship between exoteric and esoteric spheres of Jewish tradition. In the most extreme cases, the sides portrayed all of Judaism in terms of a battle between kabbalah and halakhah, between the Zohar and the Talmud. While this extreme dichotomization of opinion greatly facilitated the polemics by providing a clear target, it also oversimplified the respective positions of the sides almost ad absurdum.
The normative Judaism of even the most orthodox rabbis was never a Judaism of just the Talmud, and, in the opposing court, Sabbatianism also had sources other than kabbalah. Some of the known Sabbatians were acknowledged masters of Jewish law, while numerous anti-Sabbatians (including Emden) had a deep interest in kabbalah. Yet, as the Sabbatians were pigeonholed as “Contra-Talmudists” and “kabbalists,” their opponents unavoidably became “Talmudists” and “anti-kabbalists.” Both sides paid a high price for this mutual branding, yet the price paid by the anti-Sabbatians was higher by far: they placed themselves in constant danger of going one step too far and surrendering the entire esoteric stratum of Jewish religion to heretics.
This need to maintain the legitimacy of kabbalah within the framework of mainstream Judaism found its expression in the very language used in defining the Sabbatians by their opponents. According to Emden, the Frankists called themselves zoharishten (the “Zoharists”).82 His main supporter in Poland, Baruch Yavan, stated: “Ve-korim et atsman Kabbalisshten, she-omrim she-osim et ha-kol al-pi kabbalah min Sefer ha-Zohar (And they call themselves kabbalisshten, for they say they do everything according to a kabbalah of the book of the Zohar).”83 Neither description used the Hebrew word for kabbalists (mekkubbalim). Instead, they both employed somewhat distorted transliterations of the vernacular terms, therefore suggesting that the Frankists were not “real” kabbalists but impostors lacking legitimate connection to the Jewish kabbalistic tradition.
The terms zoharishten or kabbalisshten are neologisms that have no precedent in earlier rabbinic writings, and their origins need to be examined. Neither term appeared in internal Frankists sources and—in contrast to what Emden and Yavan would have us believe—we have no evidence that the Frankists ever called themselves that. Frank’s view on kabbalah is a perfect example of the inadequacy of the categorization of all Sabbatians as “kabbalists.” To be sure, some of his followers saw Frank as a master of esoteric lore, and Frankist manuscripts contain numerous paraphrases of classical Zoharic stories and direct references to the Zohar. However, quantitatively (and, in my opinion, not only quantitatively), these references are overshadowed by references to the Pentateuch, the midrashim, Polish and Ukrainian folktales, and even—strangely for the alleged outright “Contra-Talmudist”—talmudic aggadot. More important, Frank himself repudiated the label of kabbalist. The following dictum from The Words of the Lord is the best illustration of Frank’s attitude toward kabbalah: “When Rabbi Mordechai was telling me about the ten sefirot, drawing them on paper, I asked him what they were. He said: ‘They are houses.’ So I asked: ‘But where is a privy?’ Because when they build a house in Bucharest, they first dig a deep hole in the ground, then pour into it quicklime that burns the earth, then on top of it they construct a privy, and only finally they erect a house.”84
The dictum recalls the exchange between Frank and his patron, teacher, and initiator into the Sabbatian mysteries, Rabbi Mordechai of Prague. Like many believers of the older generation, Mordechai presented Sabbatian theosophy as kabbalistic lore, mystical interpretation of the Zohar in the spirit of Nathan of Gaza, Cardoso, and Hayon. His disciple, however, held different views. According to The Words of the Lord, Frank explicitly repudiated the Zohar: “The whole Zohar is not satisfying for me, and we have no need for the books of kabbalah.”85 In contrast to some earlier Sabbatian texts, Frank’s dicta did away with the traditional kabbalistic terminology. Very few of the kabbalistic concepts that still appear in the Frankist manuscripts have been subjected to a radically demythologizing reading as in the fragment quoted above: if the sefirot are “houses,” they should also contain a privy!
Speaking of kabbalistic works, Frank always called them your books, therefore emphasizing his own break with Jewish literary canon: “But I tell you the truth that is not yet found in your books.”86 He demanded that his followers “give away their old books for nothing” for “all books and laws will be broken like a potsherd.”87 This demand was absolute: it referred not only to the Talmud and halakhic literature of the anti-Sabbatian rabbis but also to the Zohar and kabbalistic works of Frank’s own Sabbatian teachers.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
