In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

270 Chapter 6 same principle reflected in the Hasidic rejection of Lurianic prayer-kawwanot. The point in both cases is that simple faith in the omnipresence of God is more effective than any of the more complex alternatives, including those considered sacred. See further Liqqutey'E~ot, refu'ah 10; Liqqutim II8:6. 32. Liqqutim II 1:9. Cf. Gen. Rabbah 10:6 and Baba Qama 92b. This teaching is dated Rosh Hashanah 1808. A briefer and necessarily earlier version is found in Liqqutim 231. This interpretation of Ex. 23:25 is much older than Nahman. Cf. the commentaries of Ibn Ezra and Bahya ad loc. Nahman's formulation of course places much greater emphasis on the supernaturalist implications of this interpretation . It is interesting to note that his Rosh Hashanah teaching of the following year (Liqqutim II 5:1) opens with a similar treatment of medicinal herbs, but places the emphasis upon faith rather than prayer as the true source ofhealing. 33. Liqqutim 168; Liqqutim II 3. 34. If.ayyey 1:33; 7:1-3. For the tale ofan "old style" ~addiq going to seek cures in Lemberg see Zikhron Tov, p.ll, re: R. Mordecai of Neskhiz. Zeitlin (op. cit., p.205) goes so far as to say that only Nathan was opposed to doktorei and that Nahman did not share this view. Nahman's attitude was in fact ambivalent, though Nathan remained an implacable foe of doctors to the end. In his account of his master's death Nathan broadly hints that those disciples who, against his (Nathan's) will, insisted on calling in the doctors, bore some burden of responsibility . 35. It was undoubtedly to the rest-cure that Nahman referred when he said on his departure from Lemberg that he felt like Honi Ha-Me'agel, who according to Talmudic legend slept for seventy years. See Ta'anit 23a. R. Aaron, the son of the BeSHT's son Herschel, and thus a first cousin of Nahman'smother, was still alive at the time. He died in 1828. From here it appears that R. Aaron had been less than friendly to Nahman in earlier times. Certain of Nahman's first disciples, who came to him in Medvedevka, had formerly been diSciples of R. Aaron. A certain rivalry thus existed between them, and it is likely that R. Aaron supported his cousin Barukh in the opposition to Nahman. If.ayyey, 7:2. 36. This is confirmed by the alleged eyewitness report of Nahman in Lemberg found in 'Avaneha Barzel, p.59. The report is attributed to the son of the Lemberg rabbi, himself later rabbi of Jassy, Romania. He recalled of Nahman's visit in Lemberg: "He did not say Torah, nor did he speak at all, due to his lung ailment. All his communication was by motions and signals." He adds, however, that the silent Nahman did manage to tell some stories, and that his tales of Erez Israel in particular were most popular. The authenticity of this account is deserving of further investigation. 37. If.ayyey 7:14. 38. Papera'ot le-lf.okhmah to Liqqutim 282. 39. If.ayyey 3:6. 40. Mahler, op. cit., pp.314ff. On Lemberg in particular see J. Caro, Geschichte der Juden in Lemberg and S. Buber, 'Anshey Shem. The first major literary figure of the Galician Haskalah, Mendel Lefin (1749-1826), was also already active in the first years of the nineteenth century. Though he lived most of his life in other Galician communities, his If.eshbon ha-Nefesh, a translation of Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography, augmented by several original Nahman's Final Years 271 chapters on moral philosophy and psychology, was published in Lemberg in 1808, justa few months after Nahman left that city. It thus happens that these two works, representing what seem to be entirely different eras in Jewish intellectual history, were published in the same year, and in places very near to one another. 41. Ff.ayyey 7:17and Yemey MaHaRNat, p.47ff. On the printing of this book cf. in great detail Weiss, Me1Jqarim, p.251ff. I agree with Piekarz that Weiss's identification of the "R.D." who helped in the publication as Hirsch Baer (equals Dov) Hurwitz is entirely out of place. The entire latter section of that article is unnecessarily speculative and mystifying. 42. Ff.ayyey 7:3-8; Yemey MaHaRNaT, p.43. On the Sefer ha-Nisrafcf. Neweh 4Jzddiqim , p.80ff. and Weiss, Me1Jqarim, p.215ff. The justification for...

Share