A new book on R.Nachman

 

Silence, music and mysticism

From a review by ZVI LESHEM

Mysticism and Madness, which analyzes several key issues in Nahman’s thinking, is largely a rejoinder to several scholarly works that have, until now, been considered definitive in describing R. Nahman’s religious world. Mark, who is very much at home in the vast corpus of both Nahman’s own writing and that of subsequent generations of Bratslav literature, presents a radically different understanding of Nahman, one that moves him closer to the kabbalistic-hassidic milieu in which he was raised (he was the great-grandson of the Ba’al Shem Tov, who was the first hassidic leader), and returns him from the radical existentialist mode into which some of his earlier interpreters had thrust him.

The late Joseph Weiss, in his pioneering Hebrew studies of Nahman, emphasized his personal life (of which we are blessed with abundant material from internal Bratslav sources) and existentialist crises, downplaying the mystical elements in his life and teachings. Weiss was followed by Prof. Arthur Green, who, in his classic work Tormented Master, portrayed Nahman as a deeply conflicted individual who was blessed not only with a powerful self-awareness of his status as a tzaddik, but also with tremendous self-doubt and conflicts regarding his own faith and religious tensions. Green presented this existential portrait of Nahman as largely overriding the more mystical aspirations of the more typical hassidic rebbe, which may be subsumed under the general rubric of seeking a more intense personal and spiritual experience of God.

Mark argues forcefully that Weiss, Green and those who followed them misinterpreted key passages in Nahman’s writings, consistently overlooking their obviously mystical meaning and reinterpreting them through the prism of the existentialist lens through which they wrote. While not denying Nahman’s existential struggle, his theological radicalism or his sometimes bizarre behavior, Mark uses close philological analysis to convincingly demonstrate that despite his uniqueness in the world of hassidic thought, in the last analysis, Nahman’s major concern remains that of his other hassidic colleagues, finding a path to God for himself and for his followers.

Mark achieves his goals through analysis of issues such as Nahman’s approach to imagination, prophecy, faith, silence, music and the Land of Israel, to which he traveled at the beginning of the 19th century.

He also discusses some of Nahman’s mystical and devotional techniques, such as the meditative practice of hitbodedut (conversing with God) and hand clapping during prayer. He argues that the goal of these practices is to lead the devotee to a state of bitul (self-annulment) and deveikut (cleaving to God). Mark shows us to what extent Nahman was in fact continuing trends, both in thought and deed, found in earlier mystical literature, although he often infused the earlier texts with a creative new meaning....

Comments

[Neil Harris]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting the review.

[Yehonasan]

Rebbe Nachman was adamant that all philosophy was intrinsically wrong in its approach (Sichos HaRaN 5). How ironic then that some Jewish studies academics want to try to fit his teachings into their preferred philosophical boxes. Doing so shows they do not take the subject of their study seriously on its own terms.

[steve mcqueen]

He did not recommend others using philosophy, but L'M is infused with it, and there is nothing per se wrong with someone who understands philosophy (or kaballa or psychology or literary theory) using the tools they have available to unlock the sefer. The more you know of these matters, the more you will be able to understand. Equally, if you lack certain other things, like knowledge of Judaism, midrash or do not approach the sefer with Yiras Shomayim or a commitment to traditional Jewish practice, you will also fail to understand the whole. Bottom line - you cannot criticise someone using the tools they have to understand L'M, but the more you know in both Kodesh and Chol the further you will get. And the more open your mind...

[Pierre]

Advocating for clapping on Shabbat and Yom Tov is obviously very problematic (I didn't say forbidden or evil or anything else - just problematic), and in a synagogue where it is not expected (ANY non-chassidic synagogue), you ruin everyone elses chances for even focusing in those crucial few minutes that begin davening. This could be seen as disregard for the inner striving of others as well as halacha. R. Nachman has also stated other views about other darchei in Torah that are very problematic and not easily addressed in these attempts to "kosher" him for a wider audience.

http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/12/special-sms-q-regarding-rebbe-nachman.html

[Yehonasan]

Steve--
That's fine if your goal is to fit teachings into your own perspective. However, if your goal is learn them on their own terms, that is another story. In this case, Rebbe Nachman expressed a strong view on the matter. Honoring his view would be the best way to understand his teachings from a coherent "inside" perspective.