25

During the times of false messiah Shabbetai Tzvi, and for several decades afterwards, many well established rabbanim [1] believed him to be Moshiach. Some even maintained this belief after his conversion to Islam. May one learn from the seforim of those who maintained such belief?

[1] see Bezalel Naor's Post Sabbatian Sabbatianism for a recent survey of the academic literature on this topic

rikitikitembo
  • 14,079
  • 3
  • 22
  • 80
none
  • 3,948
  • 17
  • 47
  • 1
    I'm not sure I understand your comment. I have heard of Yonasan Eibshitz and his affiliation with the Sabbatean movement (as per R' Yakov Emden) but am not familiar with that work. What does 'everyone holds of...' actually mean? From my understanding 'everyone holds of' Rav Yakov Emden as well. Why wouldn't currently scholarly work have any relevance on halacha? – none Feb 21 '12 at 01:53
  • 1
    Moshe, if you don't tag @simchashatorah he won't see it. But to answer your question, Kreisi UPleisi is a major Halachic work. I don't think it's possible to get Semichah without encountering it. – Seth J Feb 21 '12 at 02:21
  • @SethJ thanks (still learning the ropes). I'm still perplexed as to why modern scholarship about that author, or any other, would not have any bearing on the acceptability of their work. If academics could prove conclusively that 'Major Posek X' from a previous generation believed in Scientology wouldn't that have ramifications? – none Feb 21 '12 at 02:32
  • Moshe, Sabateanism was not a religion, though. It was a terrible, terrible mistake, but it was not a religion. Furthermore, there is one, solitary work that asserts that R' Eybeschutz was a closet Sabbatean. There is really very little evidence of this, save for the circumstantial "evidence" that there were a handful in his Yeshiva and that his son came out as one. Even if he were, R' Meir still tried to learn from Aher, and of his KU"P is valid on its merits, I don't see why we must discount it on account of the mistaken and misplaced hope that Shabtai Tzvi would be vindicated as a messiah... – Seth J Feb 21 '12 at 03:02
  • 2
    (In my mind) It's like the early, disillusioned followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who came up with excuses after he died that he could die and still have been the Mashiach Ben Yosef, not Ben David (distinct from those who still believe he was and is Mashiach and that he'll return - that's much closer to heresy). In other words, people were devastated by his betrayal, not to mention his death, and they weren't sure what to make of it. They desperately clung to the hope that the end of the bitter exile was near, because they couldn't face the fact that it was nowhere near over. – Seth J Feb 21 '12 at 03:08
  • They saw a resurgence of piety and spirituality, and a guy who seemed like the real deal claimed to be Mashiach and had a huge following. So, ok, to them, maybe he wasn't THE Mashiach, but maybe he was a precursor. At least that's the only way I can wrap my head around how people could still have believed in him yet remain Jewish. But, again, that's assuming R' Eybeschutz was even among them. And, again, even then, it is not absolutely, automatically heresy, if it was a desperate optimism rather than a new religion. – Seth J Feb 21 '12 at 03:11
  • @SethJ I hear your points and not sure I can debate them but I think my overall question still stands. – none Feb 21 '12 at 03:28
  • 1
    @SethJ It sounds like you just wrote an answer! – Double AA Feb 21 '12 at 03:45
  • Can we still study the statements of R' Akiva even though he believed in Bar Kochba? – jake Feb 21 '12 at 05:21
  • 2
    @jake 1) Bar Kosba did not convert to another religion. 2)Rebbi Akiva did not maintain his belief that Bar Kosba was Moshiach after he died.

    But many of Shabbetai Tzvi's followers continued to believe he was Moshiach well after both of those events. Even formulating a religion to maintain their beliefs.

     – none Feb 21 '12 at 14:12

2 Answers2

2

It would appear based on the article Reb Shlomo and Tu Beshevat (scroll to the bottom) that the sefer Hemdat HaYamim, which clearly contains sabbatean material has been accepted.

for those following Lithuanian tradition, both the Gra and Haayim of Volozhin accepted Hemdat Yamim.

So I would surmise that as long as no sabbatean theology is espoused works of this nature should be permissible to study (obviously this is not a psak, just speculation).

ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
none
  • 3,948
  • 17
  • 47
1

Pinchas Giller (in Shalom Shar'abi and the Kabbalists of Beit El) quotes Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Hillel as expressing permission to learn a Sabbatean book, Sha'ar Gan Eden. There is some controversy as to the Sabbatean nature of the work but this article argues that it is clearly a Sabbatean work. Giller states that R' Hillel allowed one to learn

the Sabbatean work Sha'arei Gan Eden by Jacob Koppel Lifscheutz...For Hillel, the odd inclusion of occasional Sabbatean materials...is less of a problem than the appearance of Sarugian materials." p.103

enter image description here

rikitikitembo
  • 14,079
  • 3
  • 22
  • 80