The Lurianic concepts, introduced above, particularly the ideas o f the “breaking o f the
vessels” and the “sparks o f holiness”, as well as the doctrine o f Tikun, also figure
prominently in seventeenth century Shabbateanism, which is the main focus o f
Bashevis's first novel ps lÿ i and which also appears in the last sections o f his
other seventeenth century novel üDÿlp lÿi.
In " 1 ^ 1P7 R. Itshe Mates explains Shabbatai Zvi’s mission to the inner circle o f
Kabbalists in Goraj and during his expositions he makes extensive use o f Lurianic
terminology. He tells the assembled Kabbalists that only a few “nwnpl TSiS’l” (“sparks
o f holiness”) were still present among the Klipot, to which the sitra ’ahra was clinging.
According to R. Itshe Mates’ explanations, Shabbatai Zvi was conducting a battle against
these powers o f evil, thus leading the “sparks o f holiness” back to their source. When the
last “f 13’’:” (“spark”) was back at its source, the (“holy kingdom”) would be
revealed.
This meeting o f the kabbalistic elite in Goraj takes place during the year 5426 (1665/66).
This was the year, when Shabbatai Zvi, who was bom in Smyrna in 1626, revealed
himself as the Messiah and “ignited a Messianic movement”, which began in Palestine
and “reached out to the entire Diaspora”. The Shabbatean messianic movement began
in 1665 after the encounter o f Shabbatai Zvi with Nathan o f Gaza, a young rabbi and
Kabbalist who had “delved deeply into Lurianic Kabbalah”. Nathan o f Gaza had a
vision o f Shabbatai Zvi as the Messiah, and after their encounter he started to appear as
Shabbatai Zvi’s prophet and “standard-bearer”, publishing the coming redemption in an
“apocryphal text attributed to one Abraham he-Hasid, a contemporary o f the famous
”1 ^ pS JDÛ7 1V7, 65.
Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 59. Cf. G. Scholem, Kabbalah, 249 f., 435.
Judah he-Hasid”, who supposedly prophesied the appearance o f Shabbatai Zvi and
proclaimed him the “redeemer o f Israel”. Thus when Shabbatai Zvi proclaimed himself
the Messiah in 1665, he swept with him the whole congregation in Gaza. From there “the
messianic news spread like a wildfire to other communities in Palestine”, and soon after a
“wave o f legends and reports of miracles” concerning Shabbatai Zvi and his prophet
swept the Diaspora. For the Jewish masses in the Diaspora the personality o f the
Messiah was from the beginning “covered by a thick web o f legends”, which had little to
do with the real Shabbatai Zvi.^"^*^
This is also the case in Bashevis’s ps lj/7, where both the (emissary from
the land o f Israel) and R. Gedalye announce all the legendary miracles, supposedly
performed by Shabbatai Zvi. For example R. Gedalye proclaims that Shabbatai Zvi
had already revealed himself and was now on his way to claim the crown from the Sultan
of Stambul, riding on a wild lion, acconq)anied by princes and prophets from the other
side o f the river Sambatyon. The sea was parting before him and a pillar o f fire was
showing him the way.^"^^
According to Scholem, several factors contributed to the success o f Shabbatean
messianism throughout the Diaspora. Not only did the “messianic call” come from the
“Holy Land” and was accompanied by a “renewal o f prophecy”, most prominently in the
figure o f Nathan o f Gaza. But a particularly important factor was also the combination of
popular apocalyptic beliefs, which appealed to the masses, and reinterpretations o f ideas
from Lurianic Kabbalah, which appealed to the kabbalistic elite: “The double response
o f the broad masses and the kabbalistic elite imparted a powerful impetus to the
movement.”
The propaganda to the masses consisted o f such legendary messianic images as imparted
'” lbid. 249-251.
Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism^ 59. ;vf p m ly i, 4 2 ,1 1 3 .
by R. Gedalye, whereas the kabbalistic elite enjoyed an explanation o f Shabbatai Zvi’s
messieinic activity in Lurianic terms, as it was provided by R. Itshe Mates at the meeting
o f the Kabbalists in Goraj.
Lurianic Kabbalah had added new dimensions to the “popular Messianic folk-myth o f a
conquering national hero”, who was supposed to free the Jewish people from the “yoke o f
the Gentiles”. The “redemptive process”, leading to a “pp’rin 0^117” (“restored world”),
was “raised to the level o f a supreme cosmic drama”. It was understood as a
“fundamental transformation o f the entire Creation”, leading to the “rectification o f
the primordial catastrophe” o f the “breaking of the vessels”, in the course of which all the
worlds would be returned to their originally intended place and the “original unity and
perfection” o f the Godhead would be restored.
Here again an important part o f this process was the raising o f the sparks o f Divine light,
captured among the Klipot, the hylic forces o f evil, and their return to their Divine source.
Adherents o f the Shabbateem movement were convinced that Shabbatai Zvi, whom they
believed to be the Messiah, would fulfil this task, just as R. Itshe Mates explains to the
Kabbalists in Goraj.
Towards the end o f üDÿüp 1^7 an emissary from the land o f Israel tells Yankev o f the
imminent redemption, calculated for the year 5426 (1665/66), and places the activities of
Shabbatai Zvi and other Shabbatean leaders in the context o f Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah. The
emissary advises Yankev to settle in the land o f Israel with his son, because the Messiah
existed already in this world and the Jews in Israel would be the first to welcome the
redeemer. He says that the “(D'»*7mpa) in ’yiv” (those knowledgeable m the mysterious wisdom [Kabbalists]) already knew the identity o f the Messiah and the exact date o f his
revelation.
143
Cf, G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 87. ps jDW irr, 65
From this passage it is obvious that the emissary is referring to Shabbatai Zvi as the
Messiah, who will soon reveal himself. In the (Epilogue) it is confirmed that the
emissary is a follower o f Shabbatai Zvi, when it is specified that he became one o f the
prophets o f the felse Messiah. It is likewise obvious that Yankev’s encounter with the
emissary takes place before the year 1665, when Shabbatai Zvi proclaimed himself the
Messieih, since the emissary only hints at the identity o f the Messiah, without
mentioning Shabbatai Zvi’s name. When he speaks o f the “]n ’’S77T’”, who know the
identity o f the Messiah, he is referring to those knowledgeable in “mnoi riQDn”, that is
hidden or mysterious wisdom, a term commonly applied to mystical, esoteric teaching.
The emissary also informs Yankev that these knowledgeable Kabbalists in the land o f
Israel occupy themselves with “m*inD2” (hidden matters - usually referring to the study
o f Kabbalah). They employ “D’II/npn mniz?” (holy names), “Q’nrT’” (unifications) and
“Q’Si'T’S” (combinations o f letters), practice “D’Tr’iyn” (fasts) and study Kabbalah during
the entire night.
These Kabbalists from the circle o f Shabbatai Zvi employ practices like that is
combinations o f letters and holy names, which were widely used by the Lurianic
Kabbalists in their “mmD” (intentions for prayer) and “Dmn’”, that is acts o f unifications
o f Divine names which, according to the Lurianic understanding, were supposed to effect
unification within the Godhead.
The emissary also states that the great leaders o f former generations, like ’"“iK”
(the holy ARI - R. Isaac Luria), R. Hayim Vital and R. Shlomo Alkabez, are no longer
there. But he says that the rDlD“ (tabernacle o f peace) still exists in Safed
and that iniD nnS’” (Yefrah in his generation was like Shmuel in his
generation).
Ibid., 281. Ibid., 255.
Cf. G. Scholem, Kabbalah, 178-180. üD}!2p 1V7, 255. Cf. b Rosh Hashanah 25 b.
This statement shows that the emissary views the Shabbatean leaders, who were active in
the land o f Israel at the time, as being as significant as the most famous Safed Kabbalists
were in their generation. At the same time he places the Shabbatean leaders within the
tradition o f R. Shlomo Alkabez [c. 1505-1584], R. Isaac Luria [1534-1572] and Luria’s
chief disciple R. Hayim Vital [1542-1620]. It was, in fact an important characteristic o f
Shabbatean “messianic propaganda”, addressed to kabbalistic scholars, that it would
show the “apparent continuity” o f Shabbatean ideas with earlier “Zoharic and Lurianic
esotericism”.^^®
Lurianic Kabbalah had already taught its adherents to prepare themselves “more for an
inner than for an outer renewal”, although it was assumed that the one could not take
place without the other. The followers o f Shabbatai Zvi certainly expected him to fulfil
traditional Jewish messianic hopes, but for those, more familiar with Lurianic teachings,
the emphasis was on the inner aspects o f redemption. They believed that the redemption
had begun already, that “inwardly all was in the process o f renewal” and that “the nature
o f the Godhead” had already been “fundamentally altered”.
In September 1666 Shabbatai Zvi was given the choice by the Sultan o f Istanbul
o f death as a martyr or conversion to Isl6im. Shabbatai Zvi became a Muslim and
saved his life. His apostasy produced a “profound shock” among his followers.^^^ The
majority o f his followers, the Jewish masses, for whom Shabbatean messianism was
“predominantly a belief in earthly and political redemption” despaired o f their faith
after Shabbatai Zvi’s conversion. But for the ideological hardcore o f the Shabbatean
movement, particularly for those who were well versed in Lurianic Kabbalah, the
conversion did not bring their faith to an end, because these Shabbatean leaders
Cf. G.Scholem, Sabbatai S^vi: The M ystical Messiah, 466. Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 87, 92. Cf. G. Scholem, Kabbalah, 265.
were not preoccupied with political redemption in the first place, but rather with the
“redemption o f religion and faith” and the “redemption o f God”/^^
These Shabbatean ideologues, who still held fast to their belief after Shabbatai Zvi’s
apostasy, were convinced that the inward aspects o f the redemption had indeed begun,
but that “its ways were mysterious and its outward aspect was still incomplete”. The
completion o f the cosmic process o f Tikun had to be delayed, because not all the
“nwnpT n m r ] ” (“sparks o f holiness”) had been “gathered back again to their source”.
Many Divine “sparks” still remained captured within the “impure realm” o f the Klipot.
Thus the process o f redemption was still incomplete and it was left to the “Redeemer”
“to descend through the gates o f impurity” into the realm o f the Klipot and “to rescue the
divine sparks still imprisoned there”. This reinterpretation o f the Lurianic doctrines o f
the “breaking o f the vessels” and Tikun was employed by Shabbatean ideologues to
justify Shabbatai Zvi’s conversion to Islam.
Those who still continued to believe m Shabbatai Zvi’s messianic mission after his
conversion, called themselves “believers” and their secret feith the “holy faith”.
Bashevis employs the term “Nm20’na-‘’2n” or “xm w’n-’’!::” (literally: sons o f faithfulness;
i.e. the Faithfiil) in both iv i and pH lj/7, referring to the adherents of
the Shabbatean movement after Shabbatai Zvi’s apostasy, when the movement had
“developed all the characteristics o f a spiritualist sect”.^^^ Persecutions by rabbis and
communal leaders compelled the followers o f Shabbatai Zvi to develop “their own
special feeling o f apartness” and their “need to preserve their secret”.
This secretive character o f Shabbateanism after Shabbatai’s conversion is also
emphasized by Bashevis in the epilogue o f ij/7, which takes place many years after
Cf. Yehuda Liebes, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism, Albany: SUNY, 1993, 95, 99. Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 92, 94.
Ibid., 91, 94.
Ibid., 92. - üDinp 1V7, 279. p m ly i, 157. Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 92.
the apostasy. The epilogue recounts the split in the Jewish community o f Pilica at the
time o f Shabbatai Zvi’s messianic claims and particularly after his conversion to Islam.
It describes how the community excommunicated the “riD” (sect), which in turn
excommunicated the rabbi and the seven town elders. After Shabbatai Zvi’s conversion,
those who remained faithful to the apostate, met in market places o f various towns,
recognizing each other through special signs. Apart from their secret faith, they also
shared business interests and arranged marriages within their own group.
But the “believers” themselves were not one coherent group. They were divided into two
major factions, a “moderate” wing and a “radical”, “antinomian” wing o f Shabbateanism,
which had by then become a “heretical movement”. Both fections supported the
reinterpretation o f the Lurianic doctrines o f the “breaking o f the vessels” and Tikun
as a justification of Shabbatai Zvi’s apostasy. But according to the “moderates”, the
“apostasy o f the Messiah” was not intended as an example for others. The Jew “was
expected to remain a Jew”, and the commandments o f the Torah were not to be “openly
tampered” with.^^° The radical, antinomian wing, on the other hand, believed that they
had to descend to the “abyss” with their “Redeemer”, and that there was a “potential
holiness of sin”, and therefore they began to violate the commandments and to commit
“sacred” sins.^^^
The split within the Shabbatean movement after the apostasy is reflected in Bashevis’s
"l&z lj/7, where the two factions within heretical Shabbateanism are also
described. But there is one major difference between Scholem’s scholarly analysis and
Bashevis’s presentation in his novel, since, according to Bashevis’s presentation, it was
only the radical group, who supported the reinterpretation o f Lurianic doctrines to justify
DDÿjp ijrr, 278 f.
Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 88, 100. Ibid., 101.
161
Shabbatai Zvi’s apostasy. According to Bashevis, the moderate group was convinced that
Shabbatai Zvi had passed into the “m'7'’ssn Q'7157” (World o f Emanation) and that the
apostate in Istanbul was, in fact, not Shabbatai Zvi at all, but the demon
(Asmodeus). They also believed that redemption would only come, when the generation
had become “’iOT i'?iD”(completely virtuous). In contrast to Scholem, it is only Bashevis’s
second group, the radicals, who upheld the concept that the Messiah had to descend to the
realm o f the “n*>n2£'’n” (the shells o f the broken “vessels” in the “Nether Sphere”) to rescue
the “nwilpl m s’Sl” (“sparks o f holiness”) from them. They believed that they had to
follow the example o f their Messiah and that the generation before redemption had to
become (completely guilty). The remainder o f Bashevis’s presentation again
matches Scholem’s account, describing, how these radical antinomians went to great
lengths to commit every possible sin.^^^
This radical, antinomian behaviour o f several adherents o f Shabbateanism is also
described in 11/7. These radical Shabbateans are described as having ceased to
observe Jewish law, because they believed that the Torah was about to be anulled. Others
interpreted the verse “DDriKûlü DOnx (And I will dwell with you in the midst
o f your uncleanness [Lev 16, 16]) as a justification for committing all kinds of
abominations, particularly sexual transgressions.
It is not stated, to which period o f time Bashevis is referring here. But historically, ideas
like those described in this paragraph were commonly held by the radical wing o f
Shabbateans after Shabbatai Zvi’s apostasy. They believed that prior to the advent o f the
Messiah the “inward” and the “outward” aspects o f Tikun were in harmony, and for this
reason great “DTpTi” (cosmic restorations) could be effected “by means o f outwardly
performing the commandments”. However, since the “Redeemer” had come and had
162 /Diy ij/7 ,158 f. - On the state o f the generation before redemption, see: b Sanhédrin 98 a,
W7, 278. The actual verse in Leviticus reads: "onxDD onx [isnn *7niô n w p i] ” (“[and so shall he do for the Tent o f Meeting,] that remains among them in the midst o f their uncleanness”).
descended into the Nether World to rescue the last “sparks o f holiness” from the grasp o f
the Klipot, the inward and the outward aspects o f redemption are “in opposition”. Now
the “inward commandment”, which alone can effect a Tikun, has become “synonymous
with the outward transgression”. They believed that at this stage in history “the violation
o f the Torah” was its true fulfilment, and they frequently employed the above-quoted
verse from Leviticus to justify their belief in the “sanctifying power o f sin”.'^"^
The description o f Shabbatean messianism in Bashevis’s novels ”7 ^ ;vc 1^7 and
tJD^2p IVI differs very little from the modem scholarly interpretations o f Scholem, Liebes
and others, although at least during the time he wrote his first novel, these scholarly
works did not yet exist. Bashevis’s knowledge o f the historical details o f the period of
Shabbatean messianism must be attributed to his reading o f some o f the primary sources
o f this period, which also formed part of Scholem’s source material, as explained
a b o v e . T h e few differences between Bashevis’s and Scholem’s presentation are
probably due to varying interpretations o f the source material. Bashevis’s account of
Shabbatean messianism comprises both the outward historical development o f the
movement and the reinterpretation o f Lurianic concepts by the inner circle o f Shabbatean
ideologues and Kabbalists.
After having presented both the historical background o f Shabbatean messianism and its
use o f Lurianic Kabbalah, as it is described by Bashevis, the literary role o f Shabbatean
messianism in Bashevis’s ”7X-? pH pW 1V7 and üDVp 1V7 will be investigated within the
framework o f the detailed discussion o f these two novels.
Cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 110,113. See; Section 2.5, 53-58.
3.6. Conclusion
Bashevis’s novels and short stories are imbued with mystical images, references to
Jewish mystical concepts and allusions to kabbalistic ideas. Various recurrent themes can
be identified, which form the basis o f these mystical images, references and allusions.
One o f these themes, which needs to be taken into consideration, is the use o f mysticism
for magical purposes. There are many characters throughout Bashevis’s writings, who