—15— The Munkacer Rebbe on Christianity Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira (1872-1937) succeeded his father, Rabbi Zevi Hirsch, both as Rabbi of Munkacs (Mukachevo) in Hungary (later Czechoslovakia) and as master of the Hasidic dynasty of that name.’ He is consequently known as the Munkacer Rebbe but more especially as the Munkacer Rov. The Munkacer was 4 fiery personality in his public life (though, in his private life, even his opponents agree that he was a man of great charm and cordial- ity), attacking, with blithe impartiality, the Haskalah, political Zionism, and the Mizrachi, Even the Agudat Israel invoked his anger. His vast erudition in all branches of traditional Jewish learn- ing.is beyond question. A prolific author, with a number of widely acclaimed works to his credit” he often displays in these a critical, historical sense very unusual in a Rabbi of the old school. What has not hitherto been adequately noted is this Hasidic master’s attitude towards Christianity. It is extremely rare to find a notable Hasidic Rebbe considering not alone Halakhic opinions on Christianity but also the theological differences between Judaism and Christianity and the challenges presented by the latter faith to the former, The Munkacer’s originality and acute critical awareness are brought into play in his correspondence with Rabbi Menahem Menchin Heilpern (1844-1924) of Jerusalem, author of Kevod Hakliamin (Respect for Sages’), a defence of the Kabbalistic work Hemudat Yonine (Desirable of Days’), a work suspected by Jacob Emden, David Kahana and others’ of leanings towards the Sabbatean heresy. Heilpern maintains that the Hemdat Yamim is a holy work and he seeks to refute the view that it contains refer- ences to Shabbetai Zevi or his heresies. Heilpern had sent his book Kevod Hakliamum to Rabbi Zevi Hirsch, Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar’s father, for comment but the father delegated the responsibility of a The Munkacer Rebbe on Christianity i reply to his son, whose essay Meshiv Mipney Ha-Kavod (Reply out of Respect’ or Reply against the Respect’}‘is a critique of Heilpern, Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar does not necessarily deny that the anony- mous author of Hemdat Yamim may have been a holy man but argues itis obvious that heretical opinions have been added to the original manuscript as this was circulated. One of the passages in Hemdat Yamim Heilpern attempts to justify is the one in which it is stated: ‘On the eve of Passover the first-born son of the modest one [bekhor ben ha-tzenuah, a pun on bekhor ber ha-senuah in Deuteronomy 21:17] of whom it is said: "I also will appoint him first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth [Psalms 8928).”" The prayer recorded in this connection in Hemdat Yamim reads: ‘And now, O Lord our God, we give thanks unto Thee and we praise the name of Thy glory [tifartekha] for unto us a child is born, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder {Isaiah 9:5}, Critics of the Hemuat Yamtim had Purported to see in all this a clear reference to the false Messiah, Shabbetai Zevi, whose followers believed in him even after he had been converted to Islam, Not so, declares Heilpern. The passage has nothing te do with Shabbetai Zevi but is based on the Lurianic Kabbalah, which speaks of the conception, bith, nursing, and growth of Zeer Anpin ‘Lesser Countenance’), corresponding to the Sefirah Tiferet, and is thus a prayer on Passover, the festival of Redemption, for the realization of harmony in the Sefirotic realm so that the divine grace should flow through all creation. Rabbi Hayyim Fleazar protests’ that Heilpern’s interpretation is quite impossible. A prayer in which Tiferet is singled out from the other Sefirot just at this time of the year makes no sense at al, and nei- ther does the quotation of the verse in Isaiah. Zeer Anpin (corre- sponding to Tifer!) is an aspect of the Deity in manifestation, its birth and nurtare, of which the Kabbalah speaks, takes place in the divine realm, How then can the verse be applied: ‘unto us a child is born’? It is obvious, remarks Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar, that the whole passage is an interpolation by a Jewish Christian heretic (mint notzri) who used Kabbalistic terminology to denote the resurrec- tion of Jesus who, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a in the uncensored versions) tells us, was crucified on the eve of Passover. The refer- ence to ‘the soa of the modest one' is to the virgin birth. The prayer is obviously an invocation for Jesus to rise from the grave to redeem his followers. The reference to Tiferet is, indeed, to the172 Their Heads in Heaven Sefirah of that name. Tifere, third in the first triad of the ‘lower’ Sefirot, identified as Jesus to hint at the Christian dogma of the Trinity. It is well known, continues the Munkacer, that the verse in Isaiah is applied to Jesus in this sense in Christian writings Embarrassed by referring to Christian doctrine, the Munkacer jus- tities this only because such is implied in the Talmudic statement (Sanhedrin 17a) that the members of the Sanhedrin are required to have a knowledge of witchcraft and idolatry in order for them to be capable of rendering decisions when such matters come before them. The only problem is why there should be a Christological interpolation in a work with Sabbatean tendencies, at least in the later additions to the original. What connection is there between Christianity and Sabbateanism? But it is notorious, says the Munkacer, that the followers of Jacob Frank, the Polish successor to Shabbetai Zevi, interpreted the Kabbalah so as to make it yield Christian doctrines. Many of the Frankists were, in fact, converted to Christianity.” They formed a single bond ~ ‘whatever is attached to the unclean is itself unclean’ — with the heretics in ous land and in Turkey, with those who preceded them and with those who succeeded them, and who knows which of them made insestions into the Hemslat Yamim after it hhad reached the first manuscript stage. The great scholars of the Sephardi community, of blessed memory, did not investigate the matter thoroughly (in addition, they had no expertise regarding Chistian beliefs so as to realize how far-reaching the interpolation actually was) and they had the work printed in toto since, in general, they found it to Be a Sound work, one of high ethical work with laws and mystical intentions etc. Who knows what else is found therein? The work has never been in my possession, The above is an incidental reference to Christianity. Elsewhere the Munkacer is even more specific. On the basis of a passage in the Zohar,’ he believes’ that arrangement of the weekly readings from the Torah (the sedarim) to fall when they do is, though late, divinely inspired so that there is a close connection between the events that happened in the past at a particular time of the year and the sidra read at that time. Now the sidra va-yehi has been arranged to be read towards the end of the month of December when the reading is from the portion, ca-yeli, which contains the verse (Genesis 48:7): ‘And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died unto me in the land of Canaan in the way, when there was still some way to come unto Ephrath, and I buried her there in ‘The Munkacer Rebbe on Christianity 173 the way to Ephrath - the same is Bethlehem.’ What is the signifi- cance of the final clause: ‘the same is Bethlehem’? The significance is, says the Munkacer, that Rachel's tomb in Bethlehem acts as a constant protest against Christian worship at the Church of the ‘Nativity, also in Bethlehem! Thus this verse is appropriately read in the synagogue near to the season of the year when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. An astonishing observation,” implying that the Torah foretells the rise of Christianity and hints at a constant protest against this religion and that those responsible for the arrangement of the sedarim were inspired to have the protest read at Christmas time. The Munkacer took very seriously the: custom of refraining, from the study of the Torah on Christmas eve ~ Nitfel" A reliable report” has it that he ignored the date on which Christmas is cele- brated by the Western Churches (December 25) but on the date when it is celebrated by the Russian Orthodox Church he would refrain from study of the Torah until midnight nor would he accept a petition (the Avtel) before midnight on this date. There is also a reference to husband and wife abstaining from marital relations on this night.” The Munkacer has a mystical interpretation of all this based on the late Kabbalistic book, Sefer Karnayyim, an extremely difficult, cryptic work, with a Commentary, Dan Yadin, by Samson Ostropoler, considered by many scholars to be not only the com- mentator of the book but its actual author." The Sefer Karnayyim devotes a section of the work to each of the months of the year, The sixth section is oa the month of Tevet. The name Tevet is here asso- ciated with the word tooah (‘goodness’). Whoever dies in this month becomes attached to the Shekhinah. According to the Kabbalists the patriarch Abraham died in this month since the initial letters of tkkaver be-seca tovah, ‘thou will be buried at a good old age’ (Genesis 15:15) form the word Tevet. Both the book itself and the Commentary are very circumspect, the latter stating that the full mystery cannot be disclosed because of ‘danger to life’, i. because of Geniile objections, which may endanger the Jewish ‘community, But, reading between the lines, it is very probable that the Sefer Karnayyim is saying in so many words that the death of Abraham in the month of Tevet offsets the corresponding kelipah (‘shell or ‘husk, the Kabbalistic term for the demonic side of existence) of Baal Tzafon, known as the Dog. The Sefer Karnayyim concludes this section with the statement: ‘And I have received a German tradition in a whisper, that here lies the mystery of resheta4 ‘Their Heads in Heaven dam.’ The words reshet dam mean literally “blood trap’, obviously a hint at the ’blood libel’. Abraham's death in Tevet offsets the death of Jesus whose birth is celebrated by Christians in the month cor- responding to Tevet. The Munkacer quotes with approval” the hints of the Sefer Karnayyim and applies these to Niftel, adding that the Kelipal of the Dog belongs to Edom, who is Esau, and ‘we are in the exile of Edom’, ie. in Christian lands. This is why, says the Munkacer in an aside, Christian noblemen are so fond of dogs." itis well-known that in Gershom Scholem’s opinion there took place in early Hasidism what Scholem calls a ‘neutralization of Messianism’, that is to say, although the early Hasidim, as Orthodox Jews, believed in the coming of the Messiah, this belief was not in the forefront of their endeavours at living the saintly life in the here and now. Without entering here into this involved question except to note that other scholars take issue with Scholem, there is no doubt that in later Hasidism, certainly in the time of the Munkacer, the hope for Messianic redemption loomed very large. The Munkacer’s opposition to Zionism, for example, was largely due to his strong conviction that a political movement with the aim of settling Jews in the Land of Israel was an impious attempt to anticipate the only true redemption of the Jewish people, namely, through God's direct intervention when the time had come. During the First World War, the Munkacer used to urge his followers not to be content to pray only for peace among the nations but to pin their hopes on the coming of the Messiah, see- ing the war as but a prelude to the final redemption. World peace without the advent of the Messiah was seen by the Munkacer as a catastrophe. ‘The sermons of the Munkacer contain meditations on the sufferings of the personal Messiah as described in the Midrashic literature, especially in the Pesikta Rabbati.” The Munkacer" asking his congregation to participate in the sufferings of the Messiah is certainly untypical in Jewish thought. The resemblances with Christian meditation on the passion of Jesus is quite extraordi- nary. (Needless to say, stich ideas as the meditation on the passion of Jesus were entirely foreign to the Munkacer and, on the conscious level at least, he was unaware of any resemblances.) A disciple of the Munkacer, Y. M. Gold,” gives the following para- phrase of a New Year sermon delivered by the Munkacer when Gold was present The Munkacer Rebbe on Christianity 175 Dear brethren. On this day the world was created, On this day all the ‘world’s crestures stand in judgment, The main thing for which we and for which ur eyes yearn and long is the complete redemption, the advent of the Messiah. For this the decision is made each Rosh Ha-Shanah and yet until now we have not been saved. It all depends, ‘without doubt, on our efforts. If only we would direct our hearts to it, returning with longing and with our determined will to the King of Glory, blessed be His name, casting aside all our personal interests and ‘material needs, setting our face to supplicate and entreat solely for the ‘coming of the son of David, may he come to redeem us speedily and in four days. Bat you might perhaps object: How can living flesh return? How are we able to relinquish our own personal troubles, our lack of sustenance and our inability to earn a proper living? How can we give up asking for these and have the redemption as our sole aim? Brethren, close to my heart, you must know, as stated in the Pesikla Rabi, that the Messiah son of David took upon himself pain and torture, suffering for the sins of Israel. Iron bars have been placed on his neck until his figure is brought low and he cries out and sobs in pain. Now, my beloved brethren, who is he, what kind of a man is he, who can be so cruel to allow this holy one, Messiah of the God of Jacob, to suffer on. his behalf? Therefore, I, and I alone, stand here with heart and soul, placing my head under the iron bars of our righteous Messiah in order to take the sufferings away from him and my soul is given in the stead Of his pure soul. Who is for the Lord? Let him come nigh to me, All of you stand ready to bring our heads under the aforementioned iron boars, refusing to allow the holy Messiah to suffer on our behalE. Ta this ‘we give our hearts, We shall weep and cry out in bitterness and return unto the Lord. Through such a meditation we shall be capable of removing fom our hearts the personal interests and the desire for ‘worldly things, offering our supplications solely for our salvation and. the redemption of our souls and to save the righteous Messiah from. suffering for our transgressions. Then we shall reach the true goal, to have the merit of a year of redemption and be inscribed for good life in the book of lfe, with David King of Israel alive and established, speedily and in our days Both the language and the content of this remarkable sermon have no parallel in Jewish preaching, ancient or modern, Unlike in Russia, there were no laws in Hungary forbidding Jews to accept proselytes. The Munkacer,” in an unpublished Commentary to Yoreh Deah, goes so far as to rule that if a Gentile minor expresses a desire to become a Jew the Beth Din is obliged to accept him for conversion. The source for this rulingjis the Talmudic statement" that the Bet Din can accept a minor as a convert even though, asa minor, he has no legal powers of consent. Itis true that Rashi comments that the Talmudic ruling applies only to a minor176 Their Heads in Henven who has no father and whose mother brings him to be converted. The Munkacer maintains that this comment is not really Rashi's but a later interpolation out of fear of the censor in order for it not to appear as if Jews were like those Christians eager to win souls by baptizing little children before they had become adults. Gold quotes a curious tale from the same unpublished Commentary. The Munkacer stated that he had heard the tale from his forebears. An ancestor of the Munkacer, R, Moshe Laib of Sassov, once travelled from Sassov with his friend, the renowned R, Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev. The two saints went into a forest, ostensibly to enjoy the scenery, taking with them another man. This man gave the appearance of a mere retainer but, in reality, he was taken along in order to constitute together with the two saints the quorum of three judges for a Court presiding over conversions to Judaism. They had with them a circumcision knife, some wine and other requirements for the circumcision ceremony. In the forest they came upon a sleeping infant in swaddling clothes who had been left there by his mother when she went off to pick grain, They circumcised the infant in stealth and took him away to be brought up in a Jewish orphanage in Brody, leaving there a document stating Uat the infant was a righteous proselyte and directing that as soon as he becomes of age he should be immersed in the mikveh in order to complete the circumcision rite. The boy grew up to be a great scholar. R. Moshe Laib was present at the young scholar’s wedding when R. Moshe Laib let others into the Secret ‘and they rejoiced with great merriment’. People knew of the identity of the young man and knew of his children. The rea~ son why the two holy men had risked their lives to convert the child was because they had seen by the power of the holy spirit that his was a lofty soul. This story also shows, observes the Munkacer, that it is permitted to convert a minor to Judaism even without the consent of the parents since the two were famous scholars, thoroughly conversant with the law. Gold says that he himself had heard the Munkacer tell the story on the anniversary of R. Moshe Laib’s death, adding that the playing of the musicians at the young man’s wedding was so sweet that R. Moshe Laib expressed the wish that the musicians should play the same sweet melody when he died. On the day of R. Moshe Laib’s death, the ‘musicians heard of it and they played the sweet melody: As an outstanding Halakhist, the Munkacer also discusses Christianity in a Halakhic context.> Among the practical questions The Munkacer Rebbe on Christianity 177 he was asked is whether itis permitted to tell the time by a clock on a church tower, His questioner had heard that the Munkacer permits it on the grounds that Christians are not idolaters. The ‘Munkacer vehemently rejects such an opinion. If Christianity is not considered to be an idolatrous faith, he argues, why did the martyrs give their lives when faced with the alternatives of embracing Christianity or death? He quotes authorities who declare categorically that Christianity is an idolatrous faith and he refers his readers to two further Responsa on the subject in the same volume.” Itis true, he goes on to say, that he allows people to tell the time by a clock on a church tower (though he remarks in an aside that i still better to avoid it) but the reason is because the clockis not an object of worship but has simply been placed on the high tower for the convenience of the public. (Of the two Responsa to which the Munkacer has directed his readers, one” deals,with the question whether itis permitted for a Jew to sell portraits of Jesus and Mary to Christians. Essentially he frowns on the practice but first seeks to analyse the issue from the legal side. The question involves considering whether these por- traits are for purely decorative purposes or objects to be worshipped, yet it can be argued, even if they are for decorative purposes, they are still given a place of honour in the Christian home and this in itself constitutes an act of worship for which a Jew must not be even indirectly responsible. For all that, if a Jewish merchant had unknowingly purchased a large quantity of these portraits in the belief that it is permitted to sell them, he may sell them rather than suffer heavy financial loss since the majority of the artists paint solely for financial gain without any thought of Christian worship. Itis likely that the artists are not even believers in Christianity. The Responsum concludes: ‘I have written as seemed right to my humble mind and with the help of God, blessed be He. May He help us to cause idols to pass away from off earth and put into us a spirit of purity to serve Him together in truth. May it speedily come to pass.” The other Responsum™ to which the Munkacer refers considers the case of a Jewish merchant who possessed a lange quantity of medallions he was unable to sell. May he have them recast so as to portray the Pope with his triple crown, which he can then sell to Catholics? The Munkaver refers to the other Responsum, butin that ‘case the portraits are of Jesus and Mary whereas here they are of the Pope, Tue, Catholics revere the Pope but they never worship178 Their Heads in Heaven him. As for the cross on the crown, a cross of this kind is like that on a medallion and is not an object of worship, otherwise we would never be allowed to use coins since these have the figure of the king wearing a crown with a cross. Against this it can be argued that coins are handled daily and hardly treated with rever- ence, whereas a medailion is so treated. It is also possible that the craitsman who made the medallion did, indeed, intend the cross he fashioned to be an object of worship. The Munkacer concludes that he cannot discover any reason for permissiveness, Finally, reference should be made to what the Munkacer has to say on the Magen David.” Scholem,” in a famous essay, has traced the history of this mysterious symbol, now so prominent in Jewish life and art, Both Scholem and the Munkacer point out that in the earliest medieval sources it was the Menorah that featured as the escutcheon on David's shield. Both also quote the work Eretz Ha- Hayyim on the book of Psalms by Abraham Hayyim Cohen of Nikolsburg, a Moravian Kabbalist of the fist half of the eighteenth century, (Scholem notes incidentally that this author's father was an influential Sabbatean preacher) In his Commentary to Psalm 18, Cohen states that the kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had a simple triangle on their shields, whereas the kings of the Davidic house had a hexagram, that is, the Magen David. This was to denote that the royal house of David was closely associated with the Sefirah Malkiut (‘Sovereignty’), the lowest of the Sefirot, which is why the point of the hexagram is in a downward direction. The Munkacer finds all this extremely dubious since it is not based on any authentic tradition. Yet, he continues, even if it were true that originally the Magen David was a worthy symbol, now that it has been adopted by the Zionists it should be taboo to have such a symbol on a sacred object such as the mantle for a Sefer Torah, It is certainly forbidden to have a Magen David on the roof of a syn- agogue because, when seen from a distance, it looks like an eight- pointed cross. Were he not afraid to say so, he concludes, he would dare to suggest that the Magen David is really a Christian symbol ‘and this is sufficient for the discerning’ From his writings, the Munkacer emerges as a resolute oppo- nent of Christianity, which he considers to be an idolatrous faith, But, possibly because of this, he evinces a strong interest in Christian doctrine the better to expose it. Moreover, unlike most of his contemporary Rabbis, the Munkacer, it is well-known, had acquired the necessary education in general subjects to enable him The Munkacer Rebbe on Christianity 179 to matriculate in order to serve as a Rabbi and, no doubt, as a result of his studies, he acquired some knowledge of Christianity and Christian texts. Not for the Munkacer are any dialogues with Christians. He would have been horrified at such things. He wel- comes Christian converts to Judaism and sees no basic objection to winning these even to the extent of converting minors, though here, naturally, a good deal of circumspection is required if Jewish-Christian relations are not to be impaired. The rise of Christianity has been foretold in Scripture, according to the Munkacer, and this religion belongs to the side of ‘Esau’, the power of the kelipot, which have dominion until the true Messiah comes to redeem mankind. To offset Judaism and Christianity in this we inevitably leeds, in all probability quite unconsciously, to a Jewish Messianic fervour expressed in a vocabulary that really belongs to the faith to which it is opposed. And a further reason for the Munkacer’s strong attacks on Christianity is due to the need to combat Jewish assimilation, especially rife in a Hungary with cul- tural associations with Western thought and culture. Thus, instead of merely ignoring Christianity, as did the majority of Hasidic masters and traditional Rabbis of his time, he sees Christianity as a faith to be fought against, a participant in a cosmic struggle, the out- come of which, however, is divinely ordained by the God of Israel NOTES On R. Hayyin Eleazar see Bucy uc, Vo. 1, pp. 1298-6 my Tayo Resp, Landon, 1975, pp. 286-4 my Fis: Prayer London and Woslungtn, 19, 39,5. Weingarten in Stan Shossh,erussem 160, pp, 190° YE Gold Dari Sito, Jrusalern, 1974 Herman Dicker Paty sd fercterance fe the 1 Moutairs, New rk, 198], Inde, Spira, Chaim Eleazar, AA Malet Muller, Ooo set atu, Jerusalem, 1985 pp. 215-28 2 Mint Elena, Brooklyn, 1976, Nimuley Ora ax, Jsuslem, 2958; OF Haga oe Slo, ferusaiem, 1985" Dany Tonalin ine paris), Jerusalem, 197; Slur valu, Jerusalers, 196 Hams Maumaryerusalem, 982, 3. Ontiwe Fema’ Yami and its alleged Sabeateansympathiessee, A. asi Tame Ser, Jerusalem, 15 and R. CarmullyWeiberger Censrhip an edt of Exes ear History, New Yoek, 1977, 9p 97-9 nos R.Hayyin Eleaartelers tothe work 6 Homdat Ha tamim (he idea given inthe Zlkiv edition of 123), but the nga ttl is Hla Yamin (osthout the dente sec) as in the Constantinople eit of 31. published in acs by Mer, ruse, 70. 4. Hamil Maan pp 1 5. id. pp. 250-4 K Flayyim Eleaza’s detection of Chest: ‘mim as articipated in the runetenth century by A, ed E Golder, Jerusalem, 1975, 158, Gotlober remarks that not only the bow Sobbatean bu here are hins tha t= lem stan a pun on the erm for a woman found to aan (a eve, but here the wor denotes ha 2 mara, Jes Mary sce Cudberss note ‘6. On the Franksts see the arte by Scholem, ‘Frank, Jaco and the Franks in Engrg fda, vol? pp180 ‘Their Heads in Heaven 1 » Ff Die fer pat 1046 On the Munkaersattud to Chistian counties and thet furs se Die Torah, pact no 8 For Similar suggestion by 1 Hoc master tht the Torah foretell the ssc of {Cistanty see Ritehak ak Saran Koma (180674 an hs Commentary ela eter, ember 1869, the vee which Gee th te le prophet wh give 4 Sgn Deieronomy 132} But thee are tac ofthe interpretation ix much ear Heth cutee ace Nal, Hage Pst Ht Tra ene Bera I sels pe 2r-n Naha eters 0 the omvmnt of Rabu Mpuhas to he were C) the ing the Murkacer = reat great prandather Rev) Emeech o Dyno hatte ‘alee the word nar n Levies 3. deabing with the Bape has ish esa see Gold: Dares Hains Sain,p 3M hte CT Tht Neo omer ed RaW Garter Pa, New Tone 1381, p34, forthe sr co ‘sent of the Bal Hacunm Another incenthcentry sic mater wh elt {he month of Tevet ns vein aco Zev of Taro i his A! i Rec Test ‘Wana 195, po On Nit rom the medieval Latin Naale Doni) ee Eisesti's ser Di a Magn, pp 267-8 al grt Ser. eB, Steel As 197 Lato of te an Sets Sand Goi, Dike sgn sShaln, rumber on p. 38, Gol eats tht the Muntacer uve sit instant thos in change ofthe me 40 ‘iniruct "the women who. superrsed. the, immussone that they’ should strony advise the women who immersed themeelveon ths ght nto have taal ‘ato nt after might oe he practic the asd grouper Lubath se the ionenal rm, Vl 3 erasers 1978 pp 987 regarding eating fom va stay fied marta ndapone om the ght ot Kite $Sceshleny an feral, 17% 325 that this works the ast of he Kabbalistic works to aent anv demonogy ew mana forte elie The ion Str Lin ha of Soles Re Can, 180. sey Tn pate, AS Shr ake er Ona, no. 22, pT and Maar Hota ec, ek See Gold Dates Havin ce Shalom no 824, p37 note , that the Munkacer wed 0 i ut ht many ofthe vl dete aga Jews we premelgtedathis pend the year and be woul eae swat to paauminthesmegen eat tet ‘oth heat. An sce ho. 825, Re note | forth hry of the ely an pb {evi Fisch ot Zyachow who sted the Torah onthe ight of Niel whee Sage doar no hi hame, om which me he ndestck never estat the rah {mths night For ny im this connection see hu Enc foped, V6.0 quoting, Mathew 20 an Ph 32} 15, Bloch, fond he Ran, Be and Venn 025, Bp, 2M: Zohar inthe uncensored eds, se G. Dalman, ious Chet he Tamad Mart Zar, Aro Press New York 1%. Oar fe 2lur ears and Brando, erusalem, 976 slat law f Ase: Ser eva Fas cd CO Erlanger frase, 1035p. 28 and Eaange's oie ska bo raat Will G rude, Yale University Pres, 1% v2 pp Sha Yisar Vol, Mama Hale Tn pp 29a Dunes Hei eal. 254 Letter2 Ch Set Lim, dR Marpal,Jeruse, 1575. hp. 3s) forthe sant who preter ule malate th low the Messh osu Tam rate Proetaoe Raphael Loewe for slg sous toy Ge Dat Hine Stab p34 Muti Sh Mutt Kft ad that alte sary versions have the Rash asin the cue rent texts but se the Cumentry set Rl pend Tn te masa he Va ena «who understand the passage in the same wa asthe Manes, se ak Sua tru rch Cok Noted pp 445m Haya ve-Sab, Hd uh 02 9th the Slambacer aes Mabel and had circumcised ver 3000 ‘ey ‘apart rom the preys he had comert Be xz. M x. w. ‘The Munrkacer Rebbe on Christianity 181 Responsa Minh: lar Vol 2, 90.72 Vol 2 nos 27 and. On the whole question of whether the Halakhists consider ‘Chrstianty tobe litry ss Jct Kata Elgon ately Onord Uneeny Prens, 1961; my Tho fe Resor, Landon, 195, nde hay” andy fice Attaes Chistian vr HsRoah tudes freon th ghee ‘inhday of MWe) 2 Fall, real, 167 pp me Varo 2 Vor 3 no.a8 Dive Fn pat one mw 92 Scholes, Te Mean Ji, New York. 195, pp 297-1BY THE SAME AUTHOR lewis Paw A Guide to Rosh HaShanah 4 Guide to Yor Kippur eis Vales Studies i Tala Logie and Methodology The Pay Te of Detra (Translated from the Hebrew of Moses Cordovero, ‘with Introduction and Notes) Tract on Festasy [Translated from the Hebrew of Dobh Baer of Lubavitch, ‘with Introduction and Notes) Principles ofthe lewis Fait Aw analytical Study 4 Jewish Theology The Talmudic Argument Helping with lnguiries Torah, irae the Unoitual ich: Homilies wl Sermon In production for 2005 Iudaism and Theat Fssays on the fevish Religion Ratiinte Thought ithe Talmud THEIR HEADS IN HEAVEN Unfamiliar Aspects of Hasidism _LOUIS JACOBS a VALLENTINE MITCHELL. LONDON + PORTLAND, OR 005