« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »

[Page 316]

II. The Makhloykes (Feud) Sandz – Sadgora (cont'd)

(In the middle of his pure prayers he brings in an abundance of blessing and drew from life) – aside from his piety “in maintaining the life of poor people and clothing the naked”[67].

E. “The Great Shvues” [an early summer holiday celebration of the first fruits and the giving of the Toyre to the Jews {Weinreich}] Enflamed the Quarrel in Sandz

Communication between the Galician rabeim finally brought concrete results. On Shvues in 1869 approximately one hundred rabeim and rabbis and also two thousand Hasidim together went to Sandz. Tuesday, isrekhag [the day following a Jewish holiday], all the people stormed into the shul. On the way, they stopped at the besmedresh [small Orthodox synagogue] of the khevre-kedishe [burial society] and there they read the excommunication of Nisn Bak and his group who had, at the Wailing Wall, in Safad and in Tiberia offended the saint and goyen [genius, brilliant man] R' Chaim. After the reading of the excommunication, they blew ten blasts on the shoyfer [the ram's horn][68]. Arriving at the shul, which was so packed that one almost had to stand on someone's head, the sexton of the bezdin read the judgment of the collected rabeim against the Sadgora, with the following contents:

“New groups sprung up calling themselves by the name Hasidim from Sadgora, their customs and methods are against the holy Toyre . . . they are the insolent people of the generation”. They rebuke “saintly men who have already been resting in Ganeydn [Garden of Eden] for hundreds of years”. “We also resent the way their wives and daughters publicly conduct themselves frivolously and as “idolators of the Jewish faith . . .” “On all of them we have put a lock on our mouths and were silent and cherished the honor of their holy forefathers” “but now, as is known to all, one and only one among the brothers revolted and ran away from the community, it is obvious that this very path against our holy Toyre is distorted and corrupt, and this is its fruit. In addition, this very sect, with justification in their impure mouths that his path was extremely high and not every keen mind could endure it, as the communities from near and far turned toward the 'Goyen [brilliant scholar] of the People' for advise, “and he should live in his great passion for God and for His holy Toyre; they answered God's words that this is the din [religious law] that they must withdraw to the furthest place.” But they not only did not reform their ways, but their malamdim [teachers for young children] teach the students only “azes [insolence] and niblpe [obscene language] and shikhres [drunkenness]”. The villains have a copper star and brag “they blaspheme and curse the tsadikim [the saints] and geoynim [brilliant men] of the current generation, who desire only the Toyre, because they moralize in your face, as if they are, for example, the Goen [holy man of the Toyre] upon whom the entire House of Israel relies, and who is famous in all corners of the world with his Toyre and holiness”:

[Page 317]

They have blasphemed him in the Holy Land. And, therefore, in order to cherish the honor of Toyre and its dignity, we have gathered signatures in order to consider what their penalty should be. From the Toyre the punishment is clear, that “they deserve to be cut off from the people of Israel, they should not have any share or any nakhle [inheritance, lot {of land}] in the land of Israel…as our Master the Geyon, wrote about how they shall live”. Nevertheless, the assembly felt it was necessary to turn to all the /Geyonim and learned men should point the way “as the RaSHBa z”l [may his memory be blessed] [acronym for Rabbi Shlomoh ben Adereth {14th century}. He was from Barcelona; many of his responsa dealt with explaining difficult Biblical passages] and our holy rebbes from the time of the Shabbetai Tzevi [17th century false messiah] sect and others like them”. The judgment ended with an appeal to those Geyonim and Tsadikim that they should accept it for the glory of the Toyre, “because there is nothing left for us but this Toyre.” “And those who choose other means not according to the Toyre even by a hair is considered a sort [heretic] and everything he wrote about this sect's holiness the Goen of Sandz is according to the religion law of the Toyre and according to Halokhe [Halakah, the legislative part of the Toyre].” “Therefore, please do this in order to save Jewish souls from descending into the grave and the entire sect of wickedness should be annihilated like smoke, and the Tzadikim shall live with their faith and may we zoykhe zayn [live to see] the Messiah come bekorev [soon]. Amen”.[69]

Forty-six rabonim and daynim [assistant to the rabbi] signed the judgment, mainly Western and Middle Galicia and Hungary, among them the raboynim from Gorlice, Zmigrod, Linsk, Sanok, Sokolow Malopolski, Kolbuszowa, Przecław, Limanowa, Anusin, Sumery, Stryszawa, Barycz, 񎜁towice; the rabbi from Tarnow did not sign but the dayn did (Pesakh Yehuda haCohen). The several rabbis from Congress Poland who singed were from Kshianz (Yakov Yitzhok Frenkil twins) Krotchin and Frempol. The last one on the list, from Sandz itself, R' Berish Dayn (Dov Berish Perlshteyn morey tzedek [“teacher of the righteous”' Rabbi] dk”k [from the holy people] of Sandz) signed, R'Eylish Dayn (Elia Bergman Dayn dk”k hn”l [the one mentioned earlier]) and R' Moyshe Dayn (Moyshe Kleynnad, one of the members of the exalted bezdin dk”k hn”l) the fact that not all of the hundred raboynim present, only fewer than a half were on the list explained it with this, that a third of the raboynim and daynim asked him not to give out their names because of various motives, and especially the fact that they were afraid to risk their lives because of the “reshoim [villains, malicious people] and the powerful who hang around where they live …[70]

The ruling of the Rabbinic assembly in Sandz, that was either according to the contents, or according to the style was a sanction for R' Chaim's letter to Rzeszów, from before Purim, blew in a new dose of terrible fanaticism into the quarrel against the Sadgora. In Sandz itself, it only took several days for the informal heyrem against the Sadgora to result in bloody persecutions.

[Page 318]

We learn directly and indirectly from Sandz the following: that it was sent to the Vienna “Naye Fraye Prese” [“New Free Press”] the 25th of May:

Pages from the Sadgora heyrem in Eretz-Isroyl against the Sandzer Rov turned up suddenly in several places, even in R' Chaim's window and in his bed (nothing less, but this was the answer of the opponent of the “Divrei Chaim” to the ruling of a hundred raboynim, (dem “groysn shvues” “The Great Oath” – R.M.).[71] The Sandzer Hasidim suspected that this was a little business by two Jews who had been enemies of the Sandzer Rov for a long time (Sadgora Hasidim – R.M.), Hersh Ungar and Mendl Ehrlich[72]. When the two Jews appeared Shabes (four days after the act in the shul, Parshas Nase –R.M.), the 22nd of May in the “Synagogue” (in besmedresh – R.M.), they were, the men of the “Hasidisher Partey”, were attacked, their clothing torn, they were thrown out of the”Temple” (besmedresh) and so battered (“mishandled”), that only when four “police soldiers” with bayonets came, were they saved from further beating.

The day after, Sunday the 23rd of May, at about 10 o'clock at night, the 'fanatical mob”, got together to finish off the two opponents of the Sandzer Rov. It turns out that they wanted to practically beat them black and blue and had prepared a stretcher for the action, in order to carry Hersh Ungar off to the cemetery. The commotion was so terrible and the screaming so loud, that the police came, but the yelling mob did not let the police through and threw stones at them. Then (the police authorities) began to ring the town bell on the city hall to sound an alarm, and smaller police patrols came, but they could not figure out what to do to quiet “the agitated Jews”. Only when soldiers came, did the mob run away. Meanwhile, the correspondent, on Tuesday, the 25th, outward calm reigned. Since the mood was so agitated, there was a fear that the excesses would break out again. It also seems that these occurrences gave a justification to the ruffian elements to prepare themselves for an attack on Jews, since the correspondent, who was not friendly to Jews, ended his report with the remark that the “fronleichnam [Corpus Christi –German] (Bozy Cialo) [Corpus Christi in Polish] here in town would have never gone through without a scuffle between Jews and Christians”[73].

The role-call at the meeting in Sandz for the ”brilliant men and wise me” to adhere to the holy quarrel against the Sadgorer had a great effect and the majority of the fighters quickly spread, taking in not only new “wise men” Hasidic leaders, but also distinguished misnagdishe raboynim in Galicia and Poland. Kehiles such as Sniatyn spoke up. In a letter to R' Chaim from the 24th of Sivan[74] signed by the heads and other outstanding members of the communities telling the leader of the kehile, that also in the Sniatyn area there were followers of “the cursed sect, the Hasidim from ps”l*.

*hps'l – a play on words from the first letters of p”gl , see above, page 308

[Page 319]

There were, among the teachers of the boys, those who did nothing but get drunk in the taverns and rebuke the “grandiose hearts”. The kehile had heard that R' Chaim together with the rabeim and wise men of the generation had initiated a fight, but they had not received any notice whatsoever. They asked, regarding this, that they be sent information and they would execute everything that had been ordered against the evil ones, “in order to exile the evil spirits from the earth”[75]

Among the rabeim who had, in the first few weeks until the beginning of Tamez [Tamez, the tenth month in the Jewish calendar including parts of June and July] responded positively to the message from the Sandzer brilliant men and wise men confirming their decision, were R' Dovid Shpira from Dinov;[76] the circuit rov from Ungvar, R' Menachem, a son of R' Eliezer Klir, author of Mayorae Aish[77]; the famous author of sforim [sacred books] on Halokhe [rabbinical literature], R' Shloyme Ganzfried from Ungvar[78]. At the same time as this action that was concentrated in Sandz, the Lviver rov Natanzohn, sent a separate letter to the raboynim in Eretz Yisroyl to punish these Sadgora who freely place a ban against R' Chaim Sandzer, Nisn Bak and their group. The well-known supervisor of the Eretz Yisroyl funds in Europe, Akiva Lehrn from Amsterdam, in a letter on the first day of Tamez answered the Lviver rov, that he had sent his message to Eretz Yisroyl. In every city where there were koylim [unions of kehiles of lands] in Austria, he added to the letter a “medoe rabeh” [announcement] that he had received from the koylel [union] in Galicia in Tiberia: the union justifies itself, that not only had he not participated in the local “blasphemy” of R' Chaim, on the contrary: they called an assembly and there annulled the blasphemy and blessed R' Chaim. Even from the union in Volin there were many people who had not wanted to sign the heyrem, but they had been coerced with threats that their ability to make a living would be taken away. On that announcement there were 56 signatures.[79] Ten days later, the second of Tamez, the aforementioned Torner Rov Israel k'ts [a true priest] Rapoport gave his assent with the Lwower rov about his letter to Eretz-Yisroyl against the aforementioned Sadigorer. A copy of that answer to Lwow, in which the extent of the knowledge of the “Divrei Chaim” in Toyre, prayer and wisdom was written down with great yires-hakoved [veneration], was sent to the besdin in Sandz, by the Torner rov asking them to please inform the “Divrei Chaim”.[80]

During the second week of Tamez two events occurred that brought about the strengthening of the action against the Sadgorer on the part of the center in Sandz. The above-mentioned “kolkoyre” [proclamation] was issued in the name of R' Berenyu on the seventh day of Tamez. Just when the Sadgora Hasidim drew encouragement and strength from that open declaration from the penitent, then the opponents of the Sadgora had evidence that on one side, the Sadgora brothers identify with their brother, the heretic, instead of washing their hands of him.

[Page 320]

On the other side those against this now had the opportunity to complain that the Sadgora Hasidim were led on by their rabeim who were silent when their Hasidim had justified R' Berenyu's stories as “higher that high” and “higher than human understanding” while now he himself has acknowledged that he had sinned mostly because he was not clear of mind at the time.

It could have been that the news of the “kolkoyre” of Berenyu was immediately sent by telegraph by the Sadgorer leaders that the “kolkoyre” to their trustees in Eretz-Yisroyl. Generally, it would take barely five days after the “kolkoyre” was issued and the trustees of the Sadgora koyl in Eretz-Yisroyl came near to a new attack against R' Chaim Halbershtam. On the twelfth day of Tamez, Nisn Bak and his group called together their followers and in the name of the three holy cities Jerusalem, Sfad and Tiberia, proclaimed a new heyrem on the Sandzer rov with the proof that he did not repent and did not take back his “blasphemies of the tzadikim”. To that very heyrem they attached 189 signatures asserting in a comment that they have “many times over” more signatures that they omitted because there was no more room for them. Characteristic is the fact that among the signatures there was not even one who came from Galicia; where the city was mentioned, it was a city in Volin, Podolia, Moldova and Besarabia-provinces that were entirely or partially controlled by the Sadgorer union. Immediately after the first kheyrem after Pesakh, the Sadgorer issued a polemic against under the title “Kol Mheykhol”. Then they had the second kheyrem of the twelfth of Tamez issued in a new larger edition of the brochure under the same title “Kol Mheykhol” (subtitle ”Toykhekhes Megule”) [threats of banishment][81]

F. The Actions of Rabeim toward the Sandzer “Psakdin” [Verdict]

As an answer to the “kolkoyre” from R' Berenyu and the second heyrem in Eretz-Yisroyl against R' Chaim, the followers from Sandz undertook a new campaign against the Sadgora in which it succeeded in mobilizing several well-known rabeim. Earlier these rabeim had stood apart from the quarrel. This time they were not satisfied with spreading the published psakdin [verdict] by the Sandzer asife hrabeim [assembly of rabeim]. Only the besdin from Sandz had, in the name of the other assembly, separately sent a letter to the well-known rabeim, to each one separately. Among the well-known rabeim in Galicia, the Stanislower rov, R' Issacher Hurvitz answered with a great outcry against the Sadgorer.

[Page 321]

In his letter of the 21st of Tamez[82], he spilled out his sorrows on R' Berenyu for his sins and sealed [stamped??] either his open letter, or his “kolkoyre”. He sent out a “well-done” to the holy Goyen of Sandz that he had “bared the sword against the new sect”[83]

Among the rabeim in Congress-Poland, the Kaliszer rov, R' Chaim Elezar Waks, for years a great admirer of “Divrei Chaim[84], not only with zeal answered the letter from Sandz, but voluntarily took on the role of agitating other rabeim in Poland to join in the action. In his letter to Sandz he described the danger of “Shifles hatorah” [debasing the Torah] certainly installing itself at the present time, when the rabbis in Germany prevent assemblies[85], where they destroy religion and faith, blotting out the memory of Jerusalem and of the return to Zion, and removed this from the prayers and tell Jews to be like the other goyim, and even in Poland, Russia and Galicia there are many “who have hate in their hearts” (against traditional religion) and this heresy strengthens them. R' Chaim who is fighting against the “sects”, he quotes our teacher, our holy genius, holy of the holy, one of our great scholars. He felt that the proposition of the Sandzer bezdin that he should announce a condemnation of the Sadgora was unnecessary, because in the entire province (of Kalisz) you cannot find one follower of that sect.[86]

As a result of the answers of the rabeim to the message of the Kaliszer rov to embrace the honor of R' Chaim, the letter from the Brester rov, R' Tzvi Hirsh Orenshtein and from the Warsaw rov, R' Dov Berish Meyslish. R' Berish Meyslish answered (27th of Tamez), that he blesses the Sandzer, “the brilliant saintly man, consecrated elder, Holy one of Yisroyl” because he has “covered himself with zeal” against those who incite the people's mob, as the well-known (R' Berenyu- -R.M.) had not sinned with all his unworthiness and that his path is exalted and concealed and is as high as the Holy Toyre”. He added that he would write at length to Eretz-Yisroyl against their sin; that their law was ruled upon just like the law for anyone who has degraded wise men.[87] three days later, the 30th of Tamez, the rov Meylish did write a letter addressed to leaders of the Warsaw union in Eretz-Yisroyl Yitzhok Dovid and Alter Mendl and to the leaders Yehuda Leyb and Meir Oyerbakh in Yerushalyim. He stated the satisfaction that the Warsaw union “had not allowed themselves to fall into the net of the Voliner” and did not go along with the battle against the “Holy Sage of Israel”. The forlorn “little tails and cindersare worthy that “we should pour hot lead on their thick lips” that spoke insolently against the “sage, the great man, the wise, the truthful”…wonder of his generation very eminent”.

[Page 322]

That wise man had truly “from youth on, left the trivialities of the world and had joined the Toyre with love, and had labored until he had attained the strength to rise as an adult up to heaven, so far, that not one single mystery is hidden…he is full of remarkable Toyre over the edges…” R' Berish Meyslish also told of his timeless vision without a fighter of quarrels and battles he had initially remained silent, but when the tumult gets worse each day, he decided to turn to those addressed, they should warn the guilty that they are obliged to beg pardon of “the rov, the goyen, the saint of Sandz”. If not, the penalty of one who has degraded the sages and desecrated the honor of his rebe and the honor of the Toyre, G-d forbid go into effect. Finally, he challenged the community that he would publicly declare that he had not laid a hand on anyone that the Voliner had turned away, because the rabble had discriminated against one community or another but had rebuked all the residents of Eretz-Yisroyl[88].

The fact that the chief rabbi of the capital city of Poland had such apparent yires-hakoved [veneration] for the Chaim Sandzer put his great authority on his side, supporting the punishment of his offenders in Eretz-Yisroyl and did not fail to make a great impression everywhere the repercussions of the great quarrel reached. For the honor of R' Chaim he also took on the Brester rov, R' Tsvi Hirsh Orinshtayn, although he brought to the quarrel a tone of sobriety, impartiality and responsibility, expressing reservations against the to-do from the action against the Sadigorer. In regard to the message from the Sandzer besdin, the Brester rov wrote on the 13th of Tamez:

He read the open letter (from R' Berenyu) and learned with even more aggravation, that his odd custom of heresy was even noted as a holy path. As for the proceedings, one must think that we may not judge and punish according to the informational testimony, one must have the testimony of the one who knows the facts. The sages were entirely correct in undertaking remedies in the emergency according to their understanding. This can only be done by great men with great understanding; they also have to be cautioned well and well-thought of, because this deals with those who want to throw off the burden of Toyre and the accuracy of mitsves (special mitves), or they want to get closer to God, but they got lost along the way. We also have to adopt the tactic of dividing the wrongdoers and not announcing quarrels against all without distinction. The rov Orenshtayn also brought longer citations from an answer by rshb'a [Rabbi Shlomoh ben Adereth {14th century}], that certainly in “holy warfare”, you have to be very cautious before you begin dealings and you have to examine that you are not driven by anger and even “by ardent zeal for God's blessing”, all the more so, the Brester rov warned, since you have to be particularly cautious more with the blaze than with a little flame from a small light “especially in our times, when people lurking, from the modern spirit lie in wait for us”.

[Page 323]

Aside from the “moderns” he wants you to understand with a wink, that the government can certainly be interested “in strengthening the flaming fire against our will”. This does not mean to weaken the hands of “the raboynim the great men in the Toyre and in Hasides”, who have placed themselves to defend the walls. But the point is a very delicate one, therefore we have to warn the rabeim that they should carefully think about all guarantees, before they decide what sort of tactic to pursue.[89]

Two weeks later, on the 16th of Tamez, the Brisker rov answered the Kaliszer rov Waks on his manner of expression referring to his answer to the Sandzer bezdin regarding the tactic of all the Sadgora, he states in regard to the blasphemy of “holy man of Israel, the Goyen, the Hasid” R'Chaim Sandzer is not according to R' Chaim alone, to place attention on them. It seems that “the body/lion of the group wants urgently to help the little repairs”. Because of their insignificance he is also against them speaking about the quarrel.[90]

A sober voice in the camp of the enthusiasts of “Divrei Chaim” was also vocal in Eretz-Yisroyl. In the same month, Tamez, the head of the bezdin in Jerusalem, the former Kaliszer rov R' Meir ben Yitzhok Oyerbakh, answered the Lwower rov Natanzohn and the eleven rabeim who signed his message about admonishing those Sadgora in Eretz-Yisroyl who devotedly threw themselves into the fight against the Sandzer goyen and were excommunicated, that they would be punished, if they did not want to take back their blasphemies. The Yerushalyimer rov ask if this is a way to quell a quarrel. Then, if the Lwower rov does not understand that the Sadgorer in Eretz-Yisroyl, threw themselves into the fight against the Sandzer goyen with devotion, because he had dishonored the glory of “the brothers” who they think of as “Holy from their mothers' belly”? If the Sandzer Goyen had come out publicly only against the individuals who were exceptions and cautioned the people not to believe in their false and foolish beliefs, they would (the leaders of the Sadigorer in Eretz-Yisroyl) not have been able to open their mouths and lift their heads for shame; but the goyen, the Hasid had declared war against all those who hold on to the edge/hem of his clothes and he stamped all of them as irreligious and heretics; It is no wonder that they mobilized to fight in what they consider a fight for God's way. It does not hinder them that they know their negligible worth compared to “The Cedars of Lebanon”. And so they overcame the sam [the devil] and the quarrel died out.

R' Meir Oyerbakh believed that he did not have to affirm how much he and the rabeim were pained to watch how people “without taste and without a fragrance that is even equal to the ankle of the sinful (the holy old man), giving him advice and blowing on the shoyfer [shofar] (of heresy)…

[Page 324]

He was beside himself, when he heard about what had happened in Safad. This is their foolish way to throw fear on the simple folk with shoyfers and heresy and that is the way in the last winter they also permitted the Hasidim from Sadgorer and from Sandz to Tsetromeytern to carry on inappropriate conversations. He, R' Meir had done his duty and together with the bezdin from Jerusalem permitted call on their leader (Nisn Bak- R. M.) and warned him that he had known that those people would not stop at anything. The result actually was that the leader had sent a letter to him signed by his people that he feels is not appropriate for him to have forwarded it to the Lwower rov.[91] Because of this R' Meir appealed to the Lwowver rov not to hurry with any action against the banning the inhabitants from the holy land, who are also deserted and forlorn; the Tarnopoler rov[92] correctly asked that “the residents in Eretz-Yisroyl do not know what to do”, that is they are the victim who they want to crush between the two fighting sides. Consequently, the Jerusalem rov turned to the Lwower rov Natansohn and through him to the Galicianer that they should “Seriously study their Toyre”, with their authority to make a true peace.[93]

In Galicia itself, the Wiœniczer rabbi, R' Mendl, the son of the well-known pious Chaim Kosover and son-in-law of R' Yisraytche Ruziner, tried to quiet down the quarrel after the assembly in Sandz, in a friendly letter, he should beg pardon of his Sadgora brothers-in-law. In his answer, R' Chaim again listed all the sins of the Sadgora Hasidim and their rabeim. The Sadgora Hasidim beat and inform against everyone who does not agree with their faith, that R' Berenyu is a saint or almost the Messiah. “They spend entire days gorging themselves and guzzling and speak mockingly about the saints of their generation and of the oral law”. [Principles of Jewish Law transmitted originally to Moshe (Moses) by G-d at Mt. Sinai to be transmitted from parents to children or from teachers to students. {Judaism 101}] In Ustrzyki Dolne,they say positively that the 'Shulkhan Arukh' [the Legal Code] is not for Hasidim and that the Gemore [Contains explanations of the Written Law], is just hair-splitting of tender lies, and that one does not have to look into a muser-sefer [the ethical book] as one used to do”.[94] Their rabeim do not protest against their Hasidim, on the contrary, they encourage them. R' Chaim also mentioned the heresy in Eretz-Yisroyl and the judgment against him by the rogues in Russia on the basis of false witness. And certainly now, when the great men of the generation have ruled that their witness was a false witness and every day they stand up their great men and thousands of Jews “want the lord, the rebbe to live as long as it will take before I shall be persuaded and write that they are saints”. R' Mendl never tried to persuade him that he should reconcile with heretics. “and say to a rogue 'you are a saint'”. Only under one condition would he be ready to write about them “in all the cities in goles [diaspora]” that they are saints and have repented with all their heart: “but if they want to publish an announcement in the name of all the brothers

[Page 325]

that their people invented the falsehood because they believe in the Toyre, and that they must not turn away from the language of the 'Shulkhan Arukh' and that there is not, God forbid any other path and that it is a mitsve to learn pilpul and svore and to daven in a loud voice, everyone according to his own intention, and that you must not ridicule anyone who davens in a loud voice nor distract them from their prayers, and not allow anyone into their homes who is a violator, and that they will wear begodim [clothing {of fabric permitted by Jewish law}][95], their wives will dress in respectable clothes as all Jewish daughter do…” the letter was signed by R' Chaim after all with friendliness: “Your friend who seeks your peace with love[96]

In this letter that contained the formulation of the principles of the quarrel of Sandz against Sadgora expressed the certainty of “Divrei Chaim” in his truculence, in the appearance of fact, that with every day the number of their followers grew. This very fact can really be illustrated by the many letters which kept on coming to Sandz from well-known rabeim.

From the rabeim in Congress Poland aside from R' Eliezeer Waks from Kalisz and R' Berish Mayzlish from Warsaw and also the famous rov from Kutne (“the Salvation of Yisroyl”), on 22 of Tamez, R' Israel Yehushe (R' Shiele Kutner) wrote a statement: He is certain that the “goyen”, the Light of Isroyel, “the righteous is an everlasting foundation” [a title of respect] “the Tanoim and Amoyroim, and the ancient Geyonim, stand up and champion his honor. But, whereas “the leading geoynim from the land of Galicia, zealous that the honor of the goyen shall live”, he deems it an honor to the Toyre that they concur, since according to his understanding, “everyone where a spark of love and fire for the Toyre burns in him” must do it[97]

In Tamez, Ab, Elul answers still came to Sandz from Galicia, from raboynim who joined R'Chaim's side in answer to the letter of the Sandzer bezdin sent to each and every one separately. Only the rabeim from Gródek and from Drogobych, held back their signatures. R' Yitzhok Yehushe, the Gródeker rov, made excuses (Parshas Pinhus 23rd of Tamez [Torah portion read on that day]) that he could not give his signature “against the well-known person here in our city”, because he cannot stand out for any “reason, and he cannot compare himself to the rabeim the “Lights of the Exile [prominent leaders]” because “they may and he may not”. “The true goyen and the famous tsadik” who has everyone on his side, does not need his signature…”[98].

The Drogobycher rov is, it seems, was not as hard-hearted as the Gródeker. On 28 Tamez the rov from Drogobych, R' Elihu, was informed of the answer to the Sandzer bezdin (with the names R' Berish Dayen [judge] and R' Moyshe Dayen in addition), that although “he burns with his entire heart to stand up on the side of goyen R' Chaim, he thinks it is impossible to deliver an expert opinion and to sign “not because of modesty” but because his minor importance is well-known)….[99]

[Page 326]

The rest of the rabeim from Galicia whose answer of that time were published, had, it seems, no real significant groups of Sadgora Hasidim in their cities and therefore, they were able to indulge themselves by declaring their signatures. The rov from Ustrzyki Dolne, R' Yeshaye Zalman after the message from the Sandzer bezdin from the 14th day of Tamez answered the 6th of Ab that in the appearance of so many “Geoynim and Hasidim” he also gives his modest signature[100]. The Yavoriver rov, Moyshe ben Mordchai haCohen Rapaport, on the 13th day of Ab,[101] sent an entire tractate. He relates that when the news about R' Berenyu arrived, some compared him to R'Yohanen Cohen Godl [celebrity] and to Elishe ben Avoyeh. The signatures of the Sadgora brothers he puts opposite the saintliness of their father R' Israeltchik (as a young man, he did not copulate with his wife until the saint from Medzhibozh did not discourage him from that path…); in relation to the wantonness of the Sadgora rebetsins [wives of the rovs] in their dress, he speaks of the modesty of the rabeim from the Vaad Arba Arotses [Council of the Four Lands {an autonomous Jewish governing body in Eastern Europe in the 16th-18th centuries- U. Weinreich}] in Brody, who determined clearly which garments are permitted for men and women[102].

R' Yitzhok Izik Aykhensteyn, the rabbi of Komarno, in his answer to Sandz from the 26th of Ab dwelled at length on the ways of the Sadgorer. He told that he had attended eight “men of divine spirit”. Among them was “his father R' Hersh” (the Zhidachover) and the “Prophet of Lublin”, and all had joined the path of Toyre, Tfile and Evude [Torah, Prayer and Divine Service], but “the new – he emphasized just as R' Chaim Sandzer – makes fun of all who pray out loud or study out loud, and they believe that Toyre and Mitzves are given out not for the learned and think they can reach religious ecstacy without having studied day and night. This all, he stated, comes from Aristotle's worldly learning…He praises the wise man “whose holy name is R' Chaim”, that he should live long, to one hundred and twenty and be strong, and also those who adhere to him, because whoever strengthens him, strengthens the Toyre [103]

The Mostiskaver rov R' Ariye Leybish, used to turn to his relative by marriage, R'Chaim Sandzer with shayles-tshuves [opinions on matters of law]. So he was very willing to answer the appeal of the assembly of raboynim in Sandz. His characterization of the “new sect” is that they want to destroy the restraint of the saints and “to state that one can serve Hashem-yisborekh [the Lord] without the path of the holy Toyre. The speech of the Sandzer assembly of rabeim is, therefore, as if it were the Toyre from Mount Sinai[104].

[Page 327]

The Komyonker rov R' Jehoash, the son of RBIM R' Sholem who was R' Chaim's friend, answered the Sandzer bezdin exactly like the Mostiska rov, except concerning the authority of the decisions of the Sandzer assembly that are exactly like “The Religion of the Toyre”. He calculates as a confirmation the deceased saints who he had known personally, like his father R' Sholem Kamyonker, the Ropczycer, the Zhidachover, R' Hersh Rimanover, R' Zvi Alimlekh from Dynów, the Wiscnicer, the Belzer (R' Sholem); they never ceased studying with the people as a person cannot on any account come to perfection without study and devoting himself to “The Sanctified Toyre* And without the existence of regular commandments (unpretentious) and whoever doubts this is a kind of heretic. About “the saintly genius, guardian of Toyre”, he can also bring as witness the other sainted geyonim who also had had meetings with him on the anniversaries of death, such as in Lancet and in Rimanov every one had said of him that he is a saintly person[105].

Among the last rabeim who had sent their signatures to Sandz during 1869 were the rov from Nayshtat (month of Iyyar) R' Chaim Yakov (without a date) and the Melitser rov Yehuda Hurvitz (the eighth of Elul). Both call the Sadgor destroyer of the Toyre; the Nayshteter: “the wicked rebel against the light”; the Mielecer: “the light of the holy Toyre[106]. Rzeszów, the city that started the quarrel, did not sneak by with the signature of rov (Nahum Rueben Felsker) and from the righteous teacher (R' Yitzhok Chaim Vallershteyn) but also provided the signatures of the following two members of the bezdin, the daynim [assistants to the rabbi] R' Moyshe Zav BM”A and R” Abraham Yeushua Heshil Setsinboym. It is also not remarkable, that in that very letter they gave the “Divrei Chaim” the greatest praise and titles: He is mentioned as one of “the light in their eyes,” “the honorable”, and the letter ends with the proclamation: “Take action”[107].

Hungary sent their activist rabeim from six cities: R' Shmuel Shmelki from Selish (Salash), R'Yoel Zvi from Afhala parshas Bolekthe 14th of Tamez, R' Moyshe Katz from Biecz, – Neydorf, Tuesday, the 20th of Tamez; R' Shloyme Zalman Perilshteyn from Insdorf (Tuesday the 20th of Tamez); R' Mordchai Eliezer Weber from Ada (Parsha Pinkhes–10 Tamez ) and R' Jekuthiel Yehuda Teytlboym from Siget (the third day in Parsha Akev-the first of Av)[108]. Aside from Afhala the raboynim from these Hungarian cities were mentioned earlier in the Shayles Vtshuves of the “Divrei Chaim”. It is necessary also to mention, that the rov from Insdorf was the son of R' Berish Dayan in Sandz and the rov fom Siget was a relative of R' Chaim, the father-in-law of his son R' Barukh.-

*The open Toyre, as distinguished from the concealed Toyre, the Kabole [a Jewish mystical Philosophy]

[Page 328]

As we see, the rov from Siget, R' Jekuthiel Yehuda Teytlboym had answered. He justifies himself in his letter that he writes from Bad Triskevitz for he lateness of his response, since he had not felt it was necessary “to chase that fly”, thinking that they “they themselves spread out a net for their feet” and that “for the great honor of saintly rabeim it is proper for them to remain silent; first, after he had seen that so many geyonim and holy men had raised the sword to elevate the faith in the Toyre”. He also stretched out his hand “to chop up the villains”. But Sandzer Hasidim knew that the famous Sigeter rov, and grandchild of the Jihlavar rov R' Moyshe Teytlboym, had so long hesitated to strike because he was not able to convince himself to come out publicly in a fight against the children of the honorable R' Israelche Ruzhiner[109]

All the letters from the Hungarian rabeim tell of their love for R' Chaim Halbershtam: The Selisher rov calls him”goyen Isroyl and Saint”; the rov from Ada supports him. He also calculates among R' Chaim's great virtues “his distribution of alms and support for the hand of the poor and needy to which all who know him will bear witness that this is true.” The Insdorfer rov calls him “Prince of the Toyre” The rov from Petchi-Neydorf, labels him “Sainted prince, man of God” and apply to him what the Sifrei [the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy] says about Moyshe Rabeynu. The rov from Aphala speaks of him as “Prince over all Jews in the Diaspora”, Rebenyu Meir: “Holy Genius …etc”. His father-in-law (or son?) the Sigeter rov speaks about him with the words,”man of God” Chaim “Protector of the Toyre, Holy Genius”

The letter from R' Shmuel Shmelki, the rebbe of Zaliztsi, is very instructive concerning the situation in the Hungarian kehiles in those days. He complains about: “Although we are bavoynese ynu-ho-rabim [in view of our many sins {said with reference to the inevitability of an unfavorable development –U. Weinreich}], as is known, the death of Meshiakh approaches and the holy Toyre will be completely eradicated…and we do not have to go to other lands, since we have enough and even excess in our own places, in view of our many sins” He concludes with apology, since he must be brief “because we are so seriously occupied with protecting the Toyre in our country”[110]. While the Kalusher rov, R' Chaim Eliezer Waks spoke about the Reform movement in neighboring Germany, at that very time in Hungary the rift among the kehiles occurred.

[Page 329]

On the 5th of February 1869, when the Congress of Hungarian Kehiles, controlled by the reformer overthrew the proposal of the Orthodox with an overwhelming majority (48 to 172), about recognizing the Shulkan Arukh as the basis of the Jewish religion, the 48 Orthodox deputies left the Congress. But the administrative authority ruled that it stands to reason that the decisions of the Congress apply to all the kehiles. After that there were protest activities on the part of the Orthodox kehiles. On March 18th 1870, the Hungarian Parliament decided that the Orthodox had the right not to submit to the decisions of the Congress. Therefore, the letter of the summer of 1869 from the Zaliztsir rov, writing with great zeal that the intense group of the Orthodox revoke the evil decree, that had subjected them to the decisions of the Congress in the spirit of the Reform Rabbinate.

G. The Polemic Literature and the Outcome of the Quarrel

The letter from the rabeim that followed expressed the character of the quarrel in the polemic literature. Just as the old-time Hasidim in the polemic against the Misnagdim, the Sadgora Hasidim blamed their opponents from the Sandzer camp for the pedantry in “Shulkhan Arukh” and hollow pilpul [hairsplitting] and instead of study with deep love for God.[111]. They use similar tactics as the old-time Hasidim; just as in the time of the Vilner Goyen, Hasidim, because of their great authority had to come down to the maneuver of explaining that the letter of Sivan 28 1869 against them is false[112]. That is how the Sadgorer Hasidim in the early days of the quarrel tried to say that the:”Divrei Chaim's” letter to Rzeszów was not signed in his own hand.

On the other hand the Sadgora were found guilt in the polemic in similar sins such as the Hasidim in the polemic writings of the Misnagdim: sins against Jewish religious law from “Shulkhan Arukh”, the distraction in studying Gemore and verdicts in practice and in theory, idlers and drunks, a few sins of the Sadigorer that are underlined in the polemic, recalling not only the Misnagdim's brochures of the end of the 18th century, from a Dovid from Maków Podhalañski[113], but even the anti-Hasidic literature of the Haskole: the idolatrous agreement among the rabeim, the accumulation of sins by the rabeim through exploitation of poor Hasidim. The author of the “second open letter”, in response to the “open letter” of R' Berenyu[114] led to the stress of the admonished holy man, who had turned away from his Hasidim: “and they (the Hasidim – R. M.) were estranged by you, after you had emptied their pockets, with arrogance and contempt. And you made their gold and silver yours, and if they were loathsome to you, why did you covet their goods?

[Page 330]

Surrender the riches that you stole from them by swindling and lying to them.”[115].

Concerning R' Nisn Bak and his followers, the gaboim [trustee] from Sadigorer community in Eretz-Ysroyl, repeat the accusation that they overstuff their pockets with the money that is being collected in Russia and for the unfortunate “in the interests of the poor” of the community not more than dry bread is left for them – lekhem tsar [the bread of adversity].[116]

Just as rib”l [abbreviation of the name of Rabbi Yitzhak Ber Levinsohn] and other Maskilim portray Hasidic rabeim as partners in the smuggling businesses of their Hasidim[117] that is how the Sadgora rabeim were blamed by their opponents for forged paper money. The author of “Who Opens the Eyes of the Blind” asks the Sadgora rhetorically: “If it would occur to you that other rov would make something like a business with false papers?”[118] and “Break the Sinners”, the brochure that clearly included the name of one of the first Misnagid anti-Hasidic brochures, R' Berenyu called “Ber Onozyfn” (play on words: I, Ber the False), with a clarification that he accumulated his entire wealth from “a familiar” hoax of forgery[119] .Even more characteristic is the analogy between anti-Hasidic Haskole-literature and the polemical literature against the Sadgorer in shielding the opponents such as the ameratsim [ignoramuses] and boorish Jews who live in backward provinces: prominent Galician Maskil Yosef Perl and Nahman Krokhmal list Wallachia as an example of those repressed areas where the Hasidic ignorance can spread[120]; The authors of “The Letter of the Second Revelation” and of “Break the Sinners” especially point to Moldova, except for Bukovina and “Rusland” (Ukraine) in contrast to Galicia, where the “ignoramuses” (boors) put together the Hasidic clients of Sadgorer[121].

The analogy comes from that the first Maskil of R' Krokhmal's era and the Hasidim from the Sandzer school of thought had had the same attitude of respect for learning and disrespect for ignoramuses. This attitude on the part of Maskilim continued to a certain extent into the era of the quarrel: the “advocate” who wrote at length in the first phase of the quarrel, did not conceal his esteem for R' Chaim Halbershtam, the great scholar, although he absolutely condemned his evil decrees and persecutions against the Sadgora[122]. The bizarre fanaticism of the Sandzer Hasidim and their brutal attacks on the Sadigorer, on the other hand, apparently had the effect that actually in a number of cities in Galicia the sympathies of the Maskilim and clearly inclined them toward the Sadgora, as the persecuted side[123].

We also have a straightforward witness to the attitude of the Maskilim in regard to the Sadgora Hasidim in a great many details corresponded to the polemical literature against the Sadgora on the part of the Sandzer camp. In the Maskilic anti-Hasidic satire by Moyshe Orenshteyn “the devil is having fun on the day of Yom Kipur”[124] in this manner he characterized the doctrine and behavior of the Sadgora rebe R'Yekobnyu and his Hasidim:

[Page 331]

“No asceticism, no Toyre worship and no gmiles-khsodim [loans without interest]… their total holy worship to God is only to multiply possessions and wealth, accumulate all the gold and silver into your treasury, in order to use this (money) to establish and erect the palace of Meshiekh ben Dovid [Messiah, son of David]”. Orenshteyn also blamed the Sadgora rebe and his intimates for the false banknotes, Russian banknotes and for taking away money that was accumulated for the poor people in Eretz-Yisroyl.

Disregarding the impressions that the agreement with the rulings of the Sandzer assembly by the rabbis in Galicia and Hungary had called forth in those two lands, these impressions about the open proclamation without following with the actual ban against the Sadgora, were limited to a minority. It had already been settled in Congress Poland where the rabbis of all but four cities finally all signed the ruling from Sandz, while the number of those cities that were in bound to the “Divrei Chaim” in shayles-tshuves [responsa] amounted to about 25. In Galicia proper the amount that such impressions came to was not more than 34 cities and towns, although there were noted about 120 cities bound by shayles-tshuves with the “Divrei Chaim”. Even in Middle- and Western Galicia, where the Hasidim from Sandz were concentrated many cities were found that were not on the side of the Sandzer bezdin against the Sadgora: Senzdishav, Radomishl, Dzikov, Rozvadov[125], Rudnik, Glogov, Roptchits, Dulke, Pdzevorsk, Yeroslav, Holowits among the Hungarian cities, that were bound to the “Divrei Chaim” (in the tshuves correspondence, the proportion of those who responded positively to the letter from the Sandzer bezdin was much larger than in Galicia, not a quarter but a half (20 out of 38). Parodoxical is the fact that even rabbis from such Galician cities as – we already agreed upon Iasi in Moldova – Podhajce, Skalat, who, on their own initiative turned to the “Divrei Chaim” about instructions on how to act in connection with the Sadigorer, did not count among the cities that had signed at once in Sandz, or later joined the Sandzer call.

Of course in contrast with Hungary, groups of Sadgora were spread not only over Eastern Galicia but also in Middle- and Western Galicia but apart from the areas where Sadgora rebes live, Husyiatin and Chortchov, their following in Galicia was a minority in comparison with the Hasidim from all other rabeim together[126].

[Page 332]

Nothing less than a majority of the rabbis in Galicia, not only in all large cities, but also in the majority of small towns persisited on the side of the quarrel, a few because of their reverence for the Ruzhiner “line”, and the majority because they felt the ban against the Sadgora was too severe or unwarranted punishment[127]. It is also accepted that the same motives that prodded a portion of the highly esteemed rabbis such as the Kalusher rov to throw themselves into the fight from a distance: while there were those who had sen in the Sadgora Hasidim awful elements in resemblance to the danger of reform and enlightenment, the majority saw in the fight agaisnt Sadgora a weakening of the uniform front of the Orthodox against the modernization of religion and culture.

Disregarding the relatively small camp of the Sandzer rov, the quarrel against Sadgora smoldered until his death.The unusual effort of the “Divrei Chaim” to rescue the formerly plain people and the patriarchal character of Hasides, just as their efforts to strengthen the walls of traditional Orthodoxy in general, had already begun to waver. The Sandz-Sadgora quarrel had the very same crisis of Hasides and Orthodoxy in general, deepened even more. On the horizon for the Jewish settlements in Galicia and in Eastern Europe the dawn of the movement for national and socialisat renewal of the Jewish people had already begun.

Almost three years after the outbreak of the great quarrel against Sadigore, in 1872 the “Divrei Chaim” was destined to live through a very painful episode that caused a sensation in all of Galicia and had had repercussions in the Yidisher press from beyond the borders of the land. This was the story with the ban of Yosef Ameyzl (Yosl Zeltser)[128], Dr. Morits Ameyzl's grandfather and great-grandfather of Professor Zofia Ameyzl, another Sandzer Jew who had had a conflict with Yosef Ameyzl. He called him before a din-toyre, but the official circle rabiner did not want to go to any din-toyre, even after several dunning letters from the bezdin answering that if someone had a complaint againt him he can take him to court. At that time a ban against Yosef Ameyzl was issued for putting shame on the bezdin. The official area Rabbi at that time was the son of the “Divrei Chaim”, R'Aron. When Yosef Ameyzl complained in court about the ban that had been strictly forbidden according to the law, Rov R' Aron together with the rabbis were sentenced to a long term in prison. Only thanks to the intervention of the Krakover rov, R'Shimon Sofer, who had had an audience with the Justice Minister and then with Kaiser Franz Yosef himself, was R' Aron let out of prison after six weeks, and he spent the rest of the sentence only on house-arrest.[129].

[Page 333]

At the same time a second son of the “Divrei Chaim”, R' Dovid, the rebe of Chrzanów, also stood accused. It was reported that he had falsely written down as married several poor couples who had not had any marriage grant. However, the Kushanover rov was successful in having him freed by the court[130].

Three days after Pesakh in 1876, R' Chaim Halbershtam died at the age of 83. Barely five months earlier in the same year, the tragic life of the cause of the great quarrel, R' Berenyu Fridman ended[131]. With the death of the symbol-carrier of both fighting camps,the Sandz- Sadgora quarrel that had not ended by itself over a span of years died out by itself, ending a stormy chapter in the history of Galician and Eastern European Hasides and an era of “grandchildren”-epigonen [an inferior imitator of some distinguished writer or artist or musician {www.thefreedictionary.com}]

One of nicest stories of the “Divrei Chaim”, in the best tradition of Hasides was a satire on Rabbi's “eyniklekh” [grandchildren] without Toyre and without good manners who had merely accumulated the merits of their ancestors. He compared them to a horse, who boasts of his darling team adorned with diamondsa and pearls, and who a fox had unmasked for fun, that “he alone is really not more than an ordinary horse”[132].

It was a bit of historical irony that after the death of the “Divrei Chaim” and partly during his lifetime, an entire dynasty of his sons, sons-in-law, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren arose. The dynasties of Halbershtam which, over time, occupied positions of Orthodox rabbis in a great portion of western and middle- Galicia. True, they all strove to uphol the traditions of their great father, grandfather and great-grandfather, but not a single one of them excelled in unusually originality and learning, not with the novel manner of charity of the “Divrei Chaim”, and even the most outstanding personality among them, his oldest son R' Ikhzkal Winower[133], was a miniature of his father.

Image:

The yahrzeit of the “Divrei Chaim” on the Sandzer cemetery; a great number of people press toward the oyel [structure over the tomb of an important person {Jewish}]

[Page 334]

Image:

The Tombstone of the “Divrei Chaim”

[Page 335]

The situation of the remaining rebe's “dynasties” in “Galicia, Poland, and Ukraine were no different. The creative strength of Hasides had long runout.


Footnotes:

  1. Compare with R. Mahler, The Battle Between Haskole and Hasides in Galicia, New York, 1942, pp.. 176-183 Return
  2. The date of Israeltche's death is recorded in “Kol Mheykhol” – Parchment of Defence (?), Jerusalem. 1869, paragraph 3 Return
  3. Compare rm”z, “Maymer Shever Posheyim”, second part of “Yalket Haroim”, Odessa, 1870, p, 58. Return
  4. Ar”z, Ale Nidof, La Dubim Vla Yayar Hamelitz 1869, number 25, p. 167 Return
  5. Compare rm”z Divrei Tsadek, Hagdome tsum “Maymer Shever Posheyim” Odessa 1870, p. 51 Return
  6. In Poland, in the first half of the 19th century they used to call Hasidim kitajowcy, “The Silken Ones” because of iser shatnez [the prohibition against wearing cloth made of mixed linen and wool] they were completely dressed in silk long jackets. Compare R. Mahler “Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment”, 1961, p. 372 Return
  7. Maymer Shever Posheyim”, pp. 54, 68 Return
  8. Ibid, p. 57; compare, however, Yitzhok Abn, Quarrels Sandz and Sadigore, New York, 1916, who believes absolutely that it is a fabrication of the Sandzer fighters, the rumor about going to the theater, riding horses and smoking. Return
  9. Maymer Shever Posheyim”, p. 51, 57-61 Return
  10. Ibid. p. 51 Return
  11. Ibid. p. 51 and also in the letter from “Divrei Chaim” to Wiœniczer rabbi, ibid. p.30 Return
  12. Ibid. p.54; in the above-mentioned letter from “Divrei Chaim”, p.30 Return
  13. Ibid. p. 51 Return
  14. This “khet” [sin, offense] is noted in a letter from “Divrei Chaim” to the Wiœniczer rabbi, and also in the letter from the Komarnover rabbi R' Yitzhok Izik to the bezdin in Sandz, Knesset Hagdula n”kh, see later in the same chapter. Return
  15. The mockery of the ameratsim [ignorant people] from the majority of the Sadigorer Hasidim as a result of the backwardness of the Ukraine, Moldova, Beserabia lands compared to Galicia is repeated several times by the author of the previously mentioned brochure “Yalket Haroim”, “Shever Posheyim”. Compare, for example, p. 51 Return
  16. Y. Abn, the cited work, p. 48 Return
  17. Ibid. p. 49. Compare also “Simei Dkhayeh”, p. 13, the counter-argument of the author against the complaint of the “Divrei Chaim” that in the Sadgora brothers' court, they know nothing of charity: they certainly gave in secret, and gave away more than a third, and supported about 200 relatives of rebe's grandchildren according to a list that they call “Pre Tsadik”. Return
  18. Ibid. p. 20 Return
  19. [Page 336]

  20. The details about the biography of R' Berenyu until his arrival in Chernivtsi bring us according to the series of articles from ar”z (Alexander Tsederboym) “La Dubim Vla Yayar” in Hamelitz 1869, numbers 25, 26, 27: a very detailed biography (although with inaccuracies) about R' Berenyu , Sh. A. Hurudsky brought out in his essay “Tsadik Shitze Tirbut Reya” (Hakhasides Vakhasidim), Tel Aviv, 1953, Sefer Shlishi, em' 138-154 Return
  21. Hamelitz”, 1869, number 7. Return
  22. The “Maktav Gloy” with the “Hudeye” were reprinted in the anti-Sadigorer brochure of rm”zYalket Haroim”, Odessa, 1869, p. 4-5 Return
  23. In the interesting remarks on “Maktav Gloy” that Peretz Smolenskin presented in ”Hasheykher” (1869, Khuberet, p.29-31) he adduced in his Hoypt Rehies, that Berenyu had not written the letter by himself, , the circumstance, that the letter was signed “Dov Ber Mohr”r Yisroel” without the attribution, “z”l”, or “zts”l” for his deceased father. However, this is really not any riyo, also because the “Kol Koyre”, that R' Berenyu had four months later (Tamez 7) (published as a penitent by M.A. Gutman, “R' Dov Meleyuvh”, Mhaduror Khadoshe Tel-Aviv, 1952, No. 32-33), and there also Dov Ber bmi”h Israel, without the prayer “z”l” Return
  24. Compare “Hamelitz”, 1869, number 28, p.192-193 about R' Itchenyu from “Yalket Haroim”, p. 71 Return
  25. See “Yalket Haroim”, p.56 under the date of 3 Nisan 1869”, also see there p. 14. Return
  26. See the letter from Fristik to “The Divrei ChaimReturn
  27. See the letter from R' Chaim Halbershtam to the Wiœniczer rabbi, ibid., p. 30; compare ibid, p. 14-15. Also, ibid, p. 62 “Shever Posheyim: the author published an oath, that one of the Sadgora party certainly had reprinted it again in Czernovitz the “Midrash Talpies”. He did it with a separate revenge: there stands Eydes Hmoshiakh Divrim “Naroyim M'khverim”. Also see I. Abn, the cited work p. 27. Return
  28. See the letter from Skalat, “Yalket Haroim”, p. 14. Return
  29. Yalket Haroim”, p. 31-33. Return
  30. “Hamelitz”, 1869, number 38, p. 258 Return
  31. M. I. Gutman, rebe דוב מל׳אוב, Tel-Aviv, 1952, p. 14-15. Return
  32. See the “Divrei Chaim” archive to the Wiœniczer rabbi, Yalket Haroim p. 30 and the addendum to “Shever Posheyim”, ibid, p. 52 Return
  33. Yalket Haroim”, p.6-7.the letter is dated ד״ה פרשת תרומה, תרכ''ט יום ה' לסדר סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת a matter of course, happenings are written here, Return
  34. Knesset Hagdula Vdivrei Khokhmim, released by I. Rahatin, 1869, p. 10-11 Return
  35. The letter is dated the day of ParshaTetzaveh; The letter of Thursday, by implication, was brought by Raisher Hasidim, who came to Sands for Shabes and right after Shabes, Monday, the Sandzer rov sent his answer, probably by way of the same Hasidim. Return
  36. The original letter to the Raisher rov did not arrive, only the letter ״להנגידים יראי השם יראשי הקהלה מנהלי עדם שורון דק'ק ריישא, יע״א״

    In connection with the title, “Rashi Kehile”, I. Abn remarked (the cited work p. 52), that this was not the corect, but only the Sandzer follower honored rich men in the city, Yehidi-Sgule the leadership of the kehile in Raishe, later, in Elul, actually made it the Sadigorer, and on their intervention, the leaders of the city ordered the reopening of the Sadigorer circle that had been closed and locked by the Sandzers. Yitzhok Abn, however had not known about the fact that the official religious organization leadrship, had existed back in the days of Galicia's main city, and they, together with the and the rest of the members of the selected “Asife Shloma” had resolved the internal question of the kehile and first of all, in in religious disputes. Return

  37. [Page 337]

  38. Yalket Haroim”, p.7-8 Return
  39. Simei Dkhayeh”, p. 3 דבר אל הקורא Return
  40. The letter from Strzyżów is dated 11 tishrei that is, Parashas Ki Sissa Return
  41. R' Shloyme Shpira was subsequently renowned as rov in Munzasc Return
  42. The complete text of this letter was published in “Knesset Hagdula”, p. 12-13 Return
  43. Yalket Haroim”, p. 9-11 Return
  44. Yalket Haroim” p. 113-17 Return
  45. See: I. Abn the cited work, p. 70; I. Roker, the cited work, p.165-183; cases of involuntary getn [divorces] because of the quarrel were found even later, well after the death of “Divrei Chaim”. Compare the biography of Yitzhok Abn: Born 1862 in Rozvadov, married at 16, had to separate from his wife after having settled inSadigore; see Zalman Reisen's Lexicon of Jewish Literature, p. 2 Return
  46. The anonymous memorandum printed in Yiddish translation Dr. A. Chomet in Sefer Tarne, Tel-Aviv, 1954, p. 41-43 Return
  47. Details about all the distinctive episodes given by Yitzhok Abn the cited work, p. 51-73 mostly about correspondence in the Hebrew weekly “Hebri”, that was published in Brod Return
  48. Yalket Haroim”, p. 12-13 Return
  49. Compare above the remarks on the letter of “Divrei Chaim” to Rzeszów Return
  50. Yalket Haroim “, p. 64: Mashpil Gaim, Uzhhorod, 1869: g'-d Return
  51. In “Mashpil Gaim” (p. 13- 14) is stated that the attack occured “Koydem Khag HapesakhBayishun Leylo”, in “Yalket Haroim”, (p. 17-18) the author says this was Shabes Parashas Pare. Also compare I. Abn dts”vv, p. 79-80 Return
  52. “Hamelitz”, 1869, p. 64: I. Abn the cited work, p. 82-83 Return
  53. See “Halevona”, 1869, number 28, p. 222, Asia, Mhaduror Khadoshe. Return
  54. Fortsug by the khaluke, an addendum, except for the usual khaluke, compare shayles-vtshuves Divrei Chaim, Kheylek Sheyne, Khushn judgement, s”i, s”a Return
  55. “Mashpil Gaim” p. 14-19 Return
  56. “Kol Mheykhol” p. 7, 3, 5 Return
  57. Ibid, p. 4 Return
  58. Ibid, p. 4 Return
  59. The letter was published in the rabbinical periodical “Hapardes that was printed in Sandz from 1930 under the editorship of Shmuel Gutweyn, fourth year (1916) 6-7, 96-97. 30 people signed the letter, almost all of Galicia.

    Regarding the organization of the a”r funds in western Galicia and in Hungary, compare the above cited answer of the “Divrei Chaim” of rosh khodesh Kheshven 1860 to the question from R' Mendl Wishnitzer, Divrei Chaim rosh khodesh Kheshven, Kheylek Sheyne, Mishpet, sect. 68 Return

  60. Mashpil Gaim, p.7; “Yalket Haroim” : , p.17-20 Return
  61. [Page 338]

  62. Yalket Haroim”, p. 20-21 Return
  63. (43 days in Sfire) 1869 Return
  64. Yalket Haroim”, p. 21-22 Return
  65. A' Leseyder Bamidber fell out on 28 Ayar Return
  66. Yalket Haroim “, p.23-24 Return
  67. Ibid. p. 22-23 Return
  68. The original date was given as Parashas Bekhukosai from “Yalket Haroim” (p. 16-17) published this letter among the inquiries of the Kehile Toykhin after answer from “Divrei Chaim” to Rzeszów. But, according to the date, the letter belongs to the later phase of the quarrel. Return
  69. ׳ום א׳, מ״ג למב״י, לסדר וזאת עשו להמ וחיו Return
  70. Knesset Hagdula, p. 33-35 Return
  71. I. Abn, the cited work, p. 98, according to a report in the Broder “IvreReturn
  72. Yalket Haroim “, p. 25-27. Return
  73. Knesset Hagdula p. 42, Yalket Haroim“, p. 27 Return
  74. According to the correspondence in Broder “Hivre” (1869, p. 262), repinted by I. Abn dts”vv, p.101), the leaflets with the ban against the “Divrei Chaim” was selected motse shevuot, that is before the day of the Sandzer verdict. This was, therefore without a doubt, a manipulaton against the great raboim asife on Shevuot. According to the same account the meeting in besmedresh of the khevre kadishe actually took place together with the isre-khag, before the asife in shul, included in the ban, aside fron Nisan Bak with his circle, also those that the Eretz-Yisroyl-ban in Sandz had been distributed ואת האיש, שהדביק את החרמ פה) ).
    I. Abn, not strict about the dates, but he tells (p. 86) that the Eretz-Yisroyl-ban was nevertheless distributed in Sandz “9 Sivan in the morning” and analyzed. Not only is there a contradiction in the date in the account in “Hibre” that he cites later (p.101), but 9 Sivan means a day after Isre Khag Shevuot, and Isre Khag Shevuot fell in the year 1869 on a Tuesday. Return
  75. One “R' Mendl Ehrlich” was counted along with R. Eliezer Tenenboym and the dayen R' Yitzhok Tsines (Tsinz? R. M.) among the followers of Reb Baruch Landoy and enemy of R' Chaim Halbershtam, when he became the rov in Sandz. Compare “Mokur Chaim”, p. 145, section 491. This very R' Mendl Ehrlikh was one of the most wealthy, not only among Jews, but generally among all those who lived in Sands. In the previously mentioned voting list for the Galician Sejm [parliament] in 1867 (see the list above), he was counted fifth place among those taxed the greatest; he owned three houses and has a wine tavern; his annual housing tax (Hoyz-clasn-tsinz) comes to 213 gildn and 68 greytser, his shop- and entry-taxes – 56 gildn, altogether 269 gildn and 68 greytser a year.

    It was therefore almost impossible, that this rich man should be the Mendl Ehrlikh who was mentioned in the “New Free Press” together with Hersh Ungar as the poster of the ban on “The Divrei Chaim”: there it appears they are speaking about young people (Compare I. Abn dts”vv, p.86) and the rich man R' Mendl Ehrlikh was almost at the age of “The Divrei Chaim” but he already had the influence in 1828 to entertain a rov.Besides, there is information that “the two youths” had even on the same Sunday night ran away from the city. (I. Abn, ibid, p. 87) and it does n ot make sense that such a rich man as Mendl Ehrlikh would have had to run away from the city, just as it is difficult to believe that they would have dared to beat him black and blue in the shul. Hersh Ungar's neighbor must have been someone with the same name as this very rich man, who may have been his relative. Return

  76. [Page 339]

    Concerning Hersh Ungar, it is most certain that he was identical to the Hersh Ungar (Unger) previously mentioned in the voting list (List 3) of Sandz, as innkeeper. True, according to the amount of tax, Ungar also belonged to the very well-to-do businessmen in the city: his shop-entry tax came to 23 gildn and 3 greytser a year.

  77. The account in the “New Free Press” is cited verbatim in: Allgemaine Zeitung des Judentums 1869 No.23, p. 464. Return
  78. Parshas Korakh Return
  79. Yalket Haroim” p. 15-16, Also, the organizer from “Yalket” had included this letter withour looking at the date, of the letter from the Rzeszówer period. Return
  80. Knesset Hagdula.” p. 132. There is no date as to when the letter was sent. Return
  81. In “Yalket Haroim” (p. 38) the date is given as “the eve of 22 Tamez”; in “Knesset Hagdula”: “eve of 3, 22 Sivan”. Whereas the date in “Knesset Hagdula” supports the day of the week; we may conclude that it is correct. Return
  82. Tamuz 2 1869 “Yalket Haroim”, p.28, “Knesset Hagdula”, p. 54-55 Return
  83. Yalket Haroim”, p. 19, 27: “Knesset Hagdula” p. 52-53. Between the versions of the letter from Tiberia in the two collections, there are certain differences and the fundamental point in “Knesset Hagdula” the Sadigorer followers in Tiberia were called Volin, while in “Yalket Haroim” they were called Russia. Return
  84. Yalket Haroim”, p. 28-30 Return
  85. When “Kol Mheykhol” that came out in print after the ban in Eretz-Yisroyel againt R' Chaim Sandzer, the author of the brochure “Mashpil Gaim” (p.4) recalls the clarification in the “Kol Mheykhol” that the Sadigorer had to serve as an answer in the flyer “פוקח עוימ” that was against them had published. The treatise “Pokakh Orim” signed ilk”t, was included in the collection “Yalket Haroim” (p. 42-45). Return
  86. Parsha Pinkhus Return
  87. Yalket Haroim “, p.35 Return
  88. Compare above, in the previous chapter. Return
  89. The synod of the rabbinate in Germany was held in Kassel in 1868 and in Leipzig from May 29th until July 2, 1869. Return
  90. Yalket Haroim “, p. 36-37 Return
  91. Ibid, p.37-38 Return
  92. Ibid, p. 24 Return
  93. Knesset Hagdula, p. 48-50 Return
  94. Knesset Hagdula p. 47-48; “Yalket Haroim”, p. 37 Return
  95. In that letter, Nisn Bak's group answered that they are under no one but their rabeim, Compare above, the letter from I. Raker, dts”vv p. 201 Return
  96. Compare above, the letter from the Tarnopoler rov, Yosef Bab”d to R' Yosef Shaul Natansohn. Return
  97. The letter from Mayer Oyerbakh was published in “Lebonen” number 35 (26 Elul). It was reported that the letter did not reach the addressee and was returned to Jerusalem, because it had not been prepaid Return
  98. Compare above Return
  99. [Page 340]

  100. A shortened portion Tanakh- printing Begedim Tsuaim (Zkhroim 3, 3-4), soiled clothing. Return
  101. Yalket Haroim”, p. 30-31. R' Chaim's answer to the Wiszniczer rov is not dated Return
  102. Yalket Haroim”, p. 30. Return
  103. Knesset Hagdula”, p. 67-68 Return
  104. Ibid, p. 65-66 Return
  105. Ibid, p.66-67 Return
  106. The poskim that he cites from the SederVesakhnun instead of the date: 7 yom leseyder האיש אשר הלך אחרי בעל בעל פעור השמידו ה' מקרברץ ואתם הדבקים בה׳ א׳ חיים כולכם היום צדק ומשפט לפ״ק are charcteristic Return
  107. Knesset Hagdula”, p. 61-64; “Yalket Haroim “ p. 39-41 Return
  108. Knesset Hagdula”, p. 58-73 Return
  109. Ibid, p. 59-60. The letter is not dated. Return
  110. Ibid, p. 60-61. The letter includes only the date of the year 1869 and a characteristic detail: להנצל בכלל ובפרט מהשקר וכזבץ Return
  111. 72-73 Return
  112. Ibid, p.65 Return
  113. Ibid, p. 68-73 Return
  114. See I. Roker, the cited work, p.217 Return
  115. Knesset Hagdula”, p. 61 Return
  116. Compare Shever Posheim, Yalket Haroim”, p.54, 57. Return
  117. Compare Sh Dubnov, Tolodes Hahasides, Tel –Aviv 1931, p. 245 Return
  118. Compare R. Mahler, Divrei Yemei Yisra 'el kerekh a'seyfer 3; p. 303 Return
  119. ar”z, the editor of “Hamelitz” rightfully supposes, that the author of the “Maktav Gloy Shni” is one whi in his youth was enamored of the Haskole, and later , in his father-in-law's house, he became a Sandzer Hasid. See “Hamelitz” 1869, number 3, p. 215. Return
  120. Yalket Haroim”, p.47. Also compare “Knesset Hagdula”, p. 80:ר אני ואענה עזות כי לא במשפט עשית את כל העושר ההוא רואל תאמר עשי Return
  121. Yalket Haroim”, p. 17. Return
  122. R. Mahler, “The Battle Between Haskole and Hasides in Galicia”, New York, 1942, p. 18-19 Return
  123. Yalket Haroim”, p. 45 Return
  124. Ibid, p. 63. Return
  125. See: Yoysif Perl in “Megile Tomirinmakhtav; Nakhman Krokhmal's letter to the Maskil Avraham Goldberg in מאסטי וויעלקיע כל כתבי ר''ק, ההוצאת רבידוביץ.p. 410. Also compare R. Mahler dts”vv, p. 15 Return
  126. Yalket Haroim “, p.47, 51 etc. Return
  127. See special “Hamelitz”, 1869, no. 32, p. 223-233 Return
  128. Compare the mentioned correspondence from Rzeszów in “Hebri”, 1869, p. 376: ואמנשם ההוכים פה קדמת העת החיה עמדו כמדו כולם לימין העשוקים מיד עושקיהם כח,,. Also, the author of the mentioned memorandum to the Tarnow district leader about keeping the “Divrei Chaim” from coming to Tarnow for Shabes, August 21, 1869, in order to prevent the strengthening of the persecution of the Sadgorer, was, it appears, close to the enlightened group. He remarks “The educated people, who do not belong to any sect” (Sefer Tarnow, 1954, p.42). Return
  129. Published in “Hashkhor”, Book 9, p.486-502. It was also stated in the manuscript in the Cambridge Collection (1854 F 157; microfilm in the הספריה הלאומית והאונינברסיטאית Jerusalem).

    G. Bader submits a short bio-bibliograph of Moshe Orenshteyn:”Medina Khokhme”, New York, 1934, p. 27. Return

  130. [Page 341]

  131. Concerning the attitude of R' Mayer Zhikow and his brother R' Moyshe from Rozwadow, compare “Moker Chaim”, p. 109, “Knesset Hagdula”; also compare I. Abn, the cited work, p. 54, about the unfriendly neutrality in regard to Sandz during the quarrel. Return
  132. Beyond the Sadigorer Hasidishe rabeim who took the side of the Sadigorer, the rov from Horodenka, R' Moyshe Tuvim (“Knesset Hagdula “ section 75-77 ) was and the one Dovid Yekhiel Mikhel Heylperin from Bortchtow (“Knesset Yisroel”, p. 78. “Yalket Haroim”, p. 41 were mentioned in the anti-Sadgora dispute). Return
  133. Even the followers of the “Divrei Chaim” in Hungary ventured to present an attitude of reserve concerning the quarrel of the Sandzer rov against the Sadgora “kinsmen”; in an unpublished “Mishpet Tzadik” from the bezdin in Uzhhorod, of 19 elul 1869, a bezdin of three rabeim, the Lviver, the Krakower and the Tarnopoler should issue a verdict on both quarreling sides. See Abraham Naftali Rus, psakdin של חכמי הוגריה בדבר הריב בין צאנז וסאדיגורע תלפיות, Citadel (or Fortress), Nisan 1953, p. 346-358. Return
  134. Yosef Amayzen dealt with salt; it is worthwhile to note that R' Chaim halbershtam himself had, in the first years of his rabbinate in Sandz, when he had only difficulty with earnings, the community gave his the right to sell salt and to take tax on every kilo; this caused such a wide protest from a number of merchants that he felt it was necessary to inquire from his father-in-law, the Leypikner rov if the community's rov had the right to compel the minority to pay that tax. Compare, “Moker Chaim”, p. 121, section 407. Return
  135. Shimon Soyfer, Mkhtav Soyfer, part 1, 7 p. 41, “Shmites”, p. 83 Return
  136. Kol Hksav L'Chaim, p. 193 Return
  137. Mattatihu Yekhziel Gutman, Rebe Dov Mliuba מהשקר וכזבץ, Tel-Aviv, 1952, p. 17. Return
  138. Kol Hksav L'Chaim, p. 125-126. Return
  139. R' Yekhziel SHRGA Shiniaver had taken great precaution in regard to his father's fight against the Sadgora and after Great Shavuosin Sands he traveled to Eretz Yisroyl in order to move the Sadgora there, they should remove the ban from “Divrei Chaim”, but he did not have the least success in a public vote, and he returned home immediately. See: I. Abn, the cited work, p. 108-109. Return

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »


This material is made available by JewishGen, Inc. and the Yizkor Book Project for the purpose of
fulfilling our mission of disseminating information about the Holocaust and destroyed Jewish communities.
This material may not be copied, sold or bartered without JewishGen, Inc.'s permission. Rights may be reserved by the copyright holder.


JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material for verification.
JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.

  Nowy Sacz (Poland)     Yizkor Book Project     JewishGen Home Page


Yizkor Book Project Manager, Lance Ackerfeld
This web page created by Max Heffler

Copyright ©1999-2014 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 17 Jun 2009 by LA