The Kotzker and Sachachover

May 13, 2024

We see that the Kotzker learned all the classical Seforim and he valued the same Torah as the Litvisha world.  

 Amud HaEmes starting on page 246 details what the Kotzker said about various leaders and Seforim.    The Kotzker talks about the Rambam,  Korban Nesaniel, Maharal M’Prague, the Sefer Chovos Halevovos, the Pri Megadim, Mesudos Dovid, Pnei Yehoshua, and all the Chassidic leaders starting with the Baal Shem Tov.   

We see that the Kotkzer learned all the classical Seforim that were and are learned in the Misnagdishe – Litvishe world.  He knew each one and understood their Dereck Lemudo – their method of learning.    This is because first and foremost learning Torah was first and foremost.  They learned Gemora, the Rishonim, the Posikim, and Achronim.  I read in Professor Morris Faierstein’s book that the Chassidim did not learn Zohar and Kabbalah.  There is no question that the Kotzker did learn Zohar and Kabbalah but his  main learning was Neglah and not Nistar.

The Kotzker learned the Chovos Halevovs with his son Admor Dovid Morgenstern.  In HTC I heard Shiurim from the Rosh Hayeshiva, Rabbi Revah, on the Chovos HaLevoros.  This year Rabbi Weg of the Yeshiva is learning it with his Shiur.

The Kotzker learned and knew the Pri Megadim and the Chavos Daas, the Lissa Rov.  The Pri Megadim died in 1792 and the Chavos Daas died in 1832.  Kotzker was born in 1787 and I doubt that he ever met the Chavos Daas.  There is a story in Siach Sarfei Kodesh where the Chidushei Harim met the Chavos Daas.  

Read the following from the Emes Ve Emunah and Aber Harayim.  Aber Harayim is the history of Rabbi Avrohom Bornstein, known as the Avnei Nezer, and the Sachochever Rebbe, and was the son-in-law of the Kotzker.  The Avnei Nezer married the Kotzker’s oldest twin daughter, Sara Tzina, in 1853, when he was 13 or 14 years old.   He spent six  years learning by the Kotzker and the Kotzker felt that it was his job to make the Avnei Nezer the leading Torah scholar in Poland.  

The Pri Megadim:

The Kotzker said about the Pri Megadim that he learned Torah for the sake of Hashem.

Rabbi Yehuda Gordon told me the following story.  Reb Chaim Kenievsky said that the Chazon Ish put Sefroim written Leshem Samayim on a higher shelf than Seforim he felt were not written Leshem Shamayim.

The Pri Megadim was Joseph ben Meir Teomim 1727–1792. יוסף בן מאיר תאומים was a Galician Rabbi, best known as author of Pri Megadim, by which title he is also referenced. He was one of the foremost Torah Scholars of his time.  Rabbi Teomim’s Pri Megadim (פרי מגדים, “choice fruits”, published 1782) ^[3] is a widely referenced work on the Shulkhan Aruch. It is composed, essentially, as a supercommentary on the major commentators there: Pri Megadim is however seen as authoritative in its own right, often quoted, for example, by the Mishna Berurah.

The following story is brought down about the Pri Megadim and the Chovavos Daas, the Lissa Rov –Yaakov Lorberbaum – Wikipedia.  Page 435 of the 2022 edition of Emes Vemunu put out by Reb Simcha Morgenstern contains the following story.

Translation:

The Chasid Reb Ezriel Lowy from Kanstantin told me the story that when his father, the Goan and Chasid Reb Yaakov Aaron HaLevi, the head of the Jewish Court of Kanstantin,  went to get Smicha from the Avnei Nezer TZL, the Avnei Nezer asked him, from where do you rely on to determine Halachic questions?  Is it the Pri Megadim or the Chavos Daas, the Lissa Rov.  My father answered  that he uses the Lissa Rov because the Lissa Rov says the Halacha clearly, however, the Pri Megadim leaves many issues unresolved.   The Avnei Nezer told him in the name of the his father-in-law, the Kotzker, that one who makes a mistake in the Pri Megadim (and Paskens against the Pri Megadim) is a  טועה בּדבר משׁנה –  someone who makes a mistake in a clear Halacha.   Because our Reshonim are now like the words of a Mishnah and the Pri Megadim explains the Rishonim.  This means that one can issue Jewish law only if the Posak knows the Reshonim, and the Pri Megadim clarifies the opinions of the Reshonim.

The Avnei Nezer concluded that I am not telling you who to use, and you can Paskim as you see fit, but I am telling you that a Posek who doesn’t know what the Pri Megadim says and if that Posak would know the Pri Megadim, he would have decided like the Pri Megadim, then it is that the Posak was  טועה בּדבר משׁנה – made a clear mistake.  In a sense the Kotzker felt that the Posak is committing malpractice.                                                        

The beautiful following story is told by the Avnei Nezer about the Pri Megadim:

The Avnei  Nezar told that once when he entered the holy place he saw an elderly man with a regal manner that he did not recognize because he had never seen him in Kotzk.  He spoke to the Kotzker with affection  and love.  When he, the Avnei Nezer, came into the room they both gave him their full attention to the words of his Pilpul – Talmudic discourse – that he laid out before the Kotzker and the guest.  (It seems to me that in the above-mentioned Talmudic Discourse that he said in front of his father-in-law and the guest, who was the Pri Megadim, was also an answer to a question on the Pri Megadim.)   When he left his room, the above-mentioned elderly man still remained with our Rabbi in the room.  When he entered the second time, our Rabbi revealed to him that the above-mentioned elderly man was the tzaddik, the genius was the Pri Megadim. Because the Avnei Nezer worked hard to reconcile the words of the Pri Megadim, he was privileged to see him in the actual daylight. And he said that his father-in-law (our Rabbi) informed him of the names of the deceased tzaddikim who were with him that night.

I further explained that this story about the Pri Megadim visiting the Kotzker took place in 1854 or later. even though the Pri Megadim died in 1792.  

I listen to Rabbi Sugerman’s Daf Yomi Shiur. As I have said in the past, when the Torah was given at Har Sinai, it was said in the voice and words of Ben Sugerman.  Ben Sugerman has a unique way of saying and explaining the Gemora, in that he makes the Gemora three dimensional.  The Gemora comes alive.  Once while listening to Rabbi Ben Sugerman explain a Gemora that had a dispute between Rebi Yochanan and his brother-in-law, Resh Lakish, I felt as if I was in the Bais Medrash of Rebi Yochanan and Resh Lakish and could see Reb Yochanan saying his viewpoint and Resh Lakish arguing and saying, no, the Halacha is different. They went back and forth bringing proofs, refutations, and attempts at logic.  It was a unique experience that happened only once.

I explained the above story about the Pri Megadim coming to the Kotzker in a similar manner.   “The Kotzker who learned Torah day and night for over 60 years, and the Pri Megadim did not come to him?”

There is a very important story about the relationship between the Avnei Nezer and his father-in-law, the Kotzker.   We see from the below story that the Avnei Nezer had complete access to learn and ask questions to the Kotzker.  It cannot be emphasized enough that during the last 19 years of his life, known as the “days of Hester” that the Kotzker still engaged his family, learned Torah day and night, and taught.

Translation:

The Avnei Nazer, TZL, had a holy duty to come daily one time before his Holy father-in-law from Kotzk, and offer some of his innovations that he had innovated in his study, and he,  the Holy one would proofread them if they were true to the Torah and if they were said in depth as befits the root of his high soul.  More than once a day he would give him permission to enter without restriction.  The Kotzker answered him in length and did not hold anything back from him.

In his introduction to the Eglei Tal, the Avnei Nezer writes:

Translation:

And Avrohom responded and said, this time I will give thanks to Hashem (mirrors Leah’s words when naming her fourth son Yehuda) that my portion is with those that dwell in the study hall.  And I was always one who searches out the wisdom of the Torah.  When I was young I was taught by my master, my father, and my teacher the method of Pilpul.  When I was ten years old, I was was writing my own  חידושׁים.  Then I entered the inner rooms  of the house of my father in law, the Admor of Kotzk, the source of wisdom and understanding.   (a reference to the Kodesh Hakodashim where the ark was located in the Temple)  From him, I learned my method of learning Torah in depth.  And from him I learned  what is a true statement of Torah.  Because not all thoughts are חידושׁים.  It is unbelievable when I tell about the extra effort that he watched over me with his wise eyes also in learning and חידושׁים.

And it has always been my way to write new things that I am pleased with. But to print the things and spread them over the world did not occur to me, and you have no beauty in modesty. And if it is from heaven that the things will be brought to print, it will be after a hundred years. That was my thinking, but I chose to learn with listening students. To teach the children of Yehudar a bow to fight the battle of the Torah, because in the 17th century the Torah is written. The commandment to teach. He teaches the ways of learning. But now at the time of my old age, in my seasons, I was overcome by the cough, R.A., and I could not study with students.

The following is another story that reflects on the Kotzker is a statement he made about his future son in law:

Professor Morris Faierstein lists five practices that form the practical expression of Kotzker Hasidism.

Most  things the Professor got right.  I would add one more and diminish #5.  The first item I 

I would add is Ahavas Yisroel.    This is true of the Kotzker Rebbe and would like to believe that his Chassidim followed in his footsteps.  

When I spoke about this list at Rabbi Sidney Glenner’s house, Rabbi Moshe Roberts said that Emes should be at the top.  I did not agree.  Perhaps Emes would be true of the Kotzker himself, but not of his Chassidim.  Perhaps #4 on the list is Emes.

I do not know his source of #5, although I have heard it in the past.  There is a story of Reb Leibele Eiger when his father Reb Shlomo Eiger sent a messenger to look in on his son with an ignorant farmer.  #5 may still be true, but it may have not been so pronounced as Professor Faierstein says it is.

The understanding to #5, I believe, is that they were Torah scholars and they had no use for the mundane matters and gossip discussed by the masses.  The masses felt excluded and that created animosity between the groups.  This is only natural.  

Emes:

The below is in an article from Kotzk Blog: 459) Chassidic literature – beyond the Hebrew texts

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professors Evan Mayse and Daniel Reiser[1] − examines a fascinating anomaly within Chassidic literature: Most of the formal Chassidic texts used today are in Hebrew, but Hebrew was not the medium through which the discourses were generally transmitted. The original teachings were mainly presented orally and in Yiddish. 

The question is whether or not this is a significant distinction, and can it have some bearing on how we read the popular Chassidic texts today? 

This is what they write on Kotzk.

Kotzk through a Yiddish lens

The Kotzker Rebbe is known for his search for Truth (Emet). Astoundingly, however, by basing ourselves on the Hebrew word Emet, we actually have a very limited understanding of what he was really looking for. 

“Heschel cites an oral Hasidic tradition maintaining that the Kotsker rebbe never uttered the word emet (or emes in Yiddish), the term often rendered as ‘truth.’ Rather than this standard Yiddish term, Menahem Mendel used the less common vorhayt, a word related to the German Wahrheit (truth, verity)” (Mayse and Reiser 2018:146). 

To be accurate, Heschel informs us that, the Kotzker Rebbe used the word Emes, only once – but he quickly corrected himself by replacing the word with “oyf der vorhayt.” Language is so important because in this case, Vorhayt means something that neither the Hebrew word Emet nor the Yiddish word Emes, can capture: 

“Vorhayt gestures not toward an abstract or philosophical conception of truth but rather to a concept of verity that is totally grounded in reality. This tradition suggests that the Kotsker rebbe was uninterested in philosophical emes, which can be proven and cut down…Menahem Mendel of Kotsk was seeking an entirely different level of existential reality. 

The Kotzker Rebbe was not so much searching for technical ‘truth.’ In Yiddish, ‘vorhayt’ does not mean ‘truth’ – it means ‘realness,’ ‘genuineness,’ or ‘authenticity.’ Perhaps the English expression ‘salt of the earth’ conveys its meaning well. There is a vast, philosophical and existential difference between these two concepts which can only be comprehended by understanding the language of transmission.