Noble Soul: The Life & Legend of the Vilna Ger Tzedek Count Walenty Potocki 9781463210021

Citation preview

JUDAISM IN CONTEXT Volume 1

Series Editors: Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Lieve M. Teugels and Rivka Ulmer

Noble Soul

Noble Soul The Life and Legend of the Vilna Ger Tzedek Count Walenty Potocki

RABBI JOSEPH H. PROUSER

GORGIAS PRESS 2005

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2005. Copyright © 2005 by Gorgias Press LLC. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey. ISBN 1-59333-097-9

GORGIAS PRESS 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Prouser, Joseph H. Noble soul : the life and legend of the Vilna Ger Tzedek Count Walenty Potocki / Joseph H. Prouser.— 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. — (Judaism in context ; v. 1) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-59333-097-9 1. Potocki, Valentine, d. 1749. 2. Jewish converts from Christianity— Lithuania—Vilnius—Biography. 3. Aristocracy (Social class)—Lithuania-Vilnius—Biography. 4. Potocki, Valentine, d. 1749—Death and burial. 5. Jewish martyrs—Lithuania—Vilnius--Biography. 6. Potocki, Valentine, d. 1749—Bibliography. 7. Vilnius (Lithuania)—Biography. I. Title. II. Series. DS135.L53P687 2005 296.7'14'092—dc22 2004022872

Dearer to God is the person who has adopted Judaism out of personal desire than all the Israelites who stood before Mount Sinai. For had the Israelites not witnessed the thunder, lightning, quaking mountains, and the sounding of trumpets, they would not have accepted the Torah. The convert to Judaism saw none of these, yet came and surrendered to the Holy One Blessed be He, and voluntarily took on the yoke of Heaven. Could anyone be dearer to God? Midrash Tanchuma

CONTENTS Acknowledgements.......................................................................ix Chapter 1. Returning to the Scene of the Crime: Ponary 1749, 1941..................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. To the Manor Born....................................................9 Chapter 3. First Response: Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, 1841...19 Chapter 4. Early Data and Documents ....................................41 Chapter 5. American Tribute: Henry Gersoni, 1873 ..............49 Chapter 6. Jewish Souls: A. Litvin, 1916 .................................65 Chapter 7. Alter Egos: Kacyzne’s ‘Der Dukus,’ 1925 ............71 Chapter 8. Fantasy In Berlin: Selig Schachnowitz, 1930........93 Chapter 9. Zionist Perspective: Ben-David, 1938................ 109 Chapter 10. Historical Novelty: Saul Saphire, 1942............. 123 Chapter 11. A Question Of Parentage: Natan Mark, 1968 151 Chapter 12. Portraits of Piety: Yedael Meltzer, 1996 .......... 159 Chapter 13. Pardons And Potentates: Benedict xiv & Augustus iii ................................................................................ 169 vii

viii

NOBLE SOUL

Chapter 14. Literary Lens: The Book of Esther................... 177 Chapter 15. Literary Lens: Redeemers And Relics In Christian Europe........................................................................................ 189 Chapter 16. Conclusions.......................................................... 199 Appendix. Conversion To Judaism: The Eighteenth Century & Beyond ................................................................................... 205 Bibliography............................................................................... 221

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Much of the research for this study was conducted during my term as the Rabbi Daniel Jeremy Silver Fellow at Harvard University’s Center for Jewish Studies. I am grateful to the Center for the privilege, and for the opportunity to pursue my studies on a full time basis. Professor Peter Machinist, chairman of Harvard’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, was a gracious host. Rabbi Elliot Dorff, Rector of the University of Judaism, and Rabbi Jonathan Rosenbaum, President of Graetz College, supported and encouraged my proposed study. They emboldened me to pursue and achieve my goal. My warm thanks to Lieve Teugels of Gorgias Press for her interest in this volume and her guidance in bringing it to fruition. I wish to express a heartfelt dziękuję to Ewa Wolynska, Special Collections Librarian at Central Connecticut State University, for her assistance in translating Kraszewski from the Polish, and for helping to locate the novelist’s personal papers. Bardzo dziękuję, as well, to my dear friend Robert Kiniry, for his assistance in translating Potocki family correspondence. These were graciously provided, in part, by the Biblioteka Jagiellońska of Cracow’s Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. Rabbi Haskel Lindenthal has inspired his religious charges, students and colleagues for fifty years. I am grateful for his scholarly example, wise counsel, and warm friendship. A son of Vizun, Poland, and, in his youth, a student of the last Rabbinic giants and Yeshivot of Vilna, he personally made pilgrimage to the grave of the Ger Tzedek. He described his experience in detail to me, and passionately transmitted much of Vilna’s oral traditions concerning the martyred nobleman. From 1993 to 2000, I directed the “Course in Basic Judaism,” a conversion institute serving the community of greater Hartford, Connecticut. My students’ interest in the history of conversion to Judaism led me directly to the present study. Sharing the beauty of Judaism with them, and seeing it reflected in their religious devotion and strength of conviction has been one of the great joys of my career. One such student, now a committed Jew, wept when I ix

x

NOBLE SOUL

first taught her the Rabbinic text which provides the frontispiece and conclusion to this volume. Her tears convinced me of the urgency of my task. My family’s contributions to this study are reflected in every page. My wife, Professor Ora Horn Prouser, endured my repeated absences from home and my frequently single minded involvement in my studies. Her scholarly gifts and achievements set a high standard for me to emulate. I am grateful to the Divine Matchmaker for our marriage, and for our three children. My daughter Shira assisted with preparation of the manuscript. My sons, Eitan and Ayal, applauded each new research breakthrough and milestone. I am grateful to my father and teacher, Mel Prouser, for his unstinting enthusiasm for my various endeavors. Thank you also to Camille Haiduk and Steve Levy, of the Little Neck Jewish Center, for their technical support in preparation of the manuscript. Since I first learned of the Vilna Ger Tzedek, his life story has been a personal inspiration, his memory a blessing. Despite a two hundred year long history of pilgrimages to his grave, however, there are those skeptics who deny that the Ger Tzedek ever endured the flesh. Such denials, I have come to believe, disparage Judaism… especially when voiced by Jews themselves. That an intellectual, highly educated young nobleman, even a Potocki, should choose the riches of Jewish religious life over material wealth and temporal power should in no way strain credulity. Among historic converts to Judaism, the Vilna Ger Tzedek was unique neither in the relative privilege he sacrificed, nor in the ultimate price he paid for his new Faith. The fate of Alexander Artemyevich Voznitsyn, a contemporary of this study’s protagonist, demonstrates this fact conclusively. His family fame and public martyrdom in the “capital city” of European Jewry, however, have conspired to bestow upon the martyred Ger Tzedek of Vilna a prominence and esteem all but unrivalled in the history of conversion to Judaism. Perhaps some of the oral traditions surrounding the Vilna Ger Tzedek documented in this study are pious fictions. A number, at least, must be, as conflicting details have been preserved. Perhaps, skeptics will argue, in Jewish Vilna’s old cemetery, in close proximity to the grave of Rabbi Elijah Gaon, was interred not a scion of the Potocki clan, but the remains of a simple convert, of undistin-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xi

guished lineage and unremarkable demise. Perhaps around this unknown proselyte legends were woven and preserved and eventually accepted as accurate, sparking two hundred fifty years of loving pilgrimages and veneration, and the literary tradition examined in this volume. If generations of Jews have lavished such reverence and affection on an unknown spiritual searcher, simply in response to his principled adoption of Judaism, then the conversion even of the most privileged and powerful should elicit no surprise. Would that those who investigate Judaism today find not only self and God, but a similar welcome among the religious community they propose to join.

CHAPTER 1 RETURNING TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME: PONARY 1749, 1941 The city of Vilna, revered by Jews as a citadel of Rabbinic scholarship, storied piety, and burgeoning Jewish cultural life, has been known by many names. “Vilna became the Lithuanian town of Vilnius in 1918 and the Polish town of Wilno in 1920.”1 With fealty and affection, historian Lucy Dawidowicz describes “that fabled city” variously as “the residence of the Vilna Gaon,”2 “the cradle of the Jewish labor movement,”3 “the world capital of the realm of Yiddish”4 and, owing to its hilly vistas, as “a Lithuanian Switzerland.”5 It is, however, its designation as “Yerushalayim d’Lita”― “the Jerusalem of Lithuania”―which most forcefully bespeaks the glory of Jewish Vilna’s rich history as a “holy city.” This flattering appellation is traditionally traced to Napoleon, an admiring visitor to Vilna, and in particular to its Great Synagogue, in 1812. The city which once evoked awe in emperors was decimated by the forces of the Third Reich. “For all practical purposes, the old Jerusalem of Lithuania is dead.”6 Having been administered briefly and harshly by the Soviet regime, Vilna fell under Nazi occupation on June 24, 1941. The systematic annihilation of Vilna’s Jewish population, which had resided in the city since 1326 and had first erected a synagogue building in 1440, 500 years before the

Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1968), 228 fn. 2 Lucy Dawidowicz, From That Time and Place (New York: Norton, 1989), 38. 3 Ibid. 4 lbid., xiii. 5 lbid., 28. 6 N.N. Shneidman, Jerusalem of Lithuania (Buffalo: Mosaic Press, 1998), 168. 1

1

2

NOBLE SOUL

Nazi invasion, began almost immediately. At this point, Jews represented fully one third of Vilna’s residents. Fifty-four Vilna Jews were shot on the Fourth of July, as, a world away, Americans celebrated their Independence for the last time before entering World War II. Within days, mass executions began at Ponary, also known as Ponarz, Punar, or Panarai, some five or six miles from the city itself, along the main railroad line.7 This isolated, bucolic area of open, verdant fields was now pocked by huge pits dug by the Red Army and intended for the storage of fuel tanks. To this serene locale Jews had formerly repaired for occasional respite from the relatively frenetic pace of city life. The first Ponary executions took place on July 8. A hundred Jews at a time were brought from the city to Ponary… They were ordered to undress and to hand over whatever money or valuables they had with them. They were then marched naked, single file, in groups of ten or twenty at a time, to the edge of the fuel pits, and shot down by rifle fire… The bodies were then covered with a thin layer of sand, and the next group of naked prisoners led from the waiting area to the edge of the pit… In the twelve days following July 8, as many as five thousand Vilna Jews were murdered in this way.8 Polish journalist W. Sakowicz, who lived at Ponary and was ultimately killed there, recorded the brutality he witnessed.9 His diary entry for July 27, 1941 observes that “about 200 to 300 people are being driven up here nearly every day. And nobody ever returns.” In a later entry, Sakowicz offers telling evidence of the frenzied pace of the killing: “The executioners complained of being very tired of their work, of having aching shoulders from shooting.” The volume of murders at Ponary continued to mount. On August 31, an Einsatzkommando unit, aided by several hundred willing Lithuanians, evacuated “2019 Jewish women, 864 men, and 817 children”10 to the fuel pits. Among those killed on that fateful

See Reitlinger, 228. Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), 170. 9 Ibid., 177-178. 10 Ibid., 192-193. 7 8

RETURNING TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

3

day was 86-year-old Dr. Jacob Wigodsky, leader of Vilna’s Jewish community for a quarter of a century. A former Polish senator, Wigodsky was an early voice urging resistance to the Nazi evil. If any reasonable doubt remained among those who remained in the city as to the fate of Jews evacuated from Vilna, it was resolved on September 3. On that date, a formidable woman, who had been shot at Ponary, arrived in Vilna. She had crawled from her intended grave under the cover of night to report the gruesome reality of Ponary to surviving Vilna Jewry: “No, it was not a labor camp.”11 The first of only a handful to escape the pits of Ponary, this woman, wounded and traumatized, described the final moments endured by Jews before execution, confirming through her eye-witness account what any student of the human spirit or, more specifically, of the history of religious martyrdom might assume. She testified that they were “trying to reckon with their own consciences, how they were trying to confess their sins before death.”12 Fifty thousand or more Vilna Jews died in this manner by the end of 1941. Now, at the onset of the twenty-first century, it is generally possible only to speculate as to the nature of the personal “reckoning” and final reflections of those murdered at Ponary. Circumstances have conspired, however, to provide the student of history with specific information as to the final thoughts of two distinguished victims of the liquidation of Jewish Vilna. Yiddish grammarian Noah Prilutzki, together with his friend and associate A.I. Goldschmid, a Yiddish writer, were confined to a shared prison cell in the city proper. The Nazis drew upon their prisoners’ scholarly gifts, compelling them to catalogue Yiddish manuscripts in the collection of the Strashun Library, perhaps for later use in Hitler’s projected Museum of the Extinct Jewish Race. Before these scholars were killed in their cell, “a fellow prisoner, the librarian Haikel Lunsky, heard them discussing Maimonides.”13 Surely, not all the victims at Ponary met their fate occupied with such lofty discourse, nor with an equanimity born of scholarly erudition and academic dispassion. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable to assume that not a few turned their thoughts to the long --

Ibid., 194. Ibid. 13 Ibid, 193. 11 12

4

NOBLE SOUL

history of Jewish martyrdom… and to one celebrated martyr in particular. It was, after all, the Jews of Vilna who, for two centuries, had preserved the memory and transmitted the legend of Avraham ben Avraham, the martyred “Ger Tzedek of Vilna.” Those who had not learned of Avraham’s tragic demise at the knees of parents and religious instructors were, at least, privy to a plethora of published accounts produced over the preceding twenty-five years, reflecting renewed devotion and interest in the martyr’s life. Doubtless, some had attended Yiddish theater productions of “Der Dukus,” Alter Kacyzne’s most famous play, first staged in Warsaw in 1925 and loosely based on the Ger Tzedek’s life. Kacyzne was himself killed in 1941, beaten to death by Ukrainian collaborators while attempting to flee the Nazis. No doubt news of his death brought renewed attention to his dark drama. Perhaps some victims at Ponary, those more advanced in age, personally recalled the visit of Shmuel Hurwitz (who wrote under the pseudonym A. Litvin) to the Vilna area to document the community’s oral traditions regarding their most famous martyr. His findings were published in a popular six volume series of biographical sketches, Yiddishe Neshomes, in 1916, and reprinted by the Wilner Branch 367, Workmen’s Circle in New York in a massive 1935 tribute volume entitled Vilna. Selig Schachnowitz, in a wildly imaginative masterpiece of historical speculation, had published his 1930 German novel, Abraham Sohn Abrahams, which would subsequently be translated into Hebrew and piously adapted into English. The year preceding the Ponary executions had brought publication in Tel Aviv of a five-act Hebrew play about the Ger Tzedek of Vilna. Israel Hayyim ben David’s drama, punctuated by a brilliant, heart-wrenching final twist, seems presciently to have applied the example of its protagonist to anticipated Nazi horrors. Indeed, the play’s chief villain, in his closing discourse, concedes in regard to the Jewish People, “To wage war against them is futile and for naught! They are stronger and more powerful than we… than Poland, than Christians and Christianity together… It

RETURNING TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

5

is now they who are bludgeoned… but tomorrow the Germans…”14

The growing library of works devoted to the life and legend of the Ger Tzedek, while preserving an oral tradition rich in detail, also generated a wealth of fictionalized information. It is not always a simple matter to distinguish between these two dynamics. Nor is it entirely necessary… or desirable. Oral traditions, like all living organisms, experience growth and change. The recorded experience of Vilna’s Ger Tzedek spoke to readers of Poland’s prolific historical novelist, Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, in 1841. A century and a half later, it found a similarly receptive audience among Jews in the sovereign State of Israel, a literary milieu Kraszewski could hardly have imagined. Understandably, presentation of venerable oral tradition, together with a variety of fictionalized embellishments, reveals much about both the abiding significance of the Ger Tzedek… and the diverse perspectives and experiences of those preserving his memory. The masses of Vilna Jews, in any case, “knew their history not so much from reading books as from visiting the two Jewish cemeteries, where their history was literally entombed.”15 In the “Old Cemetery” was the martyred Ger Tzedek’s grave, although, unbeknownst to the Jews of Vilna in 1941, not his final resting place. His grave “drew vast pilgrimages of Jews”16 from throughout Eastern Europe. Vilna Jews faithfully visited the grave site on Tisha b’Av, the fast day on which the history of Jewish national calamities is recalled. Visits to the martyr’s grave were also common during the Days of Awe between Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur, as well as in conjunction with the anniversary of Avraham ben Avraham’s death, which falls on the second day of the festival of Shavuot. Visiting the sacred site, Vilna Jews would leave “kvittelach” at the grave: hand-written notes of prayer. This practice persists at the few graves of Rabbinic luminaries still intact in Eastern Europe, as

lsrael H. Ben-David, Graf Pototski [Hebrew](Tel Aviv: Shnir, 1940), 78-79. 15 Dawidowicz, 48. 16 lsrael Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1943), 74 14

6

NOBLE SOUL

it does at the tomb of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Lubavitch in Queens, New York. So, too, and most famously, this custom continues at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, to which it is now possible to transmit kvittelach-by-FAX! Properly, such prayerful notes left by the faithful of Vilna would not address the Ger Tzedek directly, nor ask his intercession, but relied on the sanctity of the location to lend merit to the supplicant’s petition. It is difficult to say whether the simple, common pilgrims from among Vilna Jewry, who generally engaged in this prayerful practice at times of personal adversity or distress―actually made such a theological distinction. It can be asserted with confidence that the rabbis of the Vilna community were particularly attuned to the compelling historical parallels linking their own experience, the fate befalling their spiritual flock, and that of the Ger Tzedek. Each year, in the Great Synagogue of Vilna, the martyrdom of their sainted Rabbinic forbear, Rabbi Menachem Mann, was recalled with a special prayer composed for that purpose. The commemoration took place on the rabbi’s yahrzeit, the Seventeenth of Tammuz. That date is best known as a fast day, inaugurating three weeks of mourning culminating in the observance of Tisha b’Av. To Vilna Jewry, however, it was a day of tribute to Rabbi Mann, who was martyred on that date, coinciding with July 3, 1749… less than two months after the execution of Avraham ben Avraham. Vilna’s oral tradition closely linked these two contemporaries. Mann is believed to have been the Ger Tzedek’s teacher and mentor… or, at the very least, the unwitting catalyst and inspiration which led to the Ger Tzedek’s conversion. It was on this same day of prayer, fasting, and sacred memory that the rabbis of Vilna were arrested en masse, abused and tortured, and, at day’s end, shot to death at Ponary: the Seventeenth of Tammuz July 12, 1941. It is unlikely that any Jew at Ponary in 1941 was unacquainted with the religious traditions associated with the Ger Tzedek, even those not personally inclined to such acts of piety. They knew, as well, of Vilna’s centuries-old oral tradition that the martyr himself met his fate at Ponary,17 at the very field where imminent death --

17 Some sources identify the site of the Ger Tzedek’s execution as Gora Zamkowa, “Castle Hill,” in Vilna itself. The courtyard of Vilna’s

RETURNING TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

7

now awaited them. They knew that the Ger Tzedek was burnt at the stake there in 1749, where Jews who had venerated his memory now lay murdered in fuel pits. The jeering executioners in Nazi uniforms must have called to mind the jeering crowd assembled for the Ger Tzedek’s execution two centuries before…a crowd of spectators expected to be so numerous that the open spaces of Ponary were deemed necessary in order to accommodate all comers. If, indeed, the Nazis’ victims at Ponary turned their thoughts to their eighteenth century forbear, with whom they suddenly had so much in common, they nonetheless must have marveled at the life he chose. As his designation as a “Ger Tzedek” signifies, the martyr had eagerly and lovingly converted to Judaism. The usual English translation of “Ger Tzedek” as “Righteous Proselyte” is pedestrian and impoverished. “Ger Tzedek” suggests complete sincerity and purity of intent, and an exemplary life of Jewish piety and devotion to God. The Vilna Ger Tzedek knew all too well that his adoption of Judaism was, in most of early eighteenth century Europe, and certainly in Vilna, a capital offense. Indeed, he was executed as an apostate by authorities of the Roman Catholic faith he had abandoned in order to join a besieged, despised minority. The execution of the Ger Tzedek grew “beyond the level of a mere historic event. It is esteemed in the Jewish consciousness as an exalted model of willing self-sacrifice for the Faith, so much so that the Jews of Vilna came to speak of him as a saint… indeed, to consider him their patron saint.”18

All but walking in his footsteps, the Jews dying at Ponary could not help but think of their “patron saint,” for of all the names by which Vilna has been known, that of the most compelling and abiding significance is its designation as “the City of Jewish

cathedral is also specifically mentioned as the location of the auto-da-fe. The Ponary tradition is passionately transmitted by surviving Jewish expatriates of Vilna, including Rabbi Haskel Lindenthal, in his autobiographical Pages of My Life, and in personal interviews. 18 Abraham Karpinowitz, Die Geschichte fun Vilner Ger Tzedek, Graf Valentin Potocki [Yiddish] (Tel Aviv: Vilner Pinkas, 1990), 14-15.

8

NOBLE SOUL

Memory.” Perhaps even more than the remarkable religious choice made by the Ger Tzedek, it was the specific, seemingly attractive alternatives available to him which account for his special place in the collective memory of Vilna Jewry and, indeed, in Jewish history.

CHAPTER 2 TO THE MANOR BORN “I am a Jew, and my birth may be of little interest to you.” 1 So Avraham ben Avraham is reputed to have said to his mother, who, despite his efforts to remain incognito, recognized him after the personal transformation of his own device. His birth, to her his true identity, was in fact of paramount interest to his mother, Lady Potocki. His family origins also account in significant part for the sustained interest of the Jewish People in remembering her son, Count Walenty Potocki. Vilna’s Ger Tzedek was born to a life of wealth, power, privilege, and prospects to which the masses of his Polish countrymen could never hope to aspire. The Potockis, a noble clan of considerable renown and impressive stature, were among a handful of “magnatial families”2 which, by the middle of the eighteenth century, “had cornered most of the hereditary offices of state and had accumulated landed fortunes larger than the Crown itself… Their private ‘states within the state’ exceeded the dimensions of many a German principality or an English county, sustaining self-sufficient economies and private armies. They pursued a lifestyle of luxury amidst the prevailing penury.”3

Their impressive wealth and business holdings earned the magnates influence on the international stage.

1 Henry Gersoni, “The Converted Noblemen,” in Sketches of Jewish Life and History (New York: Hebrew Orphan Asylum Printing Establishment, 1873), 221. 2 Norman Davies, Heart of Europe (Oxford University Press, 1984), 300. 3 Ibid.

9

10

NOBLE SOUL “It was to the courts of the leading families and not to the royal court at Warsaw or Dresden that foreign powers sent envoys and money.”4

Treated by world leaders like “something approaching sovereign princes,”5 the Potocki clan in particular “involved half of Europe in their affairs and managed to harness the forces of great powers in the service of their family interests.”6 The magnatial families, as exemplified by the Potockis, “were so powerful that they tended to be humoured by successive kings, and the result was that, by the middle of the seventeenth century, their position was unassailable.”7

The Potockis operated a merchant fleet on the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and established banks in major Polish cities. Their factories “specialized in high quality carpets, kilims, tents, hangings, sashes, and cloth.”8 The magnitude of the family’s wealth is seen in the fact that twenty Potocki magnates “drew approximately nine million zlotys from their estates…while the entire army budget did not extend much beyond five million.”9

Distinguished even among the emergent oligarchy of Polish nobility, the Potocki family enjoyed prominence, if not a dominant role, in every significant arena of Poland’s public life: legislative politics, military leadership, and ecclesiastical hierarchy. In a span of less than two hundred years, the Potocki clan counted some thirty-five senators among its sons. The Potockis notoriously exercised political power by their “leadership” in use of the liberum veto, which gave any single noble the power unilaterally to veto legislation. This ill-advised form of government, used frequently to advance selfish interests of the Potocki family to the

Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way (New York: Hippocrene, 1987), 212. Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 lbid., 182-183. 8 Ibid., 238. 9 W. F. Reddaway et al., The Cambridge History of Poland (New York: Octagon, 1971), 21. 4 5

TO THE MANOR BORN

11

detriment of the body politic, was first introduced in 1652, and is considered the “most powerful symbol of the Commonwealth’s political decay.”10 That decay, however, produced the fertile ground in which the magnates were able to flourish. From 1723 to 1738, the Potocki family enjoyed prestige and power on yet another front of Polish public life. It was during this period that Teodor Potocki, Archbishop of Gniezno, served as the thirty-fifth Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. If Walenty was born in 1719, as evidence to be discussed in later chapters suggests, Teodor Potocki led the Polish Church throughout the future Ger Tzedek’s formative years, ages four to nineteen. It can safely be assumed that it was Teodor, as a rising star in the Church hierarchy, soon to be named Archbishop, on whom the young count’s parents would have called to baptize their child. At the height of his power, in 1733, Cardinal Potocki led his family in supporting Stanislas Leszczynski to succeed Augustus II the Strong to Poland’s throne. The primate who, by rule of law, assumed national leadership during the interregnum, opposed the succession of August’s son. His motivation was clear. He, as primate, together with his powerful family “would rule during the reign of the weak Leszczynski.”11 Teodor Potocki’s “fiery appeal”12 to the convocation charged with the royal election, and assurance of “the primate’s political leadership,”13 succeeded in achieving the desired electoral results… and led to the War of Succession. Stanislas, legally elected to the throne, would subsequently be driven out by the Russians, who replaced him with Augustus III, whom the primate Potocki had specifically opposed, as their passive, docile client. A later chapter will examine his unproductive reign at some length. There can be little surprise that it was the Potockis’ rivals, the Czartoryskis, who curried favor with Augustus’ royal court. Known simply as “The Family” or “Familia,” the Czartoryski clan was at the height of its power when Walenty was executed. It is difficult not to speculate whether Leszczynski, had he retained power, might have intervened on Walenty’s behalf. It was

Zamoyski, 206. Reddaway, Ibid. 12 Ibid., 25. 13 Ibid. 10 11

12

NOBLE SOUL

the deposed king, after all, who championed the cause of Polish political reform from his Parisian exile. The very year of Walenty’s execution, Leszczynski published Glos Wolny Wolność Ubezpieczający (“A Free Voice Insuring Freedom”) touted as the “most influential tract of the age.”14 Was it the political intrigues of his kinsman, the Archbishop of Gniezno, which ultimately cost Walenty his life? Just as telling as its reputation among Polish clergy and statesmen is the Potocki clan’s proud history of distinguished service in the Polish military, including the careers of three Hetmans and one Field-Hetman. While the office of Hetman, the highest in the Polish military, fell short of that of government minister, these commanding officers attended sessions of the Seym, assuming an honored place at the king’s side. As a badge of office, the Hetman carried a buława, a baton analogous to a royal scepter, leaving no doubt as to the political clout wielded by the military leader. “The Potockis considered the army their hereditary domain.”15 Mikołaj Potocki, Crown Grand Hetman, had succeeded in quashing the Pavluk mutiny, typical of the era’s seething political discontent, in 1637. This same scion of the Potocki family twice led the Polish army in campaigns against the Tatars, aimed at restoring a strategic and political alliance with Muscovy in the 1640’s. Both Mikołaj and his twenty-four year old son, Stefan, whom he was likely grooming to succeed him, were killed by the forces commanded by Bogdan Chmielnicki, who would come to occupy such an ignoble place in Jewish history. Following Mikołaj’s death, Poland’s sovereign, Jan Kazimierz, shrewdly declined to appoint a successor to fill Potocki’s vacant office. “It was a bold attempt to assert royal control, understandable given the wide military, diplomatic, and even fiscal powers of the Hetmans.”16 Royal suppression of the Potockis’ “rightful” military influence was short-lived. Stanisław Potocki succeeded his late kinsman, inheriting the Hetman’s baton in 1654 and holding office for some thirteen years. Stanisław would gain notoriety by capitulating during the Swedish invasion of 1655, an action undertaken

Davies, 307. Reddaway, 23. 16 Robert Frost, After the Deluge (Cambridge, 1993), xvii. 14 15

TO THE MANOR BORN

13

owing to a false rumor that Jan Kazimierz had abdicated the Polish throne. Hetman Felix Potocki restored luster to the family’s military record by waging “a successful campaign in the vicinity of Podhajce, routing there a strong force of Tatar cavalry”17 in September of 1698, the last Polish-Tatar battle. Hetman Józef Potocki was a contemporary of Walenty. The power and glory associated with his office are dramatized by the funerary tributes rendered him upon his death in 1751: “The funeral… took two weeks, for six days of which 120 pieces of cannon saluted continuously (using up a total of 4,700 measures of powder). Over a dozen senators, hundreds of relatives and entire regiments congregated in Stanisławów to pay their last respects in the church which was entirely draped in black damask, before a huge catafalque of crimson velvet dripping with gold tassels, decorated with lamps, candelabra, Potocki’s portrait, captured standards, pyramids of weapons and other symbols of his office and achievements.”18

The impressive setting of these final rites was complemented by a “ritual” no less sensational in tenor or proportion: “One after the other, chosen horsemen rode into the church at a gallop, and one would shatter the lance before the coat-of-arms at the foot of the Hetman’s coffin, another broke the sabre, another the rapier, another the arrows, another the standards, and so on. Each one, having broken his instrument and thrown it down at the foot of the coffin, would then leap from his horse and fall at the foot of the coffin himself, as if showing his grief.”19

The complex balance of power shared by the military and the Polish Crown is illustrated by this Potocki “family” funeral. Not only were the elegiac proceedings of royal proportions… they honored a Hetman who, a dozen years earlier, had led a failed re-

Reddaway, 5. Zarnoyski, 204. 19 Ibid. 17 18

14

NOBLE SOUL

bellion against the very monarch still occupying the throne! Walenty Potocki’s furtive funeral rites two years earlier, to be examined together with other details of his life in the chapters which follow, provide a sobering contrast. This contrast is particularly striking in light of one dramatist’s identification (historically uncorroborated, but chronologically plausible) of a Józef Potocki as Walenty’s father. Such specific detail regarding Walenty’s place in the Potocki family tree, while enticing to his modern admirers, is, alas, entirely speculative. Primary sources for a more comprehensive and personal biographical study remain painfully elusive. “Several historians have investigated the Vilna archives as well as the Pinkas of the Ilye community. Although they have found no trace of the event, there appears to be no doubt that it occurred.”20

The dearth of historical documentation is entirely understandable. The Church, the Potocki family, and the Jewish community all had their motives for relative reticence. As early as 1873, Henry Gersoni, commenting on S. J. Fuenn’s 1860 historical survey of Jewish Vilna, in which Avraham ben Avraham’s martyrdom is mentioned, observes, “He could not give any lengthy account of the history of his conversion, probably on account of the Censor of Russia, where his work has been printed.”21

So, too, the 1904 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Potocki: “Fear of the censor has prevented writers in Russia from saying anything explicit on the subject.”22

Expanding on this theme, a 1965 anthology, Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis, offers the following insight: “For the Jews of Lithuania and Poland, the first half of the eighteenth century was a period of rigorous censor-

20 Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1943), 485-486. 21 Gersoni, 195 fn. 22 Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905) Vol. X, 147.

TO THE MANOR BORN

15

ship, ritual murder trials, repeated and bloody pogroms and frequent expulsions. It was not a propitious time for a Jewish archivist or scholar to make mention of the fidelity to Judaism of one who began life as a Roman Catholic Lithuanian nobleman.”23

In a Polish letter written to Yiddish chronicler Abraham Karpinowitz in 1990, Piotr Potocki, whose father was Polish Ambassador to Spain, refers to “my family forbear, Count Walenty Potocki.”24 Potocki politely admits that the Jewish traditions through which he learned of the Ger Tzedek “are, naturally, of interest to me,”25 although he explains that he is unaware of any family records to substantiate Karpinowitz’s research on the matter. He promises to examine family papers in London and Paris, and to “write to you again, Sir, with any relevant particulars.”26 It is unlikely that the Potocki family records will produce conclusive records to document Walenty’s remarkable religious journey. The family which produced a Primate of Poland was scandalized by the apostate it produced, and by his ongoing veneration by the Jewish community. Selective memory is a tool typical of family historians. The Kennedys, an American political dynasty to which the Potockis may aptly be compared, illustrate this archival dynamic. Biographers of Rose Kennedy describe the difficult, final days endured by the celebrated centenarian: “She spent her few waking hours watching carefully edited videotapes about her family. The triumphs and victories were all there, but none of the tragedy. There were no assassinations, no grandchildren dying from drugs or on trial for rape, no hint of Chappaquiddick and the other scandals that have plagued her last re-

David Max Eichorn, Conversion to Judaism (KTAV, 1965), 130-131. See Abraham Karpinowitz, Die Geschichte fun Vilner Ger Tzedek, Graf Valentin Potocki [Yiddish] (Tel Aviv: Vilner Pinkas, 1990), 115. I am indebted to Robert Kiniry for his assistance in translating this delicately worded correspondence from the Polish. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 23 24

16

NOBLE SOUL maining son. Relinquishing the painful memories, she could truly rest in peace.”27

The reasons for the Kennedy clan’s compassionate discretion in framing the family’s history for their formidable matriarch are quite apparent. Motivation is somewhat more difficult to discern in the case of the Potockis, although what may once have been concealed as a family scandal is likely, two hundred fifty years later, now genuinely forgotten. Was this family of noble magnates scandalized by the religious defection of a promising young count… or by the family’s powerlessness to save him from the fires of the Inquisition? For a family of cardinals, Hetmans, and senators, political impotence, more than many other sin, may well have merited a measure of historical revisionism and rehabilitation. If the Potocki name was stained in 1749, rehabilitation came quickly. The Potocki family, in the generations following Walenty’s demise, would produce numerous luminaries. Jan Potocki, “a typical young magnate brought up to speak eight languages,”28 author of the French masterpiece Manuscript Found at Saragosa, is perhaps the most famous scion of his noble line. Ignacy Potocki was to become one of the authors of Poland’s new constitution. Ignacy’s brother, Stanislas Kostka Potocki was “a most enlightened Education Minister in early nineteenth century Poland after the Partition.”29 Contemporary students of Polish history are left to wonder whether the memory of a Potocki fallen victim to the Inquisition in part shaped the career of this statesman. “The passionate fight which, in the true spirit of eighteenth century enlightenment, he waged against all obscurantism, and the attacks he made on Church property to endow educational institutions, at last led to his downfall through a conflict with the clergy.”30

27 Cindy Adams & Susan Crimp, Iron Rose (Beverly Hills: Dove Books, 1995), 12. 28 Zamoyski, 238. 29 Roman Dyboski, Outlines of Polish History (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925), 130. 30 Ibid., 168.

TO THE MANOR BORN

17

Karpinowitz himself reflects on the lack of “outside” corroboration of the Ger Tzedek tradition. “The case of Count Potocki is… not merely unusual. It was indeed revolutionary. The Polish aristocracy and the clergy saw him as a traitor to his heritage… a traitor to his class.”31

This perceived treachery produced a predictable result. “There are no specific details concerning the tragedy in the Vilna church records. Church authorities had no interest in substantiating the facts of this story. They wanted the Potocki case to be forgotten.”32

What motivates any soul to undergo a profound personal transformation through religious conversion is difficult to ascertain with precision. This speculative process is complicated when the convert is the storied object of centuries of veneration. More fully to understand at least the depth of Count Walenty Potocki’s devotion to his religious journey, it is necessary to understand the Potocki family, and all he left behind. With time, his family would deny and then forget him. Secular and Church historians would neglect him. As Abraham Karpinowitz has asserted with conviction, however, and as the authors to whom this study now turns our attention have demonstrated, “the Jews of Vilna would not forget.”33

Karpinowitz, 10. Ibid, 11. 33 Ibid. 31 32

CHAPTER 3 FIRST RESPONSE: JÓZEF IGNACY KRASZEWSKI, 1841 Shortly before the centennial of his subject’s martyrdom, Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, published a landmark account of the Ger Tzedek, to whom he refers as “Abrahama Abrahamowicza,” in his massive history, Wilno.1 Placing the narrative in the context of Vilnian Jewish history and Jewish communal affairs, Kraszewski introduces his topic with a description of his literary sources. He informs his readers that the account provided is the only translation from the “pure Hebrew” of an original manuscript which, owing to its age, was “not very legible, consisting of eight pages of quatro that are tightly covered”2 with print. Kraszewski learned of Jewish Vilna’s most famous martyr through the community’s annual memorial observance and its long-standing oral traditions. Kraszewski claims to have expended considerable effort in locating the manuscript, and to have paid “a substantial sum” for its purchase. He was compelled to take an oath not to reveal the identity of the party from whom he acquired the document.3 Kraszewski explains that the Hebrew manuscript was translated into Polish for him “with the help of Mr. Alexander Ellenbogen.”4 Several “slow” or “uninteresting” sections of the original were deleted in the translation process. The Ellenbogens, known also by “Katzenellenbogen” and “Katzenelnbogen,” were “an old, widely ramified family counting many rabbis among its members”5

1 Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Wilno [Polish] (Vilna: 1841) is a historical study of the city through the year 1750. 2 Ibid., 184, footnote #13. Translations of Kraszewski with the assistance of Ewa Wolyńska, Special Collections Librarian, Central Connecticut State University. 3 Ibid., 183, footnote #7. 4 Ibid. 5 Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905) Vol. VII, 452.

19

20

NOBLE SOUL

and with strong ties to Vilna. The founder and progenitor of the Rabbinic dynasty was Rabbi Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen of Padua (1482-1565). Known in traditional parlance as “Maharam mi-Padua,” Rabbi Meir was a relative of Rabbi Moses Isserles, the “Rema,” who addressed him as “Rabbi of Venice.”6 A number of Rabbi Meir’s responsa are included in Isserles’ collection. Other scions of the Katzenellenbogen line with ties to Vilna include Abraham ben David, who met “the child Elijah b. Solomon, who later became the famous Gaon. Abraham took young Elijah home with him to Keidani to his father’s house, and kept him there several months.”7 Rabbi Aryeh Loeb ben Joseph Katzenellenbogen “was considered one of the great rabbis of his time.”8 He was a leading participant in a convocation of rabbis assembled in Vilna in 1818, at the behest of Czar Alexander I, to designate three “deputies” as official representatives of the Jewish community. Aryeh Loeb’s signature is second on the resulting resolution. Naphtali Hirsch Katzenellenbogen, author of Netivot Olam, was a contemporary of Kraszewski. He died in Vilna in 1868. Rabbi Saul ben Joseph Katzenellenbogen was a disciple of the Vilna Gaon and Assistant Rabbi of Vilna until his death in 1825. A 1904 Jewish Encylcopedia article on Rabbi Saul notes that “the stories which are still related about him, especially in connection with the gaon, by the older inhabitants of Wilna bear testimony to his great popularity.”9

At least two Katzenellenbogens had literary ties to S. J. Fuenn, author of Kiryah Ne’emanah, the earliest extant Jewish source explicitly to refer to the Ger Tzedek. Hayyim Loeb ben Hirsch (18141876), in collaboration with Fuenn, compiled the Hebrew original of the “Mirovozzreniye Talmudistov” (Talmudist’s View of the World), published in three volumes at St. Petersburg in 1876. Another relative, Hillel Noah-Steinschneider (1829-1903) wrote addenda to Kiryah Ne’emanah which were published posthumously.

Ibid., 454. Ibid., 453. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., 455. 6 7

FIRST RESPONSE

21

The Alexander Ellenbogen employed as Kraszewski’s translator may be Alexander Susskind Minz of Brody, a twelfth generation descendant of Rabbi Meir, through Rabbis Nathan and Menachem The name KatzenellenNahum Katzenellenbogen.10 bogen/Ellenbogen carried such prestige, that men marrying into the family frequently took their wives’ surname! This prompted a legal proceeding lodged by “true” Katzenellenbogen men, temporarily forcing pretenders to the dynasty to be designated by the altered form of the patronymic, Katzenellenpogen. It is thus plausible that Kraszewski would have referred to Alexander of Brody as an Ellenbogen. It is, however, highly unlikely that Poland’s prolific novelist and historian would have fabricated the existence of a translator…and assigned him a name linking him to so admired a family of current Rabbinic leaders in the Vilna community. Identifying an Ellenbogen as his translator lends credence to the claimed existence of a time-worn Hebrew original. The Polish rendition of the Ger Tzedek’s biography is entitled Historja sprawiedliwie nawróconego (“The Story of the Righteous Proselyte”). In parentheses, Kraszewski provides the title from the original Hebrew, transliterated into Polish: Mase Ger Cedek. The text begins with a date, “the year 479 of the sixth millennium (1719).”11 The date, indicating the year 5479 on the Hebrew calendar, appears to refer not to the culmination of the Ger Tzedek’s life journey in his celebrated martyrdom, but to the birth of his school-mate and fellow convert, Zarembo, to whose experiences much of this early account is devoted. This shift in subject was the cause of confusion to Kraszewski’s Yiddish translator, Isaac Mayer Dick. Dick, in a popular adaption of the Polish historian’s account, “corrects” the date to correspond to the accepted timing of Potocki’s execution, while retaining Kraszewski’s style: “In the year 509 of the sixth millennium,”12 i.e. 5509 or 1749. Dick’s adaptation was first published,

10 See Neil Rosenstein, The Unbroken Chain: Biographical Sketches and the Geneaology of Illustrious Jewish Families from the Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Centuries (New York: Shenvold, 1976), 104. 11 Kraszewski, 173. 12 Isaac Mayer Dick, “Mayse Ger Tzedek” in Di Yidishe Velt [Yiddish] (Vilner Verlag, No. 6, June 1913), 43.

22

NOBLE SOUL

posthumously, in one of Vilna’s several Yiddish journals, Di Yidishe Velt, in 1913, some twenty years after his death. The “corrected” date is clearly legible on the first page of the manuscript, identified as written in Dick’s own hand, and included in the published article. Max Mayer faithfully translated Dick’s Yiddish, including this unnecessarily revisionist adaptation, into German three years later in Das Buch von der Polnischer Juden. The latter work was edited by S. J. Agnon and Ahron Eliasberg. Kraszewski’s date is a valuable datum, however. Since Zaremba and Potocki were classmates, we can assume they were of approximately the same age. The discrepancy between the dates included in the opening sentences of Kraszewski’s Polish and Dick’s Yiddish may account for the observation offered in Henry Gersoni’s 1877 English account that Potocki appeared “to be a man about thirty years of age”13 upon his reunion with Zarembo, shortly before his execution. It is thus reasonable to fix the Ger Tzedek’s birth date around 1719, and his age at the time of his death as approximately thirty. According to the “translation” transmitted by Kraszewski, young Zarembo, whose first name is not provided, is the gifted, beloved son of a “lesser noble,”14 a member of the petty gentry residing in Zamet (Zmudz). Having been sent to school in Vilna by his father, the young man distinguishes himself academically, far excelling his peers. Impressed by his achievements, members of the nobility provide generous funds, allowing the young man to pursue more advanced studies in Paris. It is generally assumed that the Sorbonne is the institution intended. Further distinguishing himself in the “City of Light,” Zarembo “became a companion of the son of a great Polish nobleman named Pot…”15 The name, partially excised by the censor throughout the narrative, could only be a reference to the Potocki clan. It is unclear, however, if only the name has been altered by

Henry Gersoni, “The Coverted Noblemen” in Sketches of Jewish Life and History (New York: Hebrew Orphan Asylum Printing Establishment, 1873), 208. 14 Kraszewski, 173. 15 Ibid., 174. 13

FIRST RESPONSE

23

the censor, or if the ellipsis marks indicate a more extensive section deleted from the original. Strolling through the city and admiring its beauty, Potocki and Zarembo grow thirsty. Seemingly following the practice of university students throughout the ages, the two companions enter a Parisian wine shop. There they encounter “an old German Jew”16 who would so dramatically change the course of their privileged lives. The wine shop apparently provided outdoor seating, as is typical of today’s Parisian cafes, for the students noticed the man, immersed in study, seated beneath the shelter of an arbor or “tent” of some sort. We can imagine the proprietor of a modern sidewalk cafe seeking shade from the Parisian sun beneath the awning of his establishment. The structure, it has been suggested by Dick, among others, may in fact have been a Succah. Dick, in his typical manner of embellishment, adds that the man did not study alone, but was instructing a young boy. 17 The curious students engage the tavernkeeper in conversation, inquiring about the nature of the book occupying his attention, and the unfamiliar language in which it is printed. Their host explains that the text is written in “the Holy Tongue,”18 and offers detailed analyses of a number of passages and chapters. The identity of the book is not given explicitly, although Kraszewski hypothesizes in a footnote19 that either the Hebrew Bible or a volume of the Babylonian Talmud is intended. It is difficult to imagine even the most gifted instructor teaching several chapters of Talmud in the course of so brief an exchange. It seems considerably more likely that it was the Bible which the proprietor of the wine shop expounded to his visitors. Dick confirms this judgment, explicitly calling the book a “Tanach.”20 Potocki and Zarembo express surprise that “nasz Rabbin” (our Rabbi)21 hadn’t taught them the same text. Clearly the reference is to the master under whom they had studied at the University. The

Ibid. Dick, 44. 18 Kraszewski, 174. 19 Ibid., 184, footnote #18. 20 Dick, 44. 21 Kraszewski, 174. 16 17

24

NOBLE SOUL

strange choice of words may simply reflect the parochialism of the original Hebrew text. In Dick’s version, the students forebodingly ask why the man appears to be studying so secretively, “as if you were committing thereby a great sin.”22 So enamored of their new teacher and of his subject matter were the students, that “the magnate’s son promised to pay him well”23 for further instruction. Assuring his students of the truth contained in the sacred texts, the tavern owner met with his students three times a week. Within six months they had worked their way through the entire Pentateuch. “The words of Torah sank into their hearts and they became different people.”24 Dick asserts that the subject matter studied included not merely Pentateuch, but Prophets and Talmud as well. It seems clear that the proprietor of the wine shop had no intention of leading his fledgling Hebraists toward conversion. Such an effort was both illegal and undertaken at mortal peril in eighteenth century France. Nor did he assume that two apparently wealthy, well-placed, young Polish noblemen had any such interest. No indication is given that the merchant ever learns of his disciples’ conversion. His intent seems to have been “to fortify”25 his own faith through the process of elucidation his curious, well educated listeners demanded. Indeed, he scolds the young men (Dick says, repeatedly) when he learns that they have begun to neglect their university studies and religious obligations as Roman Catholics. A footnote26 suggests that, in the Hebrew manuscript, Potocki referred to the Church he now declined to attend as Bet ha-Tiflah (“The House of Folly”), a pejorative pun on Bet ha-Tfilah (“The House of Prayer”). It is a fascinating irony that so celebrated an adherent of Judaism experienced his religious conversion in a barroom. Parisian taverns in particular have a rich literary history. “Taverns have become a cliche in descriptions of the old regime, a symbol of misery and debauchery, and

Dick, 45. Kraszewski, 174. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., 184, footnote #22. 22 23

FIRST RESPONSE

25

continue to play that role for many modern historians… Tavernkeepers were more than ever the hosts of thieves and assassins.”27

Perhaps the unconventional venue of the young men’s religious instruction can simply be attributed to the prevalence of public drinking establishments in Parisian culture of the period: “nearly 3000 in all by the middle of the eighteenth century, or roughly one for every 200 inhabitants.”28 Evidently, the unnamed Jew’s lucid explanations of his religious tradition contrasted favorably with the insights of the “thirdrate philosophes”29 typical of Parisian taverns. This alone could have motivated his interlocutors to persist in their inquiries. Perhaps, however, the contrast experienced in the wine shop by the students was of a more dramatic and significant sort. The liquor trade in Poland was extensive. Noble clans sought to keep the peasantry docile and impoverished through alcohol addiction. The frequent employment of Jewish agents in this endeavor also succeeded in deflecting peasant resentment away from the nobility, and onto the more visible symbols of their manipulative distribution of liquor, the Jewish tavernkeepers. It is not unreasonable to speculate that a young scion of the Potocki family would have been familiar, or even personally involved in this unseemly business. Finding an articulate, enlightened man of religious principle in the very position associated with the underbelly of Polish noble economics, surely gave Potocki and Zarembo reason to rethink their views of Judaism and its practitioners. Given the extent of noble involvement in liquor sales, we can speculate further as to whether it was not merely thirst, but business that led young Potocki to a procurer of alcohol. “The wine trade brought wine from nearly all the ports of the country, indeed from all over Europe, which

27 Thomas Brennan, Public Drinking & Popular Culture in Eighteenth Century Paris (Princeton University Press, 1988), 5, 20. 28 Ibid., 76. 29 Ibid., 13.

26

NOBLE SOUL poured into the huge Parisian market to serve its vast demand.”30

To this day, the Potocki family runs a highly successful distillery in Lancut, Poland. A museum on the distillery grounds retains documents attesting to the firm’s existence in 1784, although the precise date of its establishment is some time earlier. Count Alfred Potocki I took over management of the family business from his grandmother, Duchess Lubomirska, in 1823. The involvement of the Potocki family in the liquor trade was thus no doubt well known to Kraszewski when he transmitted the tradition of the barroom conversion for his readers two decades later. In the early twenty-first century, the Potocki distillery is a leader in Polish production of alcohol, with about ten percent of the Polish market. The family still exports regularly to France. In this light, it may be deduced that there is no irony whatsoever in a young nobleman effecting a religious transformation in an eighteenth century Parisian wine shop. It was there that, as a sensitive, intellectually curious university student, he was naturally confronted with the revelatory contrast of two worlds. There he considered the material wealth of his noble line, accrued through business practices of dubious morality―business ventures in which he had begun to take a role, as his family expected. There, too, he encountered, perhaps for the first time, a studious, pious, and articulate practitioner of a religious tradition he had been raised to disdain. Responsive to his questions, and giving of his time and personal efforts, the young nobleman found a soulmate in the Jewish tavernkeeper, the very position his class, if not his own family, had amassed fortunes exploiting. Having completed their course of study with the wine shop’s proprietor, the two students again set out for a fateful stroll, accompanied by their servants. Potocki reveals to Zarembo his conviction that “the faith of Israel is true”31 and his intention to convert. To do so, he plans “to escape”32 Paris, and to travel to Amsterdam, where conversion to Judaism is permitted. Zarembo of-

Ibid., 93. Kraszewski, 175. 32 Ibid. 30 31

FIRST RESPONSE

27

fers a solemn promise to protect his friend’s plan, and declares that he will do the same. Being of more modest financial means, Zarembo’s journey must wait, he says, until he can secure sufficient funds. Before setting out for Amsterdam and the momentous step to be taken there, the two young men devise a plan. Potocki will first travel to Rome to determine through study if they could still find compelling truth and meaning in the Roman Catholic faith to which they were born. The young friends, it seems, were not yet certain that conversion was warranted. Kraszewski records in parentheses a colorful description of their ambivalence, translating from the common Hebrew expression apparently contained in the original manuscript: “They still jumped on two thresholds.”33 This apt expression is taken directly from the Biblical verse, I Kings 18:21, where Elijah berates Israelite indecisiveness: “If the Lord is God follow Him; and if Baal, follow him!” In Dick’s adaptation of the Kraszewski account, a strange passage is inserted,34 at this juncture. The friends decide to leave their religious destiny “in God’s hands.” To this end they engage in a process of “drawing lots” (varfen goyrl). This expression finds resonance in two relevant Biblical texts. The first is Leviticus, chapter 16, which prescribes the priestly ritual for Yom Kippur. Two goats are assigned ritual roles by lot (goral). One is designated “for the Lord” and serves as a sacrificial offering. The second goat is designated “for Azazel” and is consigned to aimless wandering, and presumed demise, in the wilderness. The second text associated with the term goral is Esther 3:7. Haman draws “lots” to determine the most auspicious date for the destruction of Persian Jewry. Indeed, it is these lots, apparently called pur in Persian, which gave the holiday of Purim its name. At every stage of its literary development, the tradition of Vilna’s Ger Tzedek is framed in terms reminiscent of the Book of Esther. In doing so here, Dick makes clear that the fate of his protagonists hangs in the balance. Zarembo and Potocki understand the stakes of the undertaking. Dick elaborates: “They understood all too well that they would

33 34

Ibid. Dick, 47.

28

NOBLE SOUL

endure great hardship, besides having to abandon wealth and status, homeland and family…to become beggars―that is, poor Jews in a foreign land.”35 His trip to Rome is financed by Potocki’s father who, of course, is unaware of the journey’s purpose. In Rome, the wealthy young nobleman is received “with great honor”36 by the Pope himself. This papal audience may have less to do with the young man’s social standing and potential for temporal power than with the ecclesiastical credentials of the Potocki family. Teodor Potocki, it must be remembered, was Archbishop of Gniezno and Primate of Poland from 1723 to 1738. Pope Benedict XIV had been a cardinal at the same time as Potocki, and no doubt, sat in conclave with him at the election to the papacy of Clement XII, whom Benedict was to succeed to the throne of Saint Peter. (In the unlikely event that this papal audience took place before 1740, that is, during the reign of Clement himself, then the Pope remembered Teodor Potocki as one of his electors.) While his motives for doing so are subject to speculation, Dick includes no such meeting with the Pontiff in his adaptation, asserting that young Potocki merely met with the Pope’s valet or chamberlain. While in Rome, Potocki studies at the Pontifical Academy, one of the seminaries or universities administered by the Vatican. There, in magnatial fashion, Potocki hosts a weekly reception for “papal men,”37―church officials in direct contact with the Pope. On these men Potocki bestows many gifts. During one of these parties, an incident transpires which so disillusions Potocki that he decides to “get away from falsehood and embrace the true God.”38 The details of the discussion are somewhat murky and, furthermore, interrupted by a gap in Kraszewski’s text. The author laments in his footnote: “Despite our intent to be faithful to the original we omit here a fragment that is impossible to translate.”39 What can be discerned is that a close attendant of the Pope solicits

Ibid. Kraszewski, 175. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 176. 39 Ibid., 184, footnote #26. 35 36

FIRST RESPONSE

29

a bribe to reveal secrets about the Pontiff’s personal conduct and humanity, dispelling beliefs that, on a regular basis, “His Holiness assumes into Heaven.”40 Prompted to discontinue his study of Catholicism and to embrace Judaism, Potocki’s subsequent actions are described with remarkable brevity. “He escaped from Rome, went to the shore, and boarded a ship. He arrived in Amsterdam and converted to Judaism. He stayed there for several months.”41

The narrative at this point suddenly turns its attention, in considerably greater detail, back to Zarembo. Potocki’s companion knows nothing of his whereabouts or conversion. The young nobleman wrote him no letters, for fear of disclosing his secret. Zarembo stays in Paris long enough to complete his studies, after which he returns home to Lithuania. On his way home, Zarembo stops at the palace of one of the noblemen who had financed his studies abroad. His host’s identity is partially excised by the censor, who leaves the altered text reading “Hetman Tysz…”42 It seems clear that the reference is to a member of the Tyszkiewicz family. (Dick makes this assumption, supplying the full name in his unexpurgated rendition.)43 Zarembo is felicitously received, and remains with his host, a friend of his father, for a month. Impressed by the young man, Tyszkiewicz gives him his daughter’s hand in marriage. Following a month-long wedding celebration, Zarembo attains power and renown among the noble class into which he has married. In time, his wife bears him a son. In all his financial and familial good fortune, Zarembo seems to forget about his erstwhile classmate and companion, and about their respective plans to convert to Judaism. After some time, letters from “the great magnate” Potocki circulate throughout Poland, announcing the disappearance of his son from Rome, and seeking information as to his whereabouts. In

Ibid., 175. Ibid., 176. 42 Ibid. 43 Dick, 48. 40 41

30

NOBLE SOUL

Dick’s telling of this aspect of the narrative, the letters are read publicly. Zarembo alone knows the significance of his friend’s “disappearance.” He understands that young Potocki, dissatisfied with his encounter with the Church in Rome, “had escaped to Amsterdam to convert to Judaism.”44 This secret knowledge, and his own unfulfilled oath to embrace Judaism, weigh heavily on Zarembo, despite or, perhaps, because of the new life of comfort to which he has attained. As Dick puts it, Zarembo is troubled by his ongoing “sin against truth.”45 Zarembo’s father-in-law, Hetman Tyszkiewicz, senses his unexplained anxiety. Zarembo claims ill health and a desire to see his father underlie his obvious personal suffering. His father-in-law provides a coach to take Zarembo, his wife, and son to his father’s home, where the family stays for a month. Zarembo’s anxiety and guilt do not abate. Zarembo turns once again to his generous father-in-law, who provides substantial funds for a second family trip, this time to Konigsberg. Zarembo and his wife enjoy their stay in the Prussian city, remaining there for a year. Zarembo persuades his wife to ask her father for more money, ostensibly in order to purchase a home in Konigsberg. When the money arrives, however, Zarembo informs his wife that he wishes to travel to the Netherlands, and that, conveniently, a ship is at hand to transport them to their destination. Not realizing the true purpose of the journey, Zarembo’s wife agrees to accompany him, “to see the beauty of this country.”46 The Zarembo family, no typical tourists, find lodging in Amsterdam. The very next day, Zarembo and his now five-year-old son meet the Rabbi of the city. Announcing his intention to convert, Zarembo, no doubt demonstrating the depth of knowledge acquired through the efforts of his Parisian tutor, is accepted forthwith by the Rabbi. He and his son undergo ritual circumcision, and spend the day recovering from the procedure in a secluded room. It is curious that Zarembo does not inquire explicitly about his companion, with whom the Rabbi would surely have been acquainted. Perhaps such matters of confidence could not be

Kraszewski, 177. Dick, 49. 46 Kraszewski, 177. 44 45

FIRST RESPONSE

31

revealed until Zarembo’s true intentions, demonstrated through his own conversion, were manifest. Zarembo sends a message to his wife, who had grown concerned about her family’s delay in returning. Announcing his conversion, and that of their son, to Judaism, Zarembo assumes his wife will leave him. “I am a Jew, a human abomination, and you are a great hetman’s daughter.”47

Indeed, his wife at first responds to her husband and son’s conversion with panic, fearing for their lives and her future. Informed that conversion is accepted in Amsterdam and indeed (according to Dick’s version) not uncommon among Spanish noble emigres, she finds her husband, however, and declares her own willingness to convert. Zarembo is pleased by his wife’s devotion and her interest in embracing his new religious identity. He explains that she must undergo a period of study, and acquaint herself with the many personal and religious demands imposed by Judaism. “Before you convert you should learn Jewish Law and you will see that it contains many commandments, not like the Akumian faith, where everything is allowed… Should you still desire to convert to Judaism, I will receive you with love.”48

The description of his former faith as “Akumian” (in Polish, “wiara akumska”) is an unusual formulation. The term derives from the unflattering Rabbinic acronym for idolatry, Akum, signifying Avodat Kochavim u-Mazalot, literally, “worship of the stars and planets.” Zarembo’s wife “liked this answer.” She arranges to be instructed by pious Jewish women and, following a lengthy period of study, a Dayan, a Rabbinic Judge, oversees her conversion to Judaism, including the required ritual of immersion. Upon his wife’s conversion, however, Zarembo at first balks at their renewed marital union. He proposes that they separate,

47 48

Ibid., 178. Ibid.

32

NOBLE SOUL

each marrying “native born” Jews who can guide them to proper lives of Jewish religious observance and piety…which they, as newcomers to Judaism, despite their formal training, would be less able to achieve together. The newly converted Jewess responds with a parable which reflects both her personal sensitivity and depth of religious devotion: “Two men were in a forest, where they lost their way. For several days, they wandered about in great anxiety. A miracle occurred: they found the right path, and were overjoyed. As they set out on the path, one said to the other: ‘Now let us part ways. I will go alone, and you will go by yourself.’ His companion replied: ‘Is that justice? We were lost together. Now that we have found the right path, you want us to go our separate ways? We should go together and enjoy the miracle God has performed for us.’ And you want to do the same thing! When we were lost in the Akumian emptiness, you were my husband. Now that we found the right way, you want to separate from me. That is unjust. Let us stay together and enjoy the miracle God has performed for us.”49

The couple are, indeed, reunited as husband and wife, and, together with their son, live in Amsterdam for several years. Subsequently they settle in the Land of Israel. There, Dick adds, they live long, pious lives, earning them eternity in the “World to Come” as befits “all great Tzadikim (righteous souls), especially Gerei Tzedek (righteous proselytes).”50 In the years since he and Zarembo had parted ways, and following his conversion, Potocki traveled from Amsterdam to Germany, where he was unhappy with the liberal tendencies of the Jewish community. From Germany he traveled to Russia, and from Russia to Lithuania, settling in the small town of Ilye, not far from Vilna. After only several weeks, the Ger Tzedek experiences a confrontation which, though concerning a seemingly minor incident, leads ultimately to his execution.

49 50

Ibid., 178-179. Dick, 53.

FIRST RESPONSE

33

While occupied in study at Ilye’s synagogue, the Ger Tzedek reprimands a young boy, a tailor’s son, for breaching the bounds of propriety and synagogue etiquette by his noisy, disruptive behavior. The boy responds in an arrogant and disrespectful manner. Potocki upbraids the undisciplined child, saying that a devoted Jewish boy would not behave so contemptuously; surely he will grow to be an apostate. The boy’s father, offended and impulsive, informs the authorities that, in violation of the law of the land, a convert to Judaism resides in Ilye. The Ger Tzedek is promptly arrested, taken to Vilna chained and shackled, and is soon recognized as the missing son of Count Potocki. When he is addressed by his noble name, the Ger Tzedek refuses to respond or to acknowledge his interrogators. “You fools! How can I answer you when you call me by a name that is not mine?! I am an Israelite and my name is Avraham.”51

The Bishop fails to win the Ger Tzedek back to the Church, as do three beautiful women who are sent to seduce him. Resisting their entreaties, Potocki remained in his prison for more than a year. In his miserable state of incarceration, the prisoner developed a parasitic affliction, worms of some type. This the pious convert interpreted as just divine recompense for his spiritually misspent youth. “Destroy my body, which grew strong on unclean (i.e., unkosher) meat.”52

Finally, the Ger Tzedek was sentenced to be burnt at the stake on the second day of the Festival of Shavuot. Prior to his execution, Potocki declined a last offer to renounce Judaism and to return to the Church. He responded with such vehemence and disdain that the executioners were ordered to cut out his tongue. Before suffering this added torture, the Ger Tzedek recited the prescribed liturgical blessing for public martyrdom: “Blessed are You, Lord… Who sanctifies His Name before the masses.”53

51 52

Kraszewski, 180. Ibid.

34

NOBLE SOUL

He was then consigned to the flames, his body reduced to ash. The Jews of Vilna, fearing for their own lives, prudently stayed in their homes all that Festival day. Only one, Rabbi Lezer Sysikes, ventured out. The Rabbi, fortuitously beardless, was presumably able to go unrecognized. Through bribery of the executioners’ attendant, Sysikes acquired “a fistful of ashes from the pious, clean body. All the rest was consumed by the fire.”54 Sysikes also somehow acquired some of “the blood of this saint,”55 perhaps bloodsoaked clothes from the tortures preceding execution. The few remains collected (significantly including, according to Dick’s embellished rendition, a single finger)56 were to be buried in the Jewish community’s Old Cemetery. On the day following the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, a letter arrived with an order forbidding execution. The source of this pardon, variously attributed to the Polish King or the Pope, is a matter of some debate, to be examined in a later chapter. Kraszewski’s account offers no information in this regard, although “the King”57 is identified as the author in Dick’s adaptation. Before concluding, the Ger Tzedek narrative transmitted by Kraszewski records two miraculous incidents suggesting fitting divine retribution for the martyr’s suffering. A woman who laughed derisively while the executioners excised the Ger Tzedek’s tongue was herself stricken with a sudden ailment which paralyzed her face, grotesquely distorting her mouth. Similarly, those who had provided wood to fuel the executioners’ pyre, thereafter mysteriously lost their homes to fire. It should be noted as significant that no reference to retribution visited on the tailor who betrayed the Ger Tzedek is made by either Kraszewski or Dick. An elaborate oral tradition in this regard is mentioned by numerous subsequent sources. Similarly, the later tradition of Potocki fleeing to an inn, the proprietor of which turns

53 Ibid. The same blessing was prescribed by Rabbi Efrayim Oshry, to be recited by Jews facing death at Nazi hands. See Oshry’s Responsa from the Holocaust [#19], 37. 54 Ibid., 181. 55 Ibid. 56 Dick, 57. 57 Ibid.

FIRST RESPONSE

35

him over to the authorities, appears nowhere in these early accounts. The narrative ends with the assurance that the martyr’s soul, accompanied by holy angels, was received “with endless joy” into the hands of the Patriarch Abraham, by whose name the Ger Tzedek, Avraham ben Avraham, had been called… and with the prayer that “his sacrifice, and the sacrifices of all martyred saints support us, so we will see the coming of the Savior Messiah. Amen.”58

The positive disposition toward Judaism, its history of martyrdom, and the phenomenon of sincere conversion Kraszewski brought to his transmission of the narrative discussed above, would be demonstrated again by the renowned and prolific Polish novelist in his later work, entitled The Jew. The protagonist of the novel, indeed the title character, is Jacob. The eponymic value of his name is self-evident, particularly considering his surname, Hamon, in Hebrew, “masses.” Thus, Jacob Hamon: “the masses of (the House of) Jacob.” Jacob is a vision of the Jew of the Enlightenment, concerned with Jewish identity and religiosity, but modernizing and free of “superstition.” In an eloquent soliloquy, Jacob articulates the honor and just pride that, in his estimation, attend his status as a Jew. Herein we may begin to discern the views that motivated the novelist to include the narrative of the Ger Tzedek in his historical magnum opus. “Before being a man I am a Jew. This word recalls much suffering, the first legislation worthy of humanity, the most ancient morals emanating from divine wisdom… As God is eternal, so are his laws. When nations were wandering and lost in the by-ways of polytheism and of anomalism (if I can by this word express the absence of laws), the one God is manifested to us…. We are spread over the whole world, holding fast to the word of God. During two thousand years we have not made proselytes: we have guarded the treasure for our-

58

Kraszewski, 181.

36

NOBLE SOUL selves. The world is busy, toils and labours; and we live on, absorbed entirely in guarding this treasure.”59

Tellingly, Kraszewski includes in his novel a recitation by the protagonist of the story of Rabbi Akiba, his scholarly career and heroic martyrdom. He also points out that “Akiba converted many Romans to the Hebrew monotheism. Flavius Clemens, a relative of the emperor, was put to death for having embraced the doctrine, and his wife was, for the same reason, condemned to exile.”60 Kraszewski, who wrote with admiration of both Potocki and Akiba, has Jacob describe Poland as the land suited “to those who thirst for martyrdom,” 61 and Jacob himself described as “the best of men.”62 If Kraszewski was possessed of substantial familiarity with Judaism and its history, a tradition not his own, Isaac Mayer Dick (1808-1893) was a worthy translator of his work. Himself “an old style Jew to the last,”63 though an advocate of modernization of Jewish habits among the new generation, Dick offers a striking personal resemblance to Kraszewski’s Jacob Hamon. Dick’s father, a Cantor, provided him a traditional Jewish education. As a young man living near Vilna, Dick “became acquainted with a Catholic priest who clandestinely taught him the German language.”64 He also learned Polish and Russian. Erudite and gifted at story-telling, Dick is not without detractors. “Modern critics condemn his style… his quotations from the Talmud and Midrashim with his own commentaries, retarding the flow of the narrative; and his pausing at a dialogue or other interesting point to insert a long sermon on the moral lesson to be drawn from incidents described in the story…verbosity and deviation.” 65

59 Kraszewski, The Jew, translation by Linda da Kowalewska (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1890), 36. 60 Kraszewski, The Jew, 263-264. 61 Ibid., 466. 62 Ibid., 467. 63 Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905) Vol. IV, 576. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid.

FIRST RESPONSE

37

All of these stylistic qualities are to be found in his Mayse Ger Tzedek. Nevertheless, he succeeded, if only posthumously, in making Kraszewski’s contribution to the literary history of the martyred Potocki accessible to the Jewish world. He, like Kraszewski himself, understood the value, historic and inspirational, in remembering a man who left behind a life of privilege, wealth and power, gladly suffering torture and martyrdom for the opportunity to embrace Judaism as a Ger Tzedek.

POSTSCRIPT While neither Church records nor Potocki family archives, nor indeed Jewish communal records have produced corroboration of the Ger Tzedek’s tragic experiences, the personal papers of Józef Ignacy Kraszewski may provide a unique insight into the conversion that scandalized Poland’s most powerful magnates. Colonel Wojciech Potocki, an heir to his family’s military tradition, was a familiar correspondent of Kraszewski during the period in which Wilno was published. His hand-written letters are among the novelists’ collected personal papers, now held by the Biblioteka Jagiellońska of the Uniwersytet Jagielloński in Cracow, Poland. Most of the correspondence is of unremarkable content. In one letter, for example, the colonel inquires about the novelist’s relationship with two American women of his acquaintance! One curious document,66 however, sent to Kraszewski by Colonel Potocki shortly after publication of his account of the Ger Tzedek, represents a scathing, if cautiously worded, personal attack. The poetic text arranged in rhyming couplets, is written in an artistic, almost calligraphic hand. Kraszewski is not addressed directly. Indeed, the poem appears under the heading, “Answer to Jarosz Bajle by Wojciech Potocki, Colonel.” Whether Kraszewski’s receipt of this document represents a “carbon copy” to an interested party, or Potocki simply chose to convey his displeasure to the author by means of an apt, pre-existing poem is difficult to judge. What is

66 “Odpowiedź Jaroszowi Bajle przez Wojciecha Potockiego” [Polish] ‘Unpublished manuscript, Józef Ignacy Kraszewski Collection, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Cracow. Archive #6458-IV. Translations with the assistance of Robert Kiniry.

38

NOBLE SOUL

clear is that Potocki is responding harshly to a written account he considers offensive, libelous, and scandalous. He attacks the author: “You would like to inject your own baseness into the nation. Not feeling the virtue in your heart, you want to offend it. Not being able to rise to it, you want to lower it to your level.”

Lamenting “the way Satan showers abuse over lost souls,” Potocki seems to express a measure of contrition, conceding, “We have committed great offenses, great punishment from Heaven.”

Hinting that the author’s unspecified, offensive publication may in fact be based in a measure of fact, Potocki continues: “You are not one to point out crimes to us, You, who carries your predecessors’ crimes and your own.”

This invective echoes the “blood curse” uttered by the Jewish mobs of Matthew 27: “His blood be on us and on our children.” Castigating one judged outside the pale of Christian belief, Potocki continues: “If you were a believer, I would not want to fight with you, But you do not believe in a God who forgives… Carrying Hell in your heart, you do not understand Heaven. You have no Faith; you worship at Mammon’s altar.”

In a telling and bitter conclusion, Colonel Potocki bespeaks the pain the author has inflicted on his powerful family which, though wounded, he asserts, will ultimately prevail. “In vain and in venom have you written your deceitful paper… Uselessly, your degraded, degenerated soul, Wants us to empty a cup of venom. But no matter how morbid or turbid your poison, We shall be well, though nothing will wipe away this stigma… You and your memory will perpetually accuse.”

Alas, Colonel Potocki does not explicitly identify the “deceitful paper” which motivated his embittered correspondence with

FIRST RESPONSE

39

Kraszewski, nor his subtle comparison of the author to the jeering Jewish mobs described by Matthew at the crucifixion. His confession of collective sins (“We have committed great offenses”) is similarly vague. Also unspecified is the nature of the suffering perceived as “great punishment from Heaven.” Such linguistic subterfuge seems uncharacteristic of a military officer from a proud family of warriors. No doubt family honor, no less a military tradition, required discretion in responding to so painful a scandal. If, as seems likely, it is indeed Kraszewski’s chapter on the Ger Tzedek, published in his magnum opus, Wilno, to which Colonel Potocki here responds, his words provide a unique documentation of his family’s reaction to their kinsman’s conversion to Judaism. They viewed the apostasy of a scion of the Potocki clan, the religious defection of their kinsman as, quite literally, a scandal of biblical proportions. Publication of this incident by a renowned author and fellow Pole was a blasphemous “outrage” of “lewd venom.” Colonel Potocki’s vituperative verse is, however, more than revealing: it is prophetic. Whether as “stigma” or saint, the martyred Ger Tzedek of Vilna has, for two and a half centuries been associated with the Potocki name. “You and your memory will perpetually accuse,” Potocki wrote. Józef Ignacy Kraszewski’s memorable essay has, indeed, assured his subject’s place in Jewish history, as the object of neither vilification nor accusation, but of veneration.

CHAPTER 4 EARLY DATA AND DOCUMENTS Before Jewish authors turned their attention to the traditions regarding the conversion and martyrdom of Count Walenty Potocki in any detail, a number of Hebrew sources mentioned him, and those associated with his memory, in passing. Three such texts follow:

Kiryah Ne’emanah, page 120 [#60] by Samuel Joseph Fuenn,

Vilna, 1860 During this period lived the martyr, our teacher, Rabbi Menachem Mann of Vizun, distinguished in Torah and piety. Righteous even at the moment of his death, that which storytellers and historians attribute to the saintly philosopher Socrates we heard explicitly from Menachem’s mouth, before his pure soul returned to the Bond of Life Eternal. Though he was wallowing in his own blood (on the day of his martyrdom, the fast of the Seventeenth of Tammuz), he took up this parable in order to instill in his listeners a knowledge of the dignity of the soul and its immortality: “How great is the Good waiting in store for those who revere God’s Name, and who know Him in all their ways. All earthly treasure is insignificant in comparison. Mortal life under the sun is nothing, a nullity, as far as a soul returning to its Source, to its Heavenly Father is concerned. So much so that the soul will not even recall the injury inflicted upon it, or upon the body which was its temporary dwelling during its earthly sojourn… just as one who has found great wealth will give little thought to a copper coin which had been stolen from him during an earlier period of poverty.”

His words are inscribed in Ammudei Bet Yehuda [Yehuda HaLevy Hurwitz, Amsterdam, 1766], page 46. In memory of this martyr, the sages of Vilna composed a special prayer, found in manuscript in the Great Synagogue’s collection of prayers. 41

42

NOBLE SOUL

His comrade in piety and purity was the martyred Rabbi Avraham ben Avraham, who had joined the Household of Israel through conversion, and was consumed in sacrificial fire on the second day of Shavuot 5509 [May 24, 1749].

Chazon la-Mo’ed, page 15. Chapter 6: “Vilna,” by Benjamin

Mandelstamm, Vienna, 1877 All the inhabitants of the city will offer testimony as to accuracy of this account in every detail. It is as follows. In the year…one of the noblemen, by the name of… converted to Judaism and joined the Household of Israel. When the matter came to the attention of the authorities and the Church hierarchy, he was taken in chains to prison. There he was tortured cruelly, that he might be turned back to his people and his God. However, he stood by his decision and his new faith, paying no attention to all the punishment and the grievous torture, nor to the tearful pleas of his family to abandon the “wretched” Jewish faith, and to return to them, as before. Thus he suffered in captivity for some time, until the priests and the authorities saw that there was no more hope of bringing him back to them. They sentenced him to be burnt at the stake, and this man accepted the judgment against him without complaint, submitting himself to die by fire, thus to sanctify the Name of the Lord of Hosts in the presence of his parents, his relatives and kinsmen, and in the presence of all the city’s inhabitants.

Thus, this man is considered holy by the Jews, who mourn and grieve for him, invoking his name for blessing once each year, on the day his soul departed its mortal housing, in order to walk with God. He was called by the name Avraham Ger Tzedek… NOTE: Gaps represented in the text by an ellipsis (…) reflect sections excised in the original, evidently by the censor.

Ammudei Bet Yehuda, page 46a. Discourse 38, by Judah Hurwitz, Amsterdam, 1766 I have already heard of one martyr (may God avenge his blood!), our Teacher, Rabbi Mann, a revered elder and great scholar, seventy years of age, who was killed in sanctification of God’s blessed

EARLY DATA AND DOCUMENTS

43

Name in the holy community of Vilna. There he was judged by foes of Israel, judges representing an oppressive regime. They sentenced him to suffer harsh and bitter torture, yet he did not allow them to break his spirit. His torturers mocked him, saying, “Do you harbor thoughts of seeking revenge against us, old man (from the Hereafter)? Do what you can to us, and we will do to you what we can do (etc.)!” The sage answered them, saying, “I am happy and content, for there is nothing you can do to my soul, which is the Lord’s… only to my body, which is but borrowed from perishable earth lo these seventy years. You, as similarly mortal beings, have power only over that which is of this world. As for the matter of revenge, of which you spoke mockingly, that would be a desecration unworthy of my soul.”

And he told them this parable: “A poor man lost, or was robbed of a purse full of pennies, as he was walking along the way. The poor man searched for his lost property for several hours, yelling and crying about his loss. He wished to return to his place of origin, at a great distance, and to recover his lost pennies there. In the mean time, he saw before him a great city, and he said, ‘I will go there and buy some bread and food for the trip, for it will take me far from any people or city.’ But when he arrived in the city, all its leading citizens welcomed him with great honor, and seated him in a royal throne, bestowing upon him great wealth and property, etc.! Would such a man bother to undertake his long journey in order to recover mere pennies?! Even if he thought he could find the thieves who stole the copper pennies from him, he would say to himself ‘Let them keep what they have. The day will come when they will be repaid their just deserts. As for me, I will stay here, enthroned in honor, residing in the absolute peace and security I have always wanted.’”

44

NOBLE SOUL

Kiryah Ne’emanah, Samuel Joseph Fuenn’s 1860 history of the Jews of Vilna, touted by Solomon Schechter as “a very honest account,”1 provides what appears to be the earliest explicit allusion to that community’s famed Ger Tzedek to be found in extant Jewish sources. The single sentence conveys a wealth of information. A close associate of Rabbi Menachem Mann, the text records, having converted to Judaism, subsequently received Rabbinic ordination. The Rabbinic status of the Ger Tzedek is mentioned infrequently in accounts of his life, although his personal piety and scholarship are standard details throughout the literature devoted to his life story. According to Fuenn, the Ger Tzedek’s death by fire occurred on May 24, 1749. While his martyrdom was presumably a consequence of his conversion, Fuenn leaves this crucial detail implied or, for his readership already familiar with the incident, understood. The phrase in the translation above, indicating that Avraham ben Avraham “was consumed in sacrificial fire,” is rendered concisely in the original by two Hebrew words of Biblical origin: “alah kalil.” The verb “alah” is based on the term for “burnt offering” (“olah”), the form of sacrifice to which the first chapter of Leviticus is devoted. The “olah” (sometimes referred to as a “holocaust”) was burned to ashes on the altar. “The olah was a signal to God that His worshipers desired to bring their needs to His attention…. The term olah refers to the ‘ascent’ of the smoke and flames of the sacrifice itself. The sacrifice, in its transmuted form, reaches God.”2 Like “olah,” the term “kalil” is taken from the sacrificial cult described in Leviticus, and refers to a burnt offering. The “Hebrew kalil conveys the notion of being entirely consumed by fire.”3 The burnt offering, as prescribed in the sixth chapter of Leviticus, is to be rendered “entirely into smoke” (“kalil toktar”). Fuenn’s economy of words thus reveals both the means of the Ger Tzedek’s death and its religious significance. Later texts would dwell at considerable length and in more graphic detail at the thor-

Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism [I] (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1945), p. 75. 2 Baruch A. Levine, The J.P.S. Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), pp. 5-6. 3 Ibid., p. 39. 1

EARLY DATA AND DOCUMENTS

45

oughness with which the martyr was consumed by flame, his body thereby reduced to ash. Fuenn also affirms through his artful choice of words that Avraham ben Avraham “reaches God.” Like a burnt offering of antiquity, the Ger Tzedek’s tragic demise, his fellow worshipers have faith, will bring their needs to God’s attention. Fuenn was eminently qualified to convey the Ger Tzedek’s story with such subtlety and nuance. Born in Vilna in 1819, he died in that city on January 11, 1891. In 1848, not quite a century after the Ger Tzedek’s death, Fuenn was appointed Professor of Hebrew and Jewish History at Vilna’s newly founded Yeshiva. Leaving that post in 1856, Fuenn went on to serve as superintendent of the Jewish public schools in the district of Vilna, introducing secular studies and modern languages to the curriculum. Throughout a prolific career as a writer, Fuenn edited a periodical, “Ha-Karmel,” devoted to Hebrew Literature, Jewish life, and contemporary science. It should be noted that Kiryah Ne’emanah provides no details as to the identity or social station of Avraham ben Avraham prior to his conversion. The close relationship between the martyr and Rabbi Menachem Mann, however, is a significant development in the evolution of the Ger Tzedek’s biography. The parable of the wealthy man in search of a copper coin, here attributed to Rabbi Mann moments before his martyrdom, will be attributed by other sources to the Ger Tzedek himself. In his encyclopedic Jewish Literacy, for example, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin provides this account of the Ger Tzedek’s final moments: “Old friends pleaded with him to recant his conversion; because of his family’s prominence, he could still be spared. Potocki refused. ‘A poor man, in search of a lost bag of pennies,’ he answered them, ‘passed through a city where he found fame and fortune. Do you suppose he would resume his search for the missing pennies?’”4

Fuenn does not elaborate on the origin or nature of these two martyrs’ association beyond asserting its intimacy, and their shared

4 Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, (New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc., 1991), pp. 518-519.

46

NOBLE SOUL

piety. If, indeed, Vilna’s most celebrated proselyte was the rabbi’s student, he may have simply quoted his teacher’s parable in anticipation of his execution. It should be remembered, however, that the Ger Tzedek was killed more than a month before Mann. Perhaps the master was quoting the student, or had shared the teaching with his distinguished disciple at an earlier stage. The possibility remains, of course, that the connection of the parable to the Ger Tzedek was a pious fiction, or simply spurious. As Fuenn himself calls to the reader’s attention, the account of Rabbi Mann’s martyrdom and parable is provided in more dramatic detail in Ammudei Bet Yebuda, a book of moral essays by Yehuda ha-Levy Hurwitz. Hurwitz’s account was published in 1766 in Amsterdam, the city in which the Vilna Ger Tzedek is said to have effected his conversion. Hurwitz was born in Vilna. A contemporary of the Ger Tzedek, he was appointed physician to the Jewish community, and died in Grodno in 1797. Nevertheless, no mention of the Ger Tzedek is to be found in that early work. Benjamin Mandelstamm’s Chazon la-Mo’ed should be considered in conjunction with the earliest documents regarding the Ger Tzedek. Although published in Vienna in 1877, Mandelstamm’s work is the account of a journey he took from his native Zhagory to Vilna around 1835. Included in this work is Mandelstamm’s correspondence with fellow proponents of the Haskalah movement, written during the years he lived in Vilna, 1841-1843. This time period coincides precisely with publication of Kraszewski’s Wilno, and its account of the Ger Tzedek. Mandelstamm prefaces his own, brief account of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom with an assertion of its veracity: “All the inhabitants of the city will offer testimony as to the accuracy of this account in every detail.” This introduction suggests a long-standing oral tradition, already enjoying wide acceptance. Indeed, the author presents his subject matter as an example of “the sacred narratives which are received by each people as an inheritance from preceding generations, and are in turn bequeathed to the new generation which is to come thereafter.” Mandelstamm, like Kraszewski before him, also mentions the yearly custom of memorializing the martyred Ger Tzedek, much as Fuenn reports observances in memory of Rabbi Mann. Though tantalizing in its promise of reliable detail, two crucial phrases seem to have been excised from Mandelstamm’s text by

EARLY DATA AND DOCUMENTS

47

the censor. These deprive the author’s audience of his subject’s name prior to conversion, and of the date of the tragedy. The Ger Tzedek is, however, identified as a member of the Polish nobility. The term used to signify his noble status is “partemim.” This obscure expression (rendered “nobles” by the Jewish Publication Society translation and “nobiles” in Mandelkern’s Latin concordance) appears once in the Book of Daniel, and twice in the Book of Esther, to signify members of the Persian aristocracy. Mandelstamm also chooses to relate the Ger Tzedek’s conversion with a term unique to the Book of Esther: “hityahed echad me’ha-partemim.” Use of the word “hityahed” (he converted to Judaism) in conjunction with the term “partemim” establishes an undeniable reference to the Book of Esther. In so doing, Mandelstamm initiated a literary trend which would resonate in works discussing the Ger Tzedek of Vilna for the next one hundred years. The significance of repeatedly framing discussions of the Ger Tzedek’s conversion and martyrdom in terms associated with Esther merits thorough analysis, and is a subject to which a later chapter of this study is, in its entirety, devoted. The concise account of the Ger Tzedek’s conversion and execution provided by Mandelstamm is followed immediately by a plaintive elegy, lamenting the all too frequent incidence of martyrdom in Jewish history. The embittered poet addresses, indeed, redresses “Faith” (emunah) directly. He proceeds to indict believers and God alike, pleading that He renew the compassionate pattern of divine intervention associated with the Binding of Isaac, a fitting motif in memorializing the Ger Tzedek, an “adopted son” of Abraham. Faith! We come to tell you a riddle, A dream without solution, A lock which can not be opened. Who, and what, are you, That every generation is drawn to you? Aye, you cover your face ever with a veil, That no man may gaze upon your beauty. So why do they run after you, to bow before you, Who are but shade and shadow, a thick cloud,

48

NOBLE SOUL Obscuring from their view the Heavens of knowledge, The brilliant Sun of wisdom? And you who seek after her! How do you convince your hearts that she loves you? In her cruelty she stirs up only strife among you, Inciting you to war, to spill your blood before her, Like water, mercilessly and without compassion. And You, Lord God! Who, in order to spare a single life, Descended the heavens to call to Abraham, “Raise not your hand against the boy,” to teach him: You delight not in sacrifice or human blood. Why do You now remain silent? You see how man has corrupted his way through his faith, Taking up the sword to slay his fellow, To offer him as a sacrifice before You. Why do You see injustice and remain silent, Human blood is spilled with impunity, and in Your Name! And through offensive wars, called Wars of God, The victims of Faith have come to out-number those, Who die a natural death. Will You not arouse Your compassion, To show them the ram and the bullock, To be offered and sacrificed, Instead of their fellow man?!

CHAPTER 5 AMERICAN TRIBUTE: HENRY GERSONI, 1873 Sketches of Jewish Life and History, including an essay on “The Converted Noblemen,” was published by Rabbi Henry Gersoni, a native of Vilna, while he was employed as a teacher in the Sabbath School of New York City’s Temple Emanu-El. He would subsequently hold Rabbinic posts in Atlanta and Chicago before returning to New York for a career as a journalist. He died in that city at age 53, in 1897. Gersoni, the first writer to present the Ger Tzedek tradition in English, was by no means a typical graduate of Vilna’s Rabbinical academies. In 1868, he published a “confession” attesting to his conversion to the Greek Orthodox Church in Russia, where he had attended the University of St. Petersburg. Thereafter, in London, he spent almost a year at the Christian Bible House after meeting a number of missionaries to the Jews. He returned to Judaism “thoroughly repentant,”1 immigrating to the United States and establishing himself in the Reform rabbinate. At least one of his congregations seems to have questioned the sincerity of his religious rehabilitation, however, and he left his Chicago pulpit “under a cloud of apostasy.”2 Gersoni presents his chapter on the Ger Tzedek as “an elaborate description of an historical incident of the middle of the eighteenth century.”3 The author’s 1873 account is framed as oral history, recalling the story as told him during early childhood by his

Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905) Vol. V, 641. Ibid. 3 Henry Gersoni, “The Converted Noblemen” in Sketches of Jewish Life and History (New York: Hebrew Orphan Asylum Printing Establishment, 1873), v. 1 2

49

50

NOBLE SOUL

own father, during a visit to Vilna’s Old Cemetery. Gersoni prefaces his narrative with a synopsis of the historical setting: “The social position of the Lithuanian and Polish Israelites were gradually reduced until, in the year 1742, the freemen of Wilna succeeded in wresting from the government a most oppressing decree against the Jews. It was about that time that the Fountain and Guardian of truth was pleased to show by a most wonderful miracle, that ‘His word stands forever.’” 4

Abandoning Polish orthography for phonetic spelling, Gersoni begins by explaining that “Potozky and Zriemby were among the highest nobilities.”5 More significantly, Potozky, and particularly his father, are introduced as virulent anti-Semites. “He was a great enemy of the Jews and the first in the council of noblemen who signed the petition of the freemen concerning the limitation of privileges enjoyed by the Jews.”6 Zriemby, young Potozky’s “fast friend”7 at Vilna’s university, was possessed of a “milder judgment”8 in his association with Jews. He, like his father, had maintained amicable personal relationships with Jews, and derived thereby some knowledge of Jewish tradition. Young Potozky, however, “had no direct communication with any Jew.”9 His antiSemitism was simply inherited from his father, and absorbed uncritically from his environment. Potozky’s ignorance of Jews and Judaism changes dramatically as the result of a chance meeting with “a middle-aged Israelite who appeared sunk in deep meditation.”10 At this point anonymous, Potozky’s reflective interlocutor would be identified to him at a considerably later reunion, well after his conversion, as Rabbi Menachem Mann. Accused by the young nobleman of “scheming some

Ibid., 193 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 194. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 4 5

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

51

plan for deceiving a Christian.” 11 Mann demurs: “I am a student of the Holy Law, which enjoins uprightness and kindness to all.”12 Emphasizing the ethical dimension of Judaism, Mann offers his listener a theological framework: “Our Holy Law teaches that the soul of man is immortal; that the felicity of the future is beyond the comprehension of mortals, and the happiness of this life is very insignificant in comparison with it. How, would a millionaire hate a person who has robbed him of a few pennies? Believing thus in immortality, we cannot hate those who wrong us in this life.”13

Mann’s parable, familiar from Ammudei Bet Yehuda and Kiryah Ne’emanah, which Gersoni cites in a footnote,14 are in those earlier texts quoted as his final words before martyrdom. Here they represent Potozky’s first introduction to Jewish life. (In the same footnote, it should be observed, Gersoni misidentifies the date of Mann’s death as 17 Av. The correct date is 17 Tammuz 5509, corresponding to July 3, 1749). Mann’s further assertion of the Jewish view that “the paths of truth, justice, and righteousness are open to all men alike”15 provides Potozky a striking and favorable contrast to the Roman Catholic claim as “the only soul-saving church.”16 The young nobleman, viewing the tradition he had been accustomed to defame in a positive new light, apologizes to his as yet anonymous instructor for his earlier show of disrespect. Mann’s gracious response to the young man’s apology is remarkable. “’Never mind, my lord,’ said the Hebrew with peculiar emphasis, ‘my time has not been lost. I have sown the seed of truth which, by the help of God, will bear good

Ibid. Ibid., 195. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 196. 16 Ibid. 11 12

52

NOBLE SOUL fruit. Your heart and mind are much better than your manners…’” 17

The “peculiar emphasis” resonates in a tone no less than prophetic, as Mann seems to anticipate Potozky’s conversion, the “good fruit” of his efforts. If the reader is left with any doubt that this is the force of Mann’s remarks, his concluding statement offers compelling evidence. “Your heart and mind are much better than your manners” paraphrases the angelic message to the Khazar king, as told in the Kuzari of Judah ha-Levi. After being told in a dream that his intentions were acceptable to God, but not his actions, the Khazar king arranges a series of interviews and discussions with an Aristotelian philosopher and, subsequently, with spokesmen of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The process is said to have culminated in the king’s conversion to Judaism, together with the bulk of his subjects. Gersoni’s thinly veiled allusion to this twelfth century philosophical treatise thus foreshadows not only his protagonist’s eventual conversion, but the process of principled study, examining both Judaism and Catholicism, which will precede it. The author also offers a comparison between Potozky’s nobility and the royal status of the Khazar king. As for the young nobleman’s former disdain for Judaism, the reference to the Kuzari is particularly well chosen. The original title of that work, in both Arabic and Hebrew, was “Argument and Proof in Defense of the Despised Faith.” The impact on Potozky of this rudimentary introduction to Judaism is profound. Renouncing his previous antipathy toward the people and faith of Israel, the young man shares with his companion Zriemby a longing to learn more of Judaism. “The few words he had heard from the Jew were more in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, with his position as a nobleman… a noble man, as he analyzed the word…and with the sympathies of his heart than all the morals he had ever heard from his religious teachers.”18

17 18

Ibid. Ibid., 197.

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

53

The opportunity for more extensive consideration of Judaism soon follows, when, having concluded their university studies in Vilna, Potozky and Zriemby depart to pursue advanced degrees in Paris. While strolling the French capital, the intellectually curious companions chance upon “an old Hebrew sitting in the shadow of a tree with an open volume before him.”19 Noteworthy is the absence of any mention of a wine shop or tavern, as in Kraszewski and Dick. Even more remarkable, however, is the identity of the text being studied so passionately in the Parisian park. “The book is called ‘A Guide for the Erring’; its object is to expound the system of Judaism in its true rational sense. Its author was our illustrious Maimonides.” 20 Other versions of the Ger Tzedek’s chance encounter with a studious Jew in Paris appear evenly divided in identifying his book as the Hebrew Bible or as a volume of Talmud. Gersoni is unique in suggesting that Maimonides’ philosophy was the young noblemen’s entree to Jewish text study. It is indeed an ambitious introduction to Judaism which includes in its curriculum, at so early a stage, both the Kuzari and Moreh Nevuchim! It strains credulity to imagine that, in this detail, Gersoni faithfully transmits the Ger Tzedek’s oral history as told him by his father at such an early age! The author’s repeated references to works of religious philosophy and apologia suggest more about his own psyche and personal religious journey, as does the protracted comparison between Judaism and Christianity which now follows in the text. Contrasting the two religious traditions, the first topic addressed is miracles, the supernatural, and the definition of faith as beyond rational understanding. “Hitherto they had been taught a religious system which is based on the supernatural… such a foundation can not have any hold on a searching mind.”21 As for Judaism, the young noblemen’s new instructor assures them, “none of our religious principles are based on the truth of a miracle.”22

Ibid., 198. Ibid., 199. 21 Ibid., 200. 22 Ibid. 19 20

54

NOBLE SOUL

The discussants continue to contrast the two religions, turning their attention from the relative merits of faith and reason to the divergent views of human physicality. In Christianity, it is observed, “The believer embraces the idea that the will of his Creator is in constant conflict with the physical nature of man. He then regards the world around him as a natural enemy to his better self, to his soul…. But with all the privation which he inflicts on himself, he must yet enjoy something of the world in order to maintain life. He is a sinner after all and groans ‘Mea culpa,’ and must still rely upon supernatural ‘salvation.’” 23

In Judaism, it is explained to the attentive novices, “Needless abstinence is a reproach against Providence; it is as if man were to reject with contempt things which the Creator has provided for him; as if he considered himself wiser than Providence, and deemed superfluous what was intended for his welfare.”24

Both Potozky and Zriemby, after an extended period of study with their tutor, declare their intention to embrace Judaism through conversion. Their instructor, following traditional protocol and reflecting the very real dangers inherent in their projected course of action, strives unsuccessfully to dissuade them. So as to remove any doubt as to the wisdom of their decision, Zriemby persuades his classmate to travel to Rome for a period of renewed immersion in the tenets of the faith to which the noblemen were born. “See whether, by trying to penetrate into the philosophy of the Christian doctrine, and aided by the highest clergy there, you will not be able to find in that faith something equivalent to the truth of Judaism.”25

Few details of Potozky’s Roman sojourn are provided, beyond his growing distaste for Catholicism and renewed commitment to conversion. His encounter with the Church in Rome is summarized

Ibid., 201. Ibid., 201-202. 25 Ibid., 203. 23 24

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

55

by means of a Biblical verse: “I have weighed and counted and found it wanting.” The reference 26 is to the Aramaic of Daniel 5:25. Daniel, declining royal offers of wealth and gifts, deciphers these words, “the handwriting on the wall,” for King Belshazzar. Significantly, the inscription miraculously appeared at a banquet the monarch had held for the nobility of his realm. Noble Potozky, leaving behind a life of wealth and gifts, similarly saw the “handwriting on the wall” in Rome. Concluding that his days as a Christian are numbered, he writes to Zriemby of his decision to travel to Amsterdam, there to effect conversion to Judaism. It should be noted that the divine message interpreted by Daniel for Belshazzar heralded his murder. The verse thus grimly foreshadows Potozky’s ultimate fate as well. The narrative at this point shifts its focus to Zriemby, who returns home to see his father, identified as a Hetman, before the ailing man’s death. At his father’s urging, Zriemby, whose first name, Sigmund, is here mentioned for the first time, agrees to marry a relative, a young woman named Nadya, whom in fact he sincerely loves. Sigmund Zriemby does not confide in his bride his desire to adopt Judaism. He does, however, engage her and her confessor in pointed religious discussions and Bible study. He guides Nadya to the realization that elements of Catholicism “did not suit her.”27 His wife’s calm reaction to a correspondence from Potozky announcing his conversion convinces Sigmund that “she was quite prepared to follow him in the way he intended to go.”28―intentions still not revealed to her. Zriemby himself responds to his dear friend’s letter in terms bespeaking the American milieu of the story-teller: “I will always admire the man who has the courage to follow the dictates of his conscience, in spite of a world of difficulties on one hand and a world of temptation on the other.”29

Ibid., 206. Ibid. 28 Ibid., 207. 29 Ibid. 26 27

56

NOBLE SOUL

Zriemby and Potozky, identifying himself now, following his conversion, as Abraham-ben-Abraham, soon enjoy a “most affectionate”30 reunion. The Ger Tzedek, on his way to Vilna, calls on his erstwhile classmate at home. Zriemby is heartened at the warm and gracious reception tendered her Jewish house-guest by Nadya. Combining a joyful sense of personal fulfillment in his new religion with a foreboding prescience (acutely apparent to the reader familiar with his fate), the Ger Tzedek identifies himself to his hosts in these dramatic terms: “I am no more Count Potozky. I belong to an aristocracy much older, and much more noble than that in which I was born. The family to which I belong now has gained its nobility not by shedding the blood of others on the battle-field, but by shedding its own blood for the welfare and enlightenment of mankind.”31

In Vilna, Abraham-ben-Abraham embarks on a quiet life of devoted scholarship. Indeed, Gersoni informs his readers that “he succeeded so well in his studies that he was ordained Rabbi, but he never officiated as such.”32 Gersoni is all but unique in this assertion. Kiryah Ne’emanah’s brief passage regarding the Ger Tzedek does refer to him as Rabbi (“ha-Rav”), as well. Presently, Rabbi Abraham is reunited with the man who had provided his first positive insights into Judaism, and unwittingly initiated the series of events that would culminate in the nobleman’s conversion and, indeed, ordination. Identified to the Ger Tzedek for the first time as Rabbi Menachem Mann, the older man is shocked to recognize his junior colleague as “the dashing young nobleman”33 who had accosted him years earlier. Abraham-benAbraham’s noble origins are wisely kept secret, and the two Rabbis become inseparable friends, compared by other members of the community, unaware of the source of their close association, to the Biblical David and Jonathan.

Ibid., 209. Ibid. 32 Ibid., 210. 33 Ibid., 211. 30 31

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

57

The narrative once again turns its full attention back to Zriemby and his religious journey. The equal attention paid Potozky’s classmate by both Kraszewski and Gersoni would never be matched in the popular Jewish imagination. Zriemby’s story of conversion is substantially subordinated to that of Potozky, no doubt due to the latter’s heroic martyrdom and burial in Vilna. Telling evidence of this trend is found in the bibliography for the article34 on Potocki in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Gersoni’s chapter is listed erroneously as “The Converted Nobleman” (singular). Gersoni’s original title, referring to both Potozky and Zriemby, was in the plural, “Noblemen.” Zriemby, we are informed briefly, travels to Amsterdam and carries out his conversion plans. No mention is made of a son, as in Kraszewski and Dick. Sigmund Zriemby also takes the name Abraham-ben-Abraham. He writes to inform his wife of these developments, releasing her from their marriage and giving her the estate and possessions he had abandoned upon leaving Lithuania. “I reflected much before I executed my design, and I came to the conclusion that it would be very ignoble of me to remain a nominal Christian and play a doublefaced role in society; and having become convinced of the truth of Judaism I could not deny the yearning of my soul toward its Creator.”35

Nadya travels to Amsterdam, where she persuades the Chief Rabbi to contact her husband. “Nadya persisted in her assertion that she would become a Jewess whether the wife of Abraham or not.”36 She is accepted as a convert by the Rabbinic court convened on her behalf, given the Hebrew name Sarah, the daughter of Abraham, and is tearfully reunited with her husband. She is welcomed by the Rabbinic leader with words of blessing: “May the God of Abraham’s praise prosper your house in Israel that it shall become a blessing for generations to come.”37

Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905) Vol X, 147. Gersoni, 212-213. 36 Ibid., 216. 37 Ibid. 34 35

58

NOBLE SOUL

This Rabbinic blessing, it seems, was borne out by historical events. In his preface to Sketches, Gersoni notes that “the family of Potozky’s friend Zriemby, has produced many learned Israelites since the conversion of their noble ancestor, and exists yet in Holland, where it is held in great respect.”38 In the first decade of the twentieth century, Israel Sarembock, one of eight siblings, immigrated to the United States from Vilna. A sister, Sonya, is buried in Vilna. Upon Israel’s arrival in America, he restored his family name to the original “Zarembo.” His son, Samuel Zarembo, born in 1913, died in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania in February of 1999. His family, though unfamiliar with either the martyred Ger Tzedek or his companion with whom they share a surname, report that “Sarembock” is a Dutch form, used by forbears in Holland.39 It seems reasonable to assume that one or more of the “many learned Israelites” descended from Zarembo/Zriemby, or “their noble ancestor” himself, returned to Jewish Vilna from Holland, discretely retaining the Dutch form of a noble name which, in the original, would have aroused suspicion and invited peril. Zarembo, a Polish surname signifying “a warrior who fought with a sword,”40 was hardly typical of Vilna’s Jewish inhabitants. Under the sub-heading “Mother and Son,” Gersoni proceeds in the next section of the narrative to introduce the Ger Tzedek’s mother as a major actor in the final stage of his life. Earlier accounts do not mention her specifically. Gersoni’s successors in the transmission of Potocki’s biography would, however, preserve her role in their various renditions. News spreads through Vilna of the death of Count Potozky, father of the Ger Tzedek. Reflecting his ill-treatment of them, many Jews greeted his demise with joy: “The enemies of the Jews had lost their champion by the death of this nobleman.”41 Sensitively anticipating young Potozky’s grief, though not revealing his motives for fear of disclosing the Ger Tzedek’s identity, Rabbi

Ibid., v. Based on personal correspondence and telephone interviews with Mrs. Anita Raphael, nee Zarembo, of Windsor, Connecticut. 40 Elsdon C. Smith, New Dictionary of American Family Names (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 41 Gersoni, 216. 38 39

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

59

Mann asks that no ill be spoken of the deceased nobleman within the synagogue precincts. The next day, in a fascinating “precedent” for contemporary converts to Judaism, the Ger Tzedek “appeared in the synagogue with a mourner’s rent in his coat (kriah)”42 and recited the Mourner’s Kaddish. A month later, a detail provided, in all likelihood, to suggest proper completion of Shloshim, the first thirty days of formal mourning, the Ger Tzedek visits his father’s grave, prostrating himself in grief upon the monument. In a fateful coincidence, his mother has chosen the same time to bring flowers to her husband’s resting place. After briefly expressing surprise that a Jew would have cause to grieve her husband’s passing, Lady Potozky recognizes her son, who vigorously yet vainly denies his identity. As he quickly absents himself, choked with emotion both at the unanticipated reunion with his mother, and the potential for danger inherent therein, the Countess, startled and bereaved, grows certain it was her missing son she had just encountered. “‘Does my motherly heart deceive me?’ she soliloquized. ‘It was the voice of my Valentine; it is the figure of my Valentine―My Valentine a Jew, what an absurdity!’”43 Here Gersoni introduces a crucial detail of the Ger Tzedek’s biography: his Christian name, Valentine. None among the earlier sources, Kraszewski, Dick, Fuenn, Hurwitz, or Mandelstamm, has mentioned this name, nor any other in its stead. Whether Gersoni learned this fact through previously unrecorded oral tradition…or innocently invented the detail to enhance his narrative, is difficult to determine with any degree of certainty. What is indisputable is the degree to which the name has, in the twentieth century, been acknowledged as correct. As the narrative continues, Countess Potozky initiates an extensive search for her son, Valentine, dispatching messengers to Vilna’s synagogues in order to locate him, and offering a substantial reward. Rabbi Mann prudently advises his young colleague to flee Vilna, seeking safety for himself and so as to protect his coreligionists.

42 43

Ibid., 217. Ibid., 218.

60

NOBLE SOUL “God alone knows how many of our brethren will have to suffer for your conversion. They will not believe your statements and will accuse the most prominent members of the community of having misled you.”44

Indeed, Mann’s own martyrdom, less than two months after the Ger Tzedek’s execution, may have been for precisely this “crime.” His mother’s dragnet achieves no success until she consults her Father Confessor, who devises a plan to find Valentine. Rabbi Mann is arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to torture. When word reaches the Ger Tzedek of his inspiring mentor’s suffering, the desired result is effected. Finding his mother, Valentine concedes his identity and agrees to resume contact with his mother. His agreement is predicated on Mann’s release and his own continued intent to practice Judaism. Rabbi Mann is released forthwith and, keeping his word, Valentine Potozky, calling himself Abraham-ben-Abraham, returns to his quiet and studious Jewish life in Vilna, visiting his mother for an extensive period each day. Alas, “such a peaceful state of affairs could not continue for a long time when the ministers of the Roman Catholic church had a hand in the matter.”45 The Ger Tzedek is soon arrested, charged with “profaning the Christian religion.”46 It should be noted that the tradition concerning the treacherous tailor’s betrayal is not included in Gersoni’s account. No Jew has a hand in the martyr’s demise. Imprisoned, the Ger Tzedek refuses to renounce Judaism, and is sentenced to death. The manner of execution is to be a public beheading. Countess Potozky’s entreaties to her son to renounce his new faith, and her appeals to the authorities on his behalf, are all to no avail. She departs for the royal court at Warsaw to intercede for her son with the king. Maintaining “his graceful and undaunted demeanor,”47 the Ger Tzedek “cheerfully mounted the scaffold,”48 where he declines

Ibid., 219. Ibid., 222. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., 223. 48 Ibid. 44 45

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

61

the presiding Bishop’s final demand that he renounce Judaism. With his last breath, Valentine Potozky recites the “Shema Yisrael” (but not the blessing prescribed for public martyrdom, as in other accounts). The execution is described by Gersoni in uncharacteristically graphic terms. “The Bishop with a mitre, a gown all laced with gold, and a large cross in his hand, and the executioner dressed in red, holding the polished axe which glittered in the sun, were the objects toward which all eyes were turned… The executioner’s axe glittered in the sun… and Rabbi Abraham-ben-Abraham’s spirit rose toward the source of life and light… In a moment the old Lady Potozky arrived at the scaffold in the greatest haste, waving a paper in her hand. It was an autograph from the king, pardoning the offense of her son and suspending his sentence. But she had brought it just too late. The head of her son was lying at her feet.” 49

Other accounts of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom agree unanimously that his execution was by fire. Gersoni alone describes “a pyre where the body of the convert was to be burned after being beheaded.” 50 Gersoni’s unique deviation in this detail, and his innovative introduction of the name Valentine, considered together, evoke the memory of a martyr of a different sort and era. Saint Valentine, known widely as the Patron of lovers and courting couples, was in fact a priest in Rome, who “assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome, who, on finding all his promises to make him renounce his faith ineffectual, commanded him… to be beheaded, which was executed on February 14, about the year 270.”51

The two Valentines, though separated by nearly fifteen centuries, have a great deal indeed common. Both are adherents of be-

Ibid., 223-224. Ibid., 223. 51 Paul Burns, ed., Butler’s The Lives of the Saints (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1995), 332. 49 50

62

NOBLE SOUL

sieged minority religions living under oppressive regimes. Both are arrested for their religious convictions, and are remanded to the custody of authorities in leading cities of the realm. Both are associated with critical experiences in Rome. Both refuse to renounce their faith, under pain of death. Both (at least in Gersoni’s rendition) are beheaded for their “intransigence.” Furthermore, a number of accounts of the Ger Tzedek’s life, to be examined individually in subsequent chapters, suggest he was a seminarian studying for the priesthood. The two martyred Valentines have in common not merely their name and the events attending their violent deaths. More significant may be the popular affection and esteem in which the “saints” are held and the manner of their veneration. “In various Roman churches, eight complete bodies (and one head) of Valentine are venerated.”52 In Gersoni’s time, beginning in 1835 and continuing while the author resided in London, Valentine’s relics were claimed by the Carmelite church in Dublin. Similarly, the remains of the Ger Tzedek―a few ashes and, according to some accounts, a single finger―were interred in a grave in Vilna’s Old Cemetery, and became the object of vast pilgrimages. It was, it should be recalled, a visit to the Vilna Cemetery and reverence for the martyr’s grave which occasioned the recitation of this narrative by Gersoni’s father, which the author now purports to repeat. If these similarities are assumed to be more than coincidental, it may, nonetheless have been by accident that Gersoni bestowed on his protagonist the name Valentine. Indeed, the Ger Tzedek is not once referred to as Valentine by the narrator… only by his mother, and only on two occasions. On the first such occasion, Countess Potozky perseverates, as quoted above: “It was the voice of my Valentine; it is the figure of my Valentine―My Valentine a Jew.”53 It is not entirely clear whether, in his mother’s usage, “Valentine” indicates the Ger Tzedek’s proper name… or is being used in its colloquial sense, suggesting “my beloved”―as in, “It was the

52 Sean Kelly & Rosemary Rogers, Saints Preserve Us! (New York: Random House, 1993), 279. 53 Gersoni, 218. See at note #43, above.

AMERICAN TRIBUTE

63

voice of my beloved son…the figure of my beloved son…my beloved son a Jew!” Such eponymic references to the early Christian saint were well known centuries before the Ger Tzedek’s time. The classic Lives of the Saints makes this point by citing the fifteenth century Paston Letters, which include a correspondence in which Margery Drews addresses John Paston as “my right well beloved Valentine.”54 It is entirely plausible that the Ger Tzedek’s mother invoked, indeed exclaimed, the saint’s name in just this spirit. Later authors, abhorring a vacuum (particularly of the cognomenal variety) simply transformed this maternal term of endearment into their subject’s long-missing name (at times resorting to the less Anglicized “Valentin” and the distinctly Polish “Walenty”). His narrative now at its conclusion, Gersoni recalls the bravery of Eliezer Zinkes in recovering the martyr’s ashes for burial. Zinkes is described as “a God-fearing Israelite,”55 but not as a Rabbi, as in Kraszewski. The author also directs his readers’ attention to the “pear-tree”56 marking the grave site. The tree, which is identified by specific variety only by Gersoni, becomes a thoroughly discussed and central element in the Ger Tzedek’s hagiography. If, indeed, the name “Valentine” was chosen not by his noble parents, but by a Reform Rabbi and former apostate to Christianity a century and a half later, the choice ascribes to the Ger Tzedek all the love and affection which his saintly namesake continues to bespeak.

See Butler’s Lives of the Saints, 333. Gersoni, 224. 56 Ibid., v, 224. 54 55

CHAPTER 6 JEWISH SOULS: A. LITVIN, 1916 Shmuel Hurwitz, who wrote, primarily in Yiddish, under the pseudonym A. Litvin, is generally defined as an accomplished and prolific folklorist. His Yidishe Neshomes, a six volume “panorama of exotic, picturesque Jewish life in preceding generations”1 is a rich repository of folklore, garnered during ten years of research and travel throughout Lithuania, Galicia, and Poland. These travels took place between 1905 and 1914. In introducing the chapter on the Ger Tzedek included in this massive collection, Litvin assures his readers that it is “more a historical fact than a legend.”2 Litvin’s chapter, entitled “Graf Potocki, der Ger Tzedek,” refers to the protagonist as either “Graf (i.e. Count) Potocki” or “der yunger Potocki” (young Potocki). The name “Valentine” does not appear in any form. Notably, Litvin bases his account on two invaluable resources of folklore: interviews with residents of Vilna (presumably during the first decade of the twentieth century), and a unique, alas unidentified, Yiddish manuscript, “written (actually re-written) at the beginning of the nineteenth century in an exquisite, ornate hand.”3 Both Potocki and his friend Zarembo are described by Litvin as having been possessed of unusual qualities even in their youth. “Neither would play, like the other young nobles; they would study and think.”4 Owing to the boys’ obvious intellectual gifts and inquisitive personalities, Count Potocki sends the two youths to Paris to study a variety of world languages and philosophies. His son’s

Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) Vol. XI, 405. A. Litvin, Yidishe Neshomes [Yiddish](New York: S. Hurwitz, 1916) Vol. I, 1. 3 Ibid., 2. 4 Ibid., 3. 1 2

65

66

NOBLE SOUL

ultimate goal, even at this early stage, is through this process to determine “which belief system reflects the truth.”5 In the course of their studies, Potocki and Zarembo confront an intellectual dilemma: “Why are they prevented from studying the Hebrew Bible? Why do they have no opportunity to read about Jewish beliefs?”6 Longing for these forbidden fruits, the students persuade an unidentified “old Jew”7 of their acquaintance to teach them Hebrew Bible. No details or further discussion on the nature or impact of these studies is immediately provided. The young noblemen, the text continues, subsequently travel to Berlin, and on to Rome. In Rome, “young Potocki became aware of the obscurantism (hinterkolisn-zeit) of Catholicism.” To this, he judged the “straight-forward candor”8 (aynfachkeit) of Judaism a refreshing contrast. “He traveled to Holland, and there the young magnate, heir to privilege, title, wealth and honor, bound his eternal destiny to the destiny of a people which is hunted and despised.”9 A number of renditions of the Ger Tzedek story relate a love interest, a Jewish woman who recognizes the young nobleman’s spiritual gifts and strength of character. Litvin includes just such a dimension among his findings. “According to one version, an event reminiscent of a novel occurred here which, however, played no determinative role in the Ger Tzedek’s attraction to Judaism. His Rabbi in Amsterdam had a young, beautiful daughter. Count Potocki, already a Jew, already a Ger Tzedek, wanted her as his bride. The Rabbi agreed to give him her hand, once he became more learned.”10

Perhaps in order to attain these educational goals under the tutelage of renowned Polish Rabbis, but at least partially because of his longing for the beauty and familiarity of his homeland, Potocki

Ibid. Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., 4. 5 6

JEWISH SOULS

67

returns to the Vilna area, settling into a modest life of learning in the town of Ilye. In his quest to document the Ger Tzedek tradition, Litvin traveled to Ilye. There he met a certain Yankov Efroyim, the community record-keeper, whom he asked to show him the Ilye Pinkas in hopes of “finding there some trace of the Ger Tzedek’s tragedy.”11 The keeper of the Pinkas declined, assuring the researcher that no such allusion to Potocki was to be found in the sacred archive. Yankov Efroyim referred Litvin to another elder of the community, Ber Zalman. A loquacious resource on Ger Tzedek lore, Ber Zalman provided a detailed account of the “Yoshkes,”12 the descendants of the tailor who had betrayed the Ger Tzedek to the authorities, effectively sealing his tragic fate. “Jewish history had never before witnessed such a scandalous act,”13 Litvin laments in recalling the incident. The Ger Tzedek, studying in Ilye’s Bet Midrash one day, is disturbed by a boy, the tailor’s son, playing noisily in the “House of Study.” Potocki at first politely suggests that he play outside, as his rambunctious behavior is unbefitting the sacred precincts. The boy impudently refuses, continuing intentionally to disrupt the scholar’s efforts. Finally, the Ger Tzedek takes the boy by the ear, ejecting him from the Bet Midrash and berating him for his impertinence: “A true Jewish child could never act so freshly. You will, no doubt, abandon your faith!”14 (Indeed, Litvin remarks, Ilye’s oral history affirms with confidence that the young delinquent became an apostate later in life, as the Ger Tzedek had “prophesied.” 15 The boy’s father, the now infamous tailor, is so angered by the offense that he immediately informs against the Ger Tzedek. Potocki, understanding the mortal peril brought upon him by this betrayal, flees Ilye, seeking refuge at an inn, several miles away. The innkeeper, fearing reprisals from the authorities for any complicity in the Ger Tzedek’s escape, turns him in.

Ibid., 5. Ibid. 13 Ibid., 6. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 11 12

68

NOBLE SOUL

Litvin next transmits a detail of the Ger Tzedek tradition which he found already well entrenched in Ilye’s oral tradition and reflected in its social fabric, yet unattested in previous written accounts. As he was being taken away, chained and shackled, the Ger Tzedek uttered a curse against “the informant, that his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren for ten generations should find no happiness…and that none should die a natural death.”16 The tailor’s descendants, Litvin is told by his host, Ber Zalman, are still well-known and well-represented among the shtetl’s populace. “Among each of their households are found the deaf, mute, and lame. And seldom is it that any among them dies a natural death.”17 It is further attested to Litvin that the innkeeper’s family line suffered similar disabilities. Ber Zalman pointed out the fear with which the inhabitants of Ilye related to the “Yoshkes.” In fact, a young boy from a neighboring family known to be “Yoshkes” suddenly entered the room in which, Litvin writes, he was conducting this very interview. Ber Zalman cut off their conversation until the boy had left, thereupon revealing the child’s disreputable ancestry. He commented further that the ten generation duration of the Ger Tzedek’s curse had about elapsed. To this, his heretofore reticent wife anxiously declares, “Thank God!”18 Litvin, as did Gersoni forty years earlier, attests to a special role played by the Ger Tzedek’s mother, Countess Potocki. In an effort to intervene on her son’s behalf so as to save his life, the Countess succeeds in securing a pardon “either from the Pope or the King of Poland.”19 She arrives with the document too late. The Ger Tzedek had been burnt at the stake minutes before. Litvin cites a tradition preserved by the Jews of Vilna that a frightful storm occurred on the day of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom. During the storm a Bat Kol, a divine voice, was heard issuing from Heaven, saying: “Avraham ben Avraham, your radiant soul

Ibid., 6-7. Ibid., 7. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 16 17

JEWISH SOULS

69

has gone directly to its Source, to the Holy Patriarchs, and our Father Abraham has drawn it to his bosom.” 20 Litvin concludes his report on the Ger Tzedek by recalling the secretive burial of his ashes in the Old Cemetery. Litvin states that the martyr’s remains were retrieved at great risk from the executioner by a Jew who disguised himself as a Gentile for his perilous, sacred mission. The Jew’s name is not mentioned, although it is asserted that his descendants still live in Vilna. Litvin also offers a description of a tree (identified by Gersoni as a pear tree) which grew over the Ger Tzedek’s grave and became the object of frequent pilgrimages. “The tree had a strange appearance. Its branches, the highest and lowest, made it look like a person, with hands and feet. It appeared very much like a mother, bent in grief over the grave of her beloved child… Christian tourists in Vilna would visit the grave and marvel at the tree. But Jews considered it precious and holy.” 21

Abraham Karpinowitz, in a 1990 tribute to the Ger Tzedek, repeats Litvin’s description of the “miraculous” tree verbatim, expanding on the final line: “…like a mother, bent in grief over the grave of her beloved child, so as to protect it from all harm.”22 Litvin records the continuing practice of Vilna’s Jews to visit the Ger Tzedek’s grave, and there to pray for divine aid, annually on Tisha b’Av and during the Ten Days of Repentance between Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. In his 1943 classic, Vilna, Israel Cohen updates the record. Until the decimation of Vilna’s Jewish population, the tree “drew vast pilgrimages of Jews, but the ‘hands’ and ‘feet’ were hacked away by some malicious hand.”23 First-hand accounts of pilgrimages to the wondrous tree have been published as recently as 1997. Rabbi Haskel Lindenthal who,

Ibid., 8. Ibid. 22 Abraham Karpinowitz, Die Geschichte fun Vilner Ger Tzedek, Graf Valentin Potocki [Yiddish] (Tel Aviv: Vilner Pinkas, 1990), 109. 23 Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1943), 74. 20 21

70

NOBLE SOUL

as a youth, studied under Vilna’s last Rabbinic giants, wrote in his autobiography: “I saw this tree with my own eyes many years after it was cut down. It lay on top of Graf Pototsky’s grave and indeed, had the shape of a human being.”24 Self-consciously analyzing his own efforts, Litvin concedes: “The time to open the curtain on the tragedy of the Ger Tzedek has not yet arrived.”25 The scholar explains that to do justice to his subject, the assistance of Polish noble families, particularly the Potocki clan would be necessary, as would a more comprehensive survey of the oral histories of the Vilna and Ilye communities, together with a thorough examination of their written archives and Pinkasim. In this effort, Litvin posits, the talents of gifted dramatists and authors will also be required. “The poetry of the Ger Tzedek is more powerful than Byron; the drama of the Ger Tzedek is more profound than all of Shakespeare’s dramas.”26 Litvin understands that the task of fully relating the religious and historical import of the martyred Ger Tzedek of Vilna was not soon to be realized. To this sacred endeavor, however, the Yiddish folklorist made an effective and worthy contribution.

24

Haskel Lindenthal, Pages of My Life (New York: Legacy, 1997), 96-

25

Litvin, 1. Ibid., 2.

97. 26

CHAPTER 7 ALTER EGOS: KACYZNE’S ‘DER DUKUS,’ 1925 Shulamit Kacyzne, interviewed on Israeli radio, described her father’s most celebrated drama, “Der Dukus,” as “one of the three most popular Yiddish plays together with ‘Hurdus’ and (Ansky’s 1916) ‘Dybbuk.’”1 Her estimation may demonstrate more filial devotion than a discriminating literary palate. Alter Kacyzne’s four act play is, however, properly to be discussed in superlative terms. “Der Dukus” is by all accounts the literary work most closely associated, at least in the popular perception, with the Ger Tzedek of Vilna, Count Walenty Potocki. For many, Kacyzne’s play is not merely the best known, but the only known such account. In this fact lies considerable irony, for Kacyzne, “in choosing this legend as the basis for his play, intended, according to his own testimony, to expose the social drama of the Jewish people more than the individual drama of the ‘Ger Tzedek.’”2 Kacyzne was well acquainted with the literary history of his subject. In the introduction to his play, he refers to both Kraszewski and Dick. The playwright himself, however, is very clear about the tenuous relationship between his protagonist and the celebrated Ger Tzedek. “I have made use of the legend of the Ger Tzedek, not as the subject for a play, but as a canvas, on which I have embroidered my own flower. In so doing, I have surely sinned against the sanctity of a folk-tale, every

Interview with Shulamit Kacyzne, 1970. Kol Israel Audio Cassette Collection, Harvard University. Questions are asked in Hebrew and translated into Yiddish. Kacyzne responds in Yiddish. 2 D. B. Malkin, Introduction to Alter Kacyzne, “Ha-Dukas” [Hebrew translation by Eliyahu Hazan] (Tel Aviv: Masach, 1955), 5. 1

71

72

NOBLE SOUL nuance of which is zealously maintained by the Jews of Vilna.”3

Evidently in response to the holiness of the ground on which he treads, Kacyzne has removed a number of elements associated with the Ger Tzedek himself. The title character is referred to exclusively as “der yunger Dukus” (“the young count”), or by his Hebrew name. This term is apparently borrowed from Litvin, who used “dukus” to denote the Ger Tzedek’s noble status. Neither the name “Valentine” nor “Potocki” is ever mentioned. The noble companion with whom “the young count” had studied in Paris similarly remains anonymous, referred to only as “the friend.” Kacyzne does retain “Yoshke” as the name of the tailor who traduces the Ger Tzedek, explaining that the name itself had developed into a synonym for those who betray fellow Jews to the authorities. Similarly intact is the incident of the woman, mentioned by Litvin, who mocks the Ger Tzedek on his way to execution, and is mysteriously paralyzed on the spot. Listing these few parallels, the author of “Der Dukus” declares in no uncertain terms: “This is all that links me with the Legend.”4 The tenuity of this connection is evident in the observation of Henri Minczeles. In reference to Kacyzne’s protagonist, Minczeles states dryly, “Ce personnage n’était pas sans rappeler le comte Valentine Potocki, le fameux Ger Tsedec” (“This character is not unreminiscent of Count Valentine Potocki, the famous Ger Tzedek.”)5 It is a grave injustice to Alter Kacyzne that this play, a dark and biting social commentary on the Jewish condition in 1925, is mistaken by many as the definitive depiction of the Ger Tzedek’s life and martyrdom. This error was perpetrated by theater-goers familiar with the original Yiddish production of “Der Dukus,” which premiered in Warsaw as well as by Israeli audiences, for whom the play was presented in Hebrew translation. “Ha-Dukus” premiered in Tel Aviv to mark the seventieth anniversary of its late author’s birth. If by his own estimation Kacyzne profaned the

Alter Kacyzne, “Der Dukus” in Gesammelte Schriften [Yiddish] (Verlang Y. L. Peretz, 1967), 17 4 Ibid. 5 Henri Minczeles, Vilna, Wilno, Vilnius: le Jérusalem de Lituanie [French] (Paris: Éditions la Découverte, 1993), 315. 3

ALTER EGOS

73

sanctity of the Ger Tzedek’s memory through this drama, his literary audience has compounded that “sin” by ignoring the author’s candid disclaimer.

ACT I: ENCOUNTER AT THE INN OF MOSHIK AND PESSIE Before “the young count” makes his first appearance on stage, he is introduced to the audience through a furtive conversation between Nechamala (daughter of Moshik and Pessie, proprietors of an inn) and Devorah, a young widow. Nechamala recounts an earlier incident in which “the young count” (this chapter can not properly refer to him as “Avraham” or “Ger Tzedek”) and his friend arrived at the inn, finding her alone. Startled by their arrival, Nechamala had run out to greet them barefoot and wearing only a short petticoat! Nechamala sees a carriage drawn by three horses, bearing the two young noblemen and driven by their huntsman. In the rear of the coach, where one might expect to find footmen or servants attending the young nobles, stood a monkey, dressed in a red uniform! “It looked like a real person. It was speaking a strange language. Apparently only noblemen can understand this monkey language.”6 Nechamala goes on to report how the noblemen and the monkey laughed at her startled appearance and attire. Pressed by Devorah for details of this salacious first “encounter,” Nechamala describes the young nobleman as “very handsome”7 with “naked”8 eyes. Entering the inn, the count, taking the young woman by the hand, had remarked on her beauty. They both soon felt the effects of the fine honey-wine they drank together. The young count seized Nechamala “and kissed me over and over again, on the eyes, on the lips, on the cheeks, perhaps five times, maybe ten times. And each kiss was like a fiery brand! Maybe more than ten times…and then he drove away.” 9 The young count seems to be emerging as a reflection of the hedonistic indulgence associated with the oppressive noble class, and its practice of sexual exploitation and predation. Described as

Kacyzne, 26. Ibid., 24. 8 Ibid., 25. 9 Ibid., 27. 6 7

74

NOBLE SOUL

“smiling, and twisting his moustache”10 he might be mistaken for the very image of villainy… if not for a countervailing subtext in the women’s conversation and in the scenes that follow. Devorah cites rumors that the young count had studied Hebrew under the tutelage of Rabbis during his world travels. “They speak of great wonders associated with him. Some even say he converted.” 11 These alter-egos are in stark evidence when the young count and his companion return to the inn, and are received by Moshik and Pessie, Nechamala’s parents. The young nobleman greets them with the biblical verse: “Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov…” (How goodly are your tents, 0 Jacob!―Numbers 24:5). His friend completes the text: “mishk’notecha Yisrael” (…your dwelling places, 0 Israel)!12 Significantly, these famous words of blessing were pronounced by a non-Israelite prophet through divine intervention, although words of malediction had been intended. The two noble companions’ speech is rife with biblical allusions, including a citation from the commentary of Rashi, appropriately selected from the narrative describing the hospitality shown his three angelic guests by Abraham (Genesis 18:8)! By far the most significant such reference, however, is a mocking quip by the young count, directed at the inn’s proprietors and their anxious reaction to their noble guests. “Na‘aseh v’nishma―First the drinks, and then the tablecloth. Jews!” 13 The allusion is to the Hebrew of Exodus 24:7, which reports the ratification of the divine Covenant proclaimed by Moses at Mount Sinai. The Israelites indicated their unanimous assent, declaring: “All that the Lord has spoken, na ‘aseh v‘nishma―we will do, and we will be obedient.” Translated literally, however, this theologically charged phrase is rendered, “We will do and we will hear.” Classical Rabbinic interpretation understands the strange syntax of this phrase to indicate that the Israelites committed themselves to faithful observance of God’s commandments even before hearing their content. Furthermore, this tradition maintains that God had offered the Torah, that is to say, His Covenant, to all the

Ibid., 24. Ibid., 25. 12 Ibid., 34. 13 Ibid., 37. 10 11

ALTER EGOS

75

other nations of the world each of which in turn declined the Almighty’s offer. Na‘aseh v’nishma thus serves as the “battle cry” of Jewish fidelity to God’s commandments. This “midrash” is inexorably linked with the teaching that all future generations of Jews, including converts to Judaism, were present at Sinai to articulate their acceptance of the Covenant with these dramatic words. This teaching, however, has a much more specific association with the Ger Tzedek of Vilna than his own status as a convert to Judaism. Rabbi Israel Mayer ha-Kohen Kagan (the “Chofetz Chayim”), among others, is said to have credited the Ger Tzedek with the teaching that, among the non-Israelite nations of the world “there were individuals who indeed wished to accept the Torah, and these individuals provide the source from which the souls of converts are supplied.”14 The Ger Tzedek is furthermore said to have offered the more controversial corollary that individuals among Israel were unwilling to accept the Torah, and that Jewish apostates are descended from these isolated recalcitrants. The young count’s witty application of this Biblical phrase to the mundane matter of table settings is thus rich in nuance. His scholarly familiarity with Jewish texts is thereby demonstrated, and his own conversion foreshadowed. Kacyzne, despite his protestations to the contrary, here offers his learned audience a tantalizing link between “der yunger Dukus” and Count Walenty Potocki, the Ger Tzedek of Vilna. The exclamation “Jews!!” appended to this scriptural allusion underscores its theological resonances in the Jewish national psyche. It should be noted that in Kacyzne’s Yiddish original, “Yiddele” is used. This term for “Jews” is described by Yiddish lexicographer Uriel Weinreich15 as “endearing.” The Hebrew translation of “Der Dukus,” however, renders the word “Yehudon.” In his dictionary, Reuben Alcalay renders this expression “Yid, sheeny, kike (derogatory).”16 ---

14 Moshe Mayer Yoshor, Ha-Chafetz Chayim u-Fo’olo [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Netzach, 1958), 292. 15 Uriel Weinreich, Modern English-Yiddish, Yiddish-English Dictionary (New York: YIVO/Schocken, 1977) 16 Reuben Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary (Ramat Gan/Jerusalem: Massada, 1981.)

76

NOBLE SOUL

To be sure, the young count is no picture of emergent Jewish piety, despite his recourse to scriptural metaphor. He orders Moshik about, demanding that he greet him with the most obsequious flattery, receiving him with song and dance. He further instructs Moshik’s grandfather (who we later learn won the inn in perpetuity from the count’s father in a chess game) to play his fiddle to accompany the humiliated dancer. In quiet asides between the count and his companion, we learn of their educational endeavors in Paris and, in particular, of their studies under the tutelage of an inspiring Rabbi, with whom they remain duly impressed. Indeed, despite his baneful disparagement of Jews at home, the young count had previously contemplated conversion to Judaism, as continuing rumors confirmed. He explains his apparent change of perspective: “There is a substantial distance between Judaism and Jews… My father was right to laugh at my Jewish fantasies. 17 In the Dukus’ perception, Jews unworthy of the religious tradition and history he had come so to admire in Paris abound in his visit to the inn. Moshik demeans himself through his musical sycophancy and the Sabbath desecration which, his grandfather Tzadok points out, it entails. Act I also introduces Yoshke, the tailor who is destined to betray the young count. Yoshke makes presumptuous, self-serving matrimonial overtures toward Nechamala. Despite his insistence that he is “as upstanding a Jew as Reb Moshe,”18 the tailor’s marital proposal is coarsely rebuffed by Moshik and Pessie. It is Nechamala herself, however, who most dramatically and literally effects a departure from Jewish ideals. Arriving at the inn, she witnesses her family demeaning itself at the young count’s behest. Fearing likely abuse of their beautiful daughter by the increasingly intoxicated nobleman, Moshik and Pessie urge her to depart, and beg the Dukus not to disgrace her, as they reasonably presume he intends. Nechamala reacts with disgust: “Let me be! I have my own mind! You father, don’t speak to me of shame. You have no sense of shame! If

17 18

Kacyzne, 37. Ibid., 33.

ALTER EGOS

77

my father and mother can dance like bears for the nobleman, and my great-grandfather can play his fiddle for him, then I can just as well sit on his lap! What else? Embrace? Kiss? How? Like this? Did I not do that well? Teach me! I’ll do it better, harder.”19

Understandably, an argument ensues: Tzadok refuses to continue. Dukus, now inebriated by both drink and disdain, casts Nechamala aside and barks more orders, menacing the old man with his hunting rifle. Thanks to the timely intervention of the young man’s noble companion, the weapon discharges harmlessly into the air. Realizing he has behaved in an unworthy, ignoble fashion, the young count apologizes. He swears never again to take a weapon into his hands. Tzadok responds: “God’s miracles are great!”20 The noblemen finally take their leave; Nechamala continues her tirade: “Is it that nobleman I want! You are wrong, Mother! I want all the noblemen! I will sit on all of their laps! I will hug and kiss them all! I will run all over the world, where the men are handsome, and know nothing of sin, for everything there is a sin!21

Pessie, upbraiding her daughter, violently drags her into the house. “Oy, Mother,” Nechamala screams, “not into a Jewish house! Not into a house of darkness!”22 Ironically, the violence and “darkness” to which Act I has led conclude with the inauguration of the Sabbath. Candles appear in Pessie’s window. Moshik and Tzadok sing “Shalom Aleichem,” the Sabbath hymn offering greetings of peace to God’s ministering angels who, according to tradition, inspect the Jewish home to assure that a proper Sabbath atmosphere of calm and holiness prevails. As the curtain falls on the opening act of “Der Dukus,” a more bitter irony dominates. The young nobleman has experienced an epiphany of sorts. Forswearing the violence characteristic of his

Ibid., 41. Ibid., 44. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 45. 19 20

78

NOBLE SOUL

class, he has begun the final journey toward his new life as a pious and learned Jew. Nechamala (her name, meaning “consolation,” itself an irony), however, has begun a journey of a very different nature. The innocent Jewish woman whom the young nobleman had earlier so profanely embraced has begun a moral descent, a process that will lead her into prostitution and public excoriation. The antithetical dynamics of conversion and apostasy, in regard to which the Ger Tzedek of Vilna offered his unique insights, will, in turn, occupy “Der Dukus” as the drama continues to unfold.

ACT II: CONVERSION IN THE COUNT’S CASTLE The second act’s theme of the exploitative excesses of the nobility is introduced by a court jester, a Jew in the elder count’s service. Dusting portraits of the count’s ancestors, proudly displayed on the castle wall, the jester recalls their history of abuse directed against his own family. The subject of one distinguished portrait had beaten his grandfather to death. One had broken the jester’s ribs. One had raped his mother, claiming the noble right of prima nocta (sexual rights to vassal brides on their wedding night). The buffoon comments wryly, “To you…I am practically family!”23 The audience is left to wonder whether this Jew, the court fool, in fact carries noble blood…even as the count’s noble son contemplates conversion to Judaism! The current lord of the manor is a veritable caricature of abuse and self-indulgent excess. The jester explains to an incredulous priest the count’s plan to outfit a bear with a pair of red pants. The bear had been captured alive for this express purpose, taking the lives of five of the count’s serfs in the process. The services of Yoshke the tailor have been retained for production of the ursine trousers, reintroducing the young count’s destined traducer to the private affairs of his family. The young count, in contrast, is found to be pursuing his interest in Judaism. Much to the priest’s consternation, the nobleman’s son has been reading a Hebrew book, banned and ordered burnt by the Church, about Solomon Molcho. Molcho, formerly Diogo Pires, was a convert to Judaism (or, more precisely, a repen-

23

Ibid., 46.

ALTER EGOS

79

tant second generation apostate born to Portuguese Marrano parents) who lived in the first half of the sixteenth century. Molcho was a disciple of David Reuveni, from whose claim of descent from King Solomon he likely took his Hebrew name. Though discouraged from formally embracing Judaism by his spiritual master, Molcho circumcised himself and effected conversion. Like his master, Molcho had aspirations to (or delusions of) Messianism. Molcho gained the favor and protection of Pope Clement VII. His stature and public appeal grew after he appeared accurately to have prophesied a number of natural disasters. As the result of a personal vendetta, however, he was sentenced to the stake by an inquisitorial court, apparently in 1530. He was spared through the personal intervention of the Pope. Refusing to renounce his Judaism, however, he was eventually burnt at the stake two years later. The parallels between Molcho and “der yunger Dukus” (as, too, with the Ger Tzedek himself) are self-evident. To this extent, it is no surprise that reference to such a historical precedent was made by Kacyzne. One wonders, however, at the familiarity of Kacyzne’s typical theater-goer with such a relatively obscure character nearly four centuries after his death. It should be noted that fictional works on both Molcho (E. Fleg’s, Le Juif du Pâpe) and Reuveni (M. Brod’s, Reuveni Fuerst der Jüden) were published in 1925, the year Der Dukus premiered in Warsaw. Thus, far from being arcane, Kacyzne’s literary allusion was in fact quite au courant. When the priest indignantly brings the young count’s interest in Solomon Molcho to his father’s attention, the elder nobleman is dismissive. “He knows how to play games no less than his father. We both play games on a grand scale. Why is my game with my beloved bear, or with unruly peasants, or even my chess match with you, any more refined or exalted than my son’s game with his beloved beards and sidecurls (that is, ‘payos’), with scholastic tractates, with Shloimie Molcho, or even with the Messiah?! …If my son’s game is on so grand a scale as to provoke you, so

80

NOBLE SOUL that you perceive therein a danger to the Church itself, then my son has earned my admiration! 24

Despite this paternal policy of libertine laisser faire, the young count’s self-sacrificing pursuit of Judaism and his father’s carnivalesque self-indulgence soon clash, most literally. The bear breaks loose and attacks Moshik, who happens on the scene on his way to plead for the elder count’s assistance in locating his errant daughter, who has fled her home. The young count heroically rescues the Jew, killing the bear with a broiling skewer, thus remarkably upholding his vowed abstention from weapons even in this dire situation. The young count’s father interprets his son’s courage, which he witnesses, as an affirmation of his pedigree. “He risked his noble neck for Moshik…Like his grandfather! Like his greatgrandfather! I must confess, I couldn’t have done it myself!”25 In his joy, the young hero’s father drinks and dances. He compels his jester to don a bear-skin rug, and they reenact the rescue of Moshik. Unaware of what has transpired, Yoshke enters carrying the bear pants for a fitting, and is scared away by the jester in his bear costume. This bizarre scene, no doubt very entertaining on stage, is rich in symbolism. Simultaneously presented to the audience are a bear for which human garments are provided… and a human garbed in the skin of a bear! The bear, it seems, is simply a larger, more obvious and more lethal representation of the uniformed monkey, “understandable” only to noblemen, who earlier accompanied the young count as a coachman. Identities are blurred and exchanged; roles assigned by nature, by birth, are subverted. In this pageant of blurred identities, Kacyzne also dramatically illustrates the count’s (and, indeed, the Church’s) absolute rejection of the young nobleman’s conversion to Judaism: his “unnatural” subversion of the role assigned to him by birth. In their view, he can no more renounce his nobility or become a Jew by virtue of conversion, than a bear can become human by virtue of carefully tailored pants… no more than a human becomes a bear by slipping on a pelt. No more than a monkey becomes a coachman by virtue

24 25

Ibid., 57. Ibid., 60.

ALTER EGOS

81

of his uniform. The young count had said it himself, perhaps in despair: “Everyone must know his place; a Jew is a Jew, and a nobleman is a nobleman.”26 In a similar vein, the elder count remarks to Moshik, ostensibly about the game of chess which occupies them: “Neither of us can move.”27 The count quickly learns, however, that his son has indeed “moved,” that he has experienced a transformation, of which his angry repudiation of weaponry is emblematic. “I have sworn an oath: I shall never again take a rifle into my hands. I feel a profound disgust for this symbol of your gallantry, for all types of weaponry. I cast off the shameful chains which bind me to the noble knight, a nobility founded on the shedding of blood, and on crime that goes unpunished. This is my vow: I am not one of you; you are not mine. .” 28

Understandably provoked by this outburst, the elder count takes two scimitars down from the wall on which they had been displayed. Handing one to his son, he challenges him: “To the sword, son! One, two! To the first blood. If not… If not, I will suspect this magnate of Jacob’s cowardice!”29 The Yiddish expression here translated as “cowardice” is pachdones (a Hebraism retained in the Hebrew translation: pachdanut). This term is laden with Biblical resonance. Genesis 31:42 refers to God as “Pachad Yitzchak.” According to Nahum Sarna, this expression “conveys a double meaning: ‘The One Whom Isaac Reveres’ and ‘The One of Isaac Who Caused Terror.’” 30 Both meanings identified by Sarna are borne by Kacyzne’s clever choice of this term. The elder count accuses his son not merely of the “cowardice” he attributes to all Jews; he suspects him of having embraced their religious tradition, the Jewish mode of “Reverence.” To reflect both these nuances, the count’s angry ac-

Ibid., 90. Ibid., 67. 28 Ibid., 62. 29 Ibid., 63. 30 Nahum Sarna, The J.P.S. Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 220. 26 27

82

NOBLE SOUL

cusation might best be translated more idiomatically. “I will suspect this magnate of Jewish fear and trembling.” The association of pachad with Isaac is hinted at by der yunger Dukus himself. In his final, impassioned speech prior to conversion, he explicitly compares his personal plight to the “Binding of Isaac.” Significantly, the same Hebrew word (pachad) appears, with similar ambiguity, in Esther 8:17. There it is used in conjunction with the text’s reported conversion to Judaism of numerous Persians. This scriptural verse will be discussed at greater length in a subsequent chapter devoted to the relationship of the Book of Esther to the Ger Tzedek’s literary evolution. As the young count’s personal religious journey advances toward conversion, the personal transformation of Nechamala, her flight from Jews and Judaism, also progresses. Having been rescued from the bear by the young count, Moshik brings his plight to his savior’s father. The elder count is cruelly evasive as to any knowledge of Nechamala’s whereabouts. The two men agree to a chess match, with the return of Moshik’s daughter gambled as its stakes. The match ends in stale-mate. “We have both lost,”31 the nobleman incisively remarks. Aghast and incensed at the game and its human stakes, the young count berates his father for his cruelty, and Moshik for his willing self-degradation. In his ire, the young count cuts his finger on the sword in his hand, wiping away the blood on the pages of the Solomon Molcho book. The immediate symbolism of this “coincidence” is no less evident to the young count himself. “Eureka! How appropriate! Such a simple, enlightened course! Solomon Molocho! My brother across the generations! Are you speaking to me? Is this your voice? Surely this is the right way…to live as you lived, to do what you did, to follow in your path…Brother Solomon! You call to me across the generations and I hear your voice.”32

31 32

Kacyzne, 67. Ibid., 69.

ALTER EGOS

83

The blood-stained story of Molcho, of course, foreshadows not only the circumcision which will, imminently, effect the young nobleman’s conversion to Judaism, but his martyrdom as well. Indeed, the specific injury he here suffers, a wounded finger, is particularly evocative of the Ger Tzedek’s execution. In addition to some ashes, a single finger of the martyr was recovered for burial. In the closing moments of Act II, the parallel “conversions” of the young count and Nechamala are duly consummated. Nechamala, dressed in noble finery, consorts with the elder count. The count revels in her beauty, gloating about the deception and indignity he had earlier perpetrated against her father. “Come, come, my queen…I want you to tell everyone! You do not wish to go back to your father and his inn!”

Nechamala’s response is unequivocal: “Hold me tight in your arms…long-hidden well-springs of lust and license have been opened within me!”33

The intimate tryst is interrupted by the panicked arrival of the priest and the jester, who haltingly exclaim: “A tragedy…the young count…in a river of blood… with the sword! The scimitar!” “Has he harmed himself?” the count demands. “Worse than that,” the priest moans. “He circumcised himself!”34

The Yiddish term for “circumcised,” (ge’yiddisht), both functionally and etymologically suggests “converted to Judaism” or “Judaized.” Indeed, the Hebrew translation of “Der Dukus” renders the word hitgayer (converted to Judaism).35 Thus, we understand the priest’s shocked statement: “Worse than that. He converted!” “Ge’yiddisht?” the incredulous count repeats. The jester has the final word of Act II, confirming his master’s fears. “Ge’yiddisht.”

Ibid., 70. Ibid., 71. 35 Alter Kacyzne, “Ha-Dukas” [Hebrew translation by Eliyahu Hazan] (Tel Aviv: Masach, 1955), 69. 33 34

84

NOBLE SOUL

ACT III: PROFLIGATES AND PROSELYTES EXPOSED Considerable time seems to have elapsed since the events depicted in Act II, as the curtain rises on the third Act of “Der Dukus.” Yoshke and Devorah are married, and both harbor bitter recriminations about their union. They operate a tavern of sorts, a dark wine cellar frequented by a boisterous clientele of dubious moral standards. Although it is unclear under what unpleasant circumstances she left the elder count’s service or employ, Nechamala, described by herself and Devorah as the “town whore,”36 is a fixture in their tavern, inciting the customers to lewd behavior and ribaldry. “Move away those tables; take away the chairs! Here is a good place for dancing! And how I will teach you to dance! Just like the nobles do it, just like the Goyim! … Kick your legs up high like this! No peeking under there!”37

Moshik’s relationship to Nechamala, if not explicitly adulterous, is an unseemly, illicit bond. Introducing a theme reprised throughout the scenes that follow, the Act opens with the singing of “Shoshanat Yaakov,” the liturgical hymn sung in conjunction with the reading of the Book of Esther on Purim. The hymn celebrates the ascendancy of the Jewish people, who “rejoiced and celebrated when together they saw Mordechai, dressed in regal purple robes,” as described in Esther. Having obviated a mortal threat to the Jewish people at the hands of an oppressive regime, Mordechai is elevated to a lofty position of power and influence, second only to the king himself. In ironic contrast, der yunger Dukus has turned his back on power and influence, abandoning the “regal purple” to which he was born, to identify himself with the Jewish people, living far from an ascendant existence. The young nobleman’s conversion, furthermore, places his new religious community in renewed mortal peril from the oppressive regime he has renounced. Kacyzne’s stage directions describe the Purim hymn as a shiker-gezang38 (a “drinking song” or, perhaps, a “drunken melody”). Drinking potent potables is, of

Kacyzne [Yiddish], 80ff. Ibid., 80. 38 Ibid., 72. 36 37

ALTER EGOS

85

course, a time-honored element of Purim observance. For Jewish communities living under the subjugation of powerful, hostile regimes, publicly celebrating the downfall of oppressors and the ascendancy of Jewish potentates may have been historically possible only in the context of “drinking songs.” This ritual function of “Shoshanat Yaakov” renders its use in Act III all the more bitter in its irony. The protagonist of “Der Dukus,” unlike Mordechai, is not led to the seat of power attired in regal purple; he is led to interrogation and brutal execution, confined in chains and shackles. The threat to the Jewish community is not alleviated. If the converted nobleman offers a distinct contrast to the hero of the Biblical scroll, Nechamala is an unlikely representation of Esther herself, although it is clearly this heroine and royal consort to whom she is compared. The depth of Nechmala’s debasement is dramatized by the arrival at the wine cellar of the community Rabbi and his unimpressive liturgical lieutenants. The religious leaders decry the licentious comportment in the tavern, and of the “town whore” in particular. Nechamala is unrepentant, declaring the Rabbi a “Purim Rabbi,”39 in reference to the custom of electing a mock-Rabbi on that festive day, who would issue humorous decrees, and preach clever but irreverent parodies. “Shoshanas Yaakov… I swear to you, Jews! A sacred vow by the town whore. I will ravish the Yeshiva itself! All the boys will sin with me. Just you wait! Just let me get my hands on Avrehmel the Masmid (a student constantly devoted to study), the Rabbi’s cracker-jack disciple!” 40

In the course of a near riot that ensues, both Yoshke and Nechamala are bound to pillars, as her belongings are ransacked in a coordinated act of public humiliation, intended to drive her from the community. Yoshke pathetically offers his life to spare her from further embarrassment. The mood changes, as does the mob’s disposition toward Nechamala, when it is discovered that the elder count has canceled the

39 40

Ibid., 81. Ibid., 81.

86

NOBLE SOUL

“fair,” a crucial, much-anticipated source of business income for the Jewish community. Evidently, this action has been taken as part of the nobleman’s attempt to locate his son. Unbeknownst to the rest of the Jewish populace, the count had earlier visited with Yoshke, paying him a sum of money for information. Yoshke had replied, most disingenuously, that the Rabbi had forbidden any discussion of the young count’s whereabouts, making clear that, in fact, he was being hidden by the Jewish community since his conversion. Although she ultimately eschews the opportunity, it becomes evident that Nechamala is the Jews’ most likely intercessor with the nobleman who has placed a stranglehold on their economic well-being. The Biblical significance of Nechamala’s proposed role, Esther-as-Intercessor, is explored in fairly explicit terms by Kacyzne. One of the Rabbi’s attendants, for example, comments: “Not just once have Jews escaped danger and fatal decrees through the efforts of women!”41 Similarly, a pious woman helping Nechamala to dress in preparation for appealing to the nobleman remarks: “She is a queen! Truly, a queen!”42 The same woman had earlier bewailed the plight confronting the Jews, according to stage directions provided, in the melody to which the Book of Lamentations is chanted. Verses describing the threat to Persian Jewry in the Scroll of Esther are, traditionally, chanted to this very melody. Nechamala herself, tellingly, declines excessive adornment: “No jewelry is necessary; none is necessary.”43 Her request for “understated attire” is further reminiscent of Esther, who, in preparation for meeting the king, specifically declined her royal handlers’ unlimited offers of special clothing and jewelry, in contrast with the other virgins vying for royal favor. Unlike Esther, Nechamala does not carry out her mission of intercession, nor is such an end successfully achieved. The lapsed Jewess comes face to face with the young count, the convert to Judaism, whose earlier sexual advances she blames for inciting her descent to moral turpitude. The young nobleman is actually Avrehmel the Masmid, Avrehmel being the diminutive form of

Ibid., 94. Ibid. 43 Ibid., 95. 41 42

ALTER EGOS

87

Avraham (ben Avraham), the appellation typically adopted by converts. Nechmala had heretofore known Avrehmel only by his stellar scholarly reputation. Avrehmel, to the Rabbi’s considerable consternation, reveals to his fellow Jews his status as a convert. The Rabbi, no doubt suspecting his identity, had merely accepted letters from colleagues abroad, certifying his conversion… without asking further, imprudent questions about the young man’s origins. Avrehmel arrives at the wine cellar in a burst of righteous indignation, wishing to defend the Jewish community and to rid it of the threats it faces: “I can live no more in silence! My ancestors were gallant fighters. And I wish to live among you as a Jew, a man of valor. I will do battle against all harm which is threatened against us, and that harm which we would bring upon ourselves… First of all, I shall root out the evil which is found in our own midst!” 44

Avrehmel’s indignant bravado is quickly deflated as Nechamala bitterly identifies him as the young nobleman, the errant son sought by the elder count. Avrehmel confesses: “What she says is true. A Goy once pulled her to his heart, and that Goy was the young count. And the young count: I was he.”45 Nechamala scoffs at the parallel processes of transformation she and the young count have experienced: “He made me trayf, even as he became kosher himself!!” 46 Before the young convert can respond to Nechamala, authorities of the Church appear at the wine cellar to arrest him. Avrehmel, not in the least surprised or resistant, willingly submits himself to their custody. The crowd murmurs; Nechmala laughs mockingly. The Rabbi and his attendants put into words that which the audience has understood and expected all along. “This is Yoshke’s doing.”47

Ibid., 97. Ibid., 99. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid., 101. 44 45

88

NOBLE SOUL

ACT IV: VISIONS OF LIGHT AND DARK The final Act of “Der Dukus,” devoted primarily to the converted nobleman’s execution by the Church, opens with a formal proclamation, accompanied by trumpet blasts, and read publicly by a herald. “Shortly, a man will be burnt in accordance with a sacred decree of the Church…The Holy Tribunal has found that the vessel in which the divine essence resides, the sinful body, imperils and endangers the soul. In its justice and mercy, the Holy Tribunal has therefore ruled… that the Godly soul is to be separated from the sinful body, so as to return the body to dust and ashes, and the soul to its Creator.” 48

The characteristically Christian distinction between body and soul calls to mind a similar distinction offered earlier by the condemned man himself. Prior to his conversion, the young count had expressed his disillusionment at the “substantial distance between Judaism and Jews,”49 that is, between the ignoble reality of Jewish existence (“the body”), and the divine, revelatory principles of Judaism (“the soul”). Considerable efforts are expended to spare the noble convert from execution. The elder count has travelled to Rome to seek a Papal pardon. Young noblemen conspire to do all that is necessary to delay the execution until the count’s return: they will take up arms if necessary…even more “dramatically,” they will humble themselves and “bend the knee” 50 if all else fails! The condemned man, however, the young count, declines and decries their intervention. Yet again, identities and anticipated social roles are exchanged. Members of the nobility plot to ingratiate themselves to the authorities by assuming a subservient, selfdeprecating posture… while a Jew, sentenced to the stake by a subjugating regime, comports himself as a model of nobility. The young count’s speech to his well-meaning noble peers reprises the stark distinction between Jewish existence and Judaism.

Ibid., 101. Ibid., 37. See above at note #17. 50 Ibid., 102. 48 49

ALTER EGOS

89

Through his protagonist, Kacyzne offers his audience a caustic indictment of the Jewish condition in the Diaspora. “I have immersed my soul in the well-springs of Judaism, but my back has not yet borne the Jewish yoke. My magnate’s backbone has not been bent in submission. In behalf of an entire society of prostrate Jews I alone will bear the Judaism of antiquity, upright and proud. I am sufficiently strong and gallant to give up my life in a blaze of glory, before the eyes of the world, in the Name of God Almighty. I am strong enough to die as a Jew, but I am too weak to live as a Jew… to squirm under the boot of those who hold us in their power!”51

The martyred convert accepts his death because he prefers to die with the strength and dignity of a nobleman than to live with the indignities inherent in the Jewish condition of Diaspora existence! Indeed, in so doing he reclaims his identity as der yunger Dukus. This is subtly indicated by the playwright by means of stage directions. Before his conversion, the protagonist is referred to as “the young count (der yunger Dukus).” During Act III, even after his identity has been revealed, he is called the “Masmid,” the unrelenting scholar. No noble status devolves from his quiet, secretive, and pious existence. In Act IV, having chosen noble death over ignoble Jewish life, he is again “elevated” to the status of der yunger dukus, a noble count, the very identity he had formerly, formally renounced. Thus, it is unclear whether the execution in which the play culminates is that of a devout convert martyring himself in the cause of his chosen religious faith… or a young count martyring himself for the honor of the nobility to which he was born. According to various renditions of the Ger Tzedek saga, a pardon sparing the converted nobleman from death at the stake is granted, only tragically to arrive moments or days too late. Gersoni provides a particularly graphic depiction of this element of the martyr’s biography. “Der Dukus” offers its audience a dramatic variation on this traditional theme, The young count’s father returns from Rome in ample time to forestall the execution of his son, hav-

51

Ibid., 106.

90

NOBLE SOUL

ing succeeded in securing a pardon from the Pope himself. Urged by the young noblemen, whom his son had earlier rebuffed, to deliver the document posthaste, the elder count first demands information on his son’s intentions. “He has no remorse,” they report. “He wishes to remain a Jew.” “This I understand. Go on, go on,” the count demands.

The young men continue to quote the condemned convert: “To live under oppression’s yoke, he says, he cannot do. He feels ‘better a death of radiant splendor than a life of dreary gloom.’”52 With this single, critical remark of the young count, Kacyzne’s subversion of the Ger Tzedek tradition is complete. The count’s words, “better a death of radiant splendor than a life of wretched gloom” (besser a likhtikn toyt ayder a finster laybn) capture the esteem in which Count Walenty Potocki, the martyred Ger Tzedek of Vilna, is held in Jewish tradition. He preferred the “radiant splendor” of death as a loyal, pious Jew… rather than the “life of wretched gloom” which he could have secured by renouncing his new religion and reclaiming his noble birthright. Such an attitude defines Jewish martyrdom: Kiddush ha-Shem, Sanctification of God’s Name. For the martyred count of “Der Dukus,” however, it is continued existence as a Jew “beneath oppression’s heel” which is characterized as a “life of wretched gloom.” His principled death, an act worthy of a noble lord, is the choice which partakes of “radiant splendor!” The martyr’s noble father, the elder count, understands his son’s choice perfectly, for it is the act not of a subservient, powerless Jew, but of a proud heir to regal nobility. “Magnates! Help me rip my fatherly heart from my breast! … His honor and dignity are more precious to me than his life…. Magnates! See how a nobleman behaves!”53

52

Ibid 111. 112.

53 Ibid.,

ALTER EGOS

91

His son having thus “returned” to the noble fold, the elder count destroys the decree of clemency he had brought from Rome. Its delivery, he realizes, would have cruelly returned his son to an undesired life of “wretched gloom” under the oppressive yoke ignobly borne by his fellow Jews. The historical figure on whom “Der Dukus” is only loosely based was subjected to torturous cruelty prior to his martyrdom. His reputation and religious legacy have suffered a similar fate… at the hands of those who have filtered his memory exclusively through Kacyzne’s dark and caustic drama. If of the original Ger Tzedek, only some ash, together with a bone or two, are to be recovered from these literary flames, they can be appropriately enshrined only in the company of other, faithful accounts of his life, and with the just perspective they provide.

CHAPTER 8 FANTASY IN BERLIN: SELIG SCHACHNOWITZ, 1930 The grave of Vilna’s Ger Tzedek and that of Rabbi Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman, the Vilna Gaon, lay in close proximity in Jewish Vilna’s Old Cemetery. Tradition holds that the Gaon instructed that he be buried close to the martyr. This directive took the subtle form of a verse from the Book of Psalms, recited by Rabbi Elijah upon visiting the Ger Tzedek’s grave soon after his death. “This is my resting place for all time; here I shall dwell, for that is my desire.”1 This personal tribute by Vilna’s most renowned Rabbinic luminary has contributed to the heroic stature ascribed to the martyred nobleman by later generations. Whether these two famed Vilnians ever met in life is a matter of speculation and debate among chroniclers of the Ger Tzedek’s biography. In Abraham Sohn Abrahams, a novel written in German and subsequently translated into both Hebrew and English, Selig Schachnowitz asserts not merely that the Gaon and Ger Tzedek were acquainted, but that their relationship was intimate and of long standing. Indeed, Schachnowitz portrays the Gaon’s influence as a defining element in the religious “career” of the martyr. Remarkably, the first meeting between the two takes place while Valentin Potocki is still a Dominican seminarian, preparing for the Roman Catholic priesthood in Vilna. The novel opens as Valentin, son of the powerful Count Stanislaw Potocki and his friend and fellow seminarian, Boris Zarembo, witness a hostile Christian mob attacking two Jews near Vilna’s cathedral. The Jews, a father and his young daughter visiting the city from the less cosmopolitan village of Iliya, have failed to

1 Selig Schachnowitz, Abraham Sohn Abrahams [German] (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag des Israelit und Hermon G.m.b.H., 1930), 347. See Psalm 132:14.

93

94

NOBLE SOUL

demonstrate the customary deference when passing the church. The Christian faithful respond violently to their unwitting offense. Potocki and Zarembo rescue the hapless pair, pulling them to safety within the sacred precincts. The redemptive significance of this chance encounter is suggested by the highly symbolic quality of the victims’ names. The young girl is named Esther. The relationship of the biblical heroine Esther and the book that bears her name to the literary history of the Ger Tzedek is detailed in a later chapter. The Esther rescued by Potocki succinctly explains her “offense” to the young seminarian: “We are Jews and we are in exile.”2 The biblical Book of Esther similarly deals with Diaspora Jewry, miraculously rescued from mortal peril threatened by the majority culture. Valentin is entranced by Esther; her memory hauntingly drives his religious quest throughout his life. Esther’s father’s name, Tzemach, while less familiar, is similarly resonant of biblical texts dealing with the redemption of Israel. Reflecting an early stratum of Messianic imagery, the prophet Zechariah proclaims: “Hearken well, 0 High Priest Joshua, you and your fellow priests sitting before you! For those men are a sign that I am going to bring My servant ‘the Branch (Tzemach).’”3 To this rendition of the term Tzemach, the Jewish Publication Society translation adds a note: “I.e., the future king of David’s line.”4 The prophet is even more explicit in a later verse. “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: Behold a man whose name is ‘the Branch (Tzemach)’ shall grow out from his place, and he shall build the Temple of the Lord.”5 The Tzemach saved from the Vilna mob, together with his daughter, will have a profound impact on young Potocki and his “fellow priest.” Seminarians Potocki and Zarembo’s act of mercy meets with stern disapproval by the Church hierarchy. An ecclesiastical tribunal orders them to leave Vilna, directing them to continue their priestly studies in Paris. Schachnowitz is unique in describing Potocki’s thoroughly attested Parisian sojourn as a punishment. It is

Ibid., 17, Zechariah 3:8. 4 ad. loc. 5 Zechariah 6:12. 2 3

FANTASY IN BERLIN

95

the young nobleman’s own sentence of “exile” that leads him ultimately to embrace Judaism, the religious tradition, as Esther has explained, of a people “in exile.” Before departing for Paris, the two friends pay their first and fateful visit to the Vilna Gaon and, remarkably are admitted. The Gaon already knows of their lifesaving intervention and, based on Tzemach’s description, recognizes the seminarians. Rabbi Elijah blesses the benevolent pair, and they engage in a profound discussion of spiritual matters, philosophy, and science. The students are moved by the Gaon’s openness and hospitality, by his worldly knowledge and wisdom. They marvel at the contrast between the welcome they have been tendered and the treatment to which Tzemach and Esther had been subjected by the Christian rabble of Vilna. This encounter with the Gaon, however, represents one of many anachronisms that mark Abraham Sohn Abrahams. According to Schachnowitz’s chronology, it was some thirteen years before his 1749 execution that twenty year old Valentin met the Gaon. In 1736, Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman was approximately sixteen years of age. Although already celebrated for his prodigious scholarship, it is unlikely that he yet bore the title Gaon or enjoyed the fame and reverence ascribed to him by the author. He did not actually settle in Vilna proper until age twenty-five, around 1745, several years after this “encounter” with Valentin. Arriving in Paris, Valentin and Zarembo chance upon a “Polish Restaurant,” a tavern owned and operated by Menachem Laib. The tavern-keeper, a studious Jew, is most impressed when he learns that the two seminarians are not only natives of Vilna, but are personally acquainted with the Gaon, Rabbi Elijah. The three begin to study Torah together each night, in the tavern’s back room. The seminarians’ new “instructor” introduces them to the commentary of Rashi, to Talmud and Midrash, He also tells them of the Targum, the Aramaic translation of the Torah by Onkelos. He tells his students of Onkelos’ origins: he “came from a noble Roman family. A count or prince, or something even higher”6… and of his principled conversion to Judaism. Menachem

6

Schachnowitz, 57.

96

NOBLE SOUL

Laib goes on to describe Onkelos’ death at the stake. Such a demise is, it must be noted, unattested in Rabbinic literature! Schachnowitz seems to have borrowed the details of the Roman convert’s alleged “martyrdom” from that of Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon. While Menachem Laib is as yet unaware of his student’s noble status, the reader understands that the conversion and martyrdom of the future Ger Tzedek of Vilna are here being foreshadowed in Valentin’s earliest introduction to Judaism. Zarembo, too, recognizes the signs of danger: “I am afraid for your future, Valentin.”7 Danger threatened not only those who would abandon the Roman Catholic Church for Judaism, but those Jews who would encourage them or facilitate their conversion. When Valentin and Zarembo ask Menachem Laib to “accept us into Judaism,”8 he fearfully asserts his own inadequacy to respond. He brings them to the communal Rabbi, identified as Isaac Pereira. Rabbi Isaac declines to conduct conversion proceedings, fearing for the consequences, in particular, of turning priests away from the Church. In refusing their request, he subtly hints at what is perhaps the only course open to aspiring converts: “We do not live in Holland, in Amsterdam.”9 Determined to embrace Judaism, the now former seminarians forthwith depart for Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, Valentin and Zarembo approach Rabbi Aryeh Laib Loewenstamm, the son-in-law of the Chacham Tzvi (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Ashkenazi). Loewenstamm, circumspect in matters of conversion even in liberal Amsterdam, turns to his Sephardi colleague, identified as Rabbi David Israel Elijah, for guidance. Asserting the convenient fiction that, despite their Polish pedigrees, Valentin and Zarembo must be descended from Spanish or Portuguese marranos, the Sephardi Rabbi accepts the pair after the customary questioning. “You must have Jewish blood in your veins… such people we are obligated to accept into Judaism.”10 An anonymous third rabbi is added to form a Bet Din and, with the assistance of a Mohel from among Jewish Amsterdam’s Portuguese

Ibid., 65. Translation from Yehoshua Leiman’s English adaptation, Avrohom ben Avrohom (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1977), 46. 8 Ibid., 68. 9 Ibid., 69. 10 Ibid., 78. See Leiman, 56. 7

FANTASY IN BERLIN

97

community, the conversions are effected. Valentin is now Avraham ben Avraham and Zarembo is Baruch ben Avraham. Avraham (Valentin) remains in Amsterdam for a year or two, while Baruch (Zarembo) soon departs for the Land of Israel. Avraham grows dissatisfied with his life in Amsterdam, and departs for Altona-Hamburg-Wansbeck with correspondence from the Amsterdam Rabbinate in order to intercede in the notorious schism between Rabbis Jacob Emden and Jonathan Eybeshutz. Again, Selig Schachnowitz demonstrates his unfortunate penchant for anachronism. The divisive conflict between these two Rabbinic figures erupted in 1751, shortly after Eybeschutz arrived in Altona, and two years after the Ger Tzedek’s death! With his trip to Altona, the portrayal of the Ger Tzedek and, indeed, his self-perception, change from that of a modest, spiritually insightful religious seeker to something much grander. He becomes a messenger of peace, a willing force for the reconciliation of opposing factions within the Jewish community: Emden and Eybeschutz, the Vilna Gaon and Chassidim, traditional Rabbinism and modernizing Maskilim. The Messianic quality of Avraham’s new role is an ongoing theme in Schachnowitz’s rendition of his life story: “Vielleicht war er, Abraham, Schrittmacher Elijahus” (“Perhaps he, Avraham, was the forerunner of Elijah.”)11 The reference, of course is to the Prophet Elijah, traditionally anticipated as the harbinger of the Messiah. Yehoshua Leiman’s English adaptation renders this extraordinary Messianic speculation into the first person: “Maybe I’m supposed to pave the way for Eliyohu haNovi.”12 The Ger Tzedek initiates a process of “shuttle diplomacy,” calling on both parties to the Altona rift. Rabbi Eybeschutz welcomes him enthusiastically: “A Ger Tzedek! There are still miracles and wonders that light up the darkness of our time.”13 Despite his remarkable background and seemingly divine mission, Avraham’s peace-making aspirations are not to be fulfilled. The man who would perceive in himself a precursor to the onset of Messianism must be possessed of a powerful sense of des-

Ibid., 87. Yehoshua Leiman, Avrohom ben Avrohom (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1977), 62. 13 Schachnowitz, 99. 11 12

98

NOBLE SOUL

tiny or, perhaps, fatalism. “I am drawn back to Vilna… It seems to me that my turning to the God of Israel is incomplete so long as I do not offer public testimony to it in the very place where I once served other gods.”14 Before reaching Vilna, the Ger Tzedek sets sail for Le Havre and Paris. Civil and Church authorities, intent on locating Count Valentin Potocki, have traced him to Menachem Laib’s tavern, accusing the scholarly tavern-keeper of turning the seminarian to heresy. Enduring an official interrogation, Menachem Laib, heretofore unaware of his student’s noble identity, justifiably fears for his life. Upon his arrival in the French capital, Avraham goes to see his erstwhile teacher. Hesitating briefly, Menachem Laib overcomes temptation and warns Avraham of the impending mortal danger, persuading him to flee. Days later, the tavern-keeper is himself arrested, interrogated, and imprisoned. His restaurant is closed down. The prisoner suffers cruel torture, harsh interrogations, and incarceration in an austere, stone cell. He finds comfort only in prayer, and by reviewing passages of Rabbinic literature he has committed to memory. Avraham succeeds in bribing the prison guard, with cash and liquor, to bring warm blankets to Menachem Laib. The conditions prove more than the prisoner can bear, however, and Menachem Laib dies in his dungeon cell, having never betrayed his student and fellow-Jew. In the final moments of life, Menachem Laib experiences a dream, or vision, which is described in fine detail, in what are surely Schachnowitz’s most moving and poetic passages. The dying man sees significant moments in his life: his mother, his youthful studies, his marriage, and the birth of his children. In a heavenly light, he sees himself crowned and seated on a throne. He sees himself as King Munbaz, the Talmudic period’s famous convert and son of Queen Helena, also a convert, from the royal family of Adiabene. In the final moments of his vision, Menachem Laib is escorted and comforted by the great Gaon, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna: “Relax, Menachem Laib. Let’s go into the next room, behind the black curtain. There a great light shines. And soon, very soon, we’ll learn to-

14

Ibid., 100.

FANTASY IN BERLIN

99

gether, Menachem Laib. All the mysteries will be revealed to you.”15 Avraham, visiting the prison the next morning, is griefstricken to learn of his teacher’s demise. Through further bribery, he secures Menachem Laib’s body for proper Jewish burial. The character of Menachem Laib is never explicitly identified as Rabbi Menachem Mann, frequently named as the Ger Tzedek’s teacher or mentor. No family name is provided for Menachem Laib. The Schachnowitz character is, however, clearly based on Menachem Mann and plays much the same function. His death in prison contrasts with the historic record of Mann’s execution in Vilna on July 3, 1749, not long after the death of the Ger Tzedek. At Menachem Laib’s funeral, Avraham has a close call as he is questioned, but not recognized by one of the Polish ivestigators dispatched by the Potocki family to find him! Fleeing Paris, Avraham heads for Bohemia and Prague, still inspired and compelled by “the wonderful thought that he might be an intermediary, an emissary in the great task of achieving Jewish unity.”16 To this end, Avraham seeks out Rabbi Ezekiel Landau. Landau was a Rabbinic decisor and visionary communal leader of considerable renown. A descendant of Rashi, he is better known by the title of his collected Responsa, the “Noda Be-Yehuda.” Once again, Schachnowitz does not permit the historical record to stand in the way of inspiring hagiography! Landau was called to the Rabbinate of Prague in 1754, five years after the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom. The sound leadership he exerted in response to the Emden/Eybeschutz controversy, also subsequent to the Ger Tzedek’s death, was a significant factor in securing his appointment. Landau offers his condolences to Avraham on the death of Menachem Laib, whom he refers to as a “Lamed-Vavnik,” one of thirty-six righteous souls on whose merit the world is sustained. The rabbi and Avraham discuss their shared vision of a world Jewry united by a centralized Halachic authority. Avraham, affirmed in his “mission,” sets out for Frankfort-am-Main.

15 16

Ibid., 152. Ibid., 167.

100

NOBLE SOUL

It is Avraham’s hope to serve as a force for unity and reconciliation in Frankfort’s destructive feud between Rabbi Moses Kann and his brother, Ber Laib Isaac on one side, and David Meyer Kulp, who initiated a revolt against the Kanns’ communal leadership in 1749. The revolt resulted from contention over control of the communal treasury and was financially ruinous to both sides of the controversy. Avraham leaves Frankfort following the death of Rabbi Jacob Joshua Falk who, though he owed his original appointment to Moses Kann, was perceived as the single potential unifying force between the two embittered factions. Falk is best known for his novellae on the Talmud, “P’nai Yehoshua,” and is often referred to by this work’s title. Falk actually served as Rabbi of Frankfort until 1751, two years after the Ger Tzedek’s execution. He resigned as a result of communal dissatisfaction with his stance in the Emden-Eybeschutz controversy. He died in Offenbach in 1754, and was buried in Frankfort. Avraham’s “mission” takes him to Berlin for an encounter with Maskilim, proponents of the Enlightenment. In particular, Avraham engages in discussions with “the Dessauer,” Moses Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn, in fact, moved to Berlin in 1743, at age fourteen. By the time Avraham might have met him, the late teens at most, he had hardly attained the international notoriety, nor the role of “forgiving father” to errant disciples, suggested by Schachnowitz. Avraham learns at his meeting with Mendelssohn that his own fame has preceded him! “Mendelssohn “had heard the fantastic story of the Ger Tzedek… but he thought it was just one of those pious legends that are spun around Rabbi Elijah of Vilna.”17 Mendelssohn continues to discuss Avraham’s experience from his philosophical perspective. Indeed, his insightful observations reflect an aspect of the Ger Tzedek’s enduring appeal for modern Jews: “What an amazing road you’ve traveled! You really are the best man suited to aid and promote our labors. You draw from two cultures and are so deeply rooted in Judaism that you could prove to others how Torah with

17

Ibid., 225.

FANTASY IN BERLIN

101

science, the world with Judaism, can live side by side. God has sent you to the right place at precisely the right moment in time.”18

Mendelssohn concludes with an appeal for Avraham to remain in Berlin. Reflecting that Schachnowitz is writing for German Jewry in 1930 Berlin, the final statement attributed to Mendelssohn is particularly poignant: “In Lutheran Berlin there is no danger to you.”19 Avraham does not remain in Berlin, but travels “through Prussia, Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine, and Russia on his way back to Vilna.”20 No survey of mid-eighteenth century Jewish communal divisiveness, particularly one featuring a devotee of the Vilna Gaon spreading a message of unity in his name, would be complete without addressing the bitter opposition of Rabbi Elijah to the burgeoning Chassidic movement. Avraham encounters a festive gathering of Chassidim, convened to welcome their revered and charismatic Rebbe. The saintly leader is identified in Schachnowitz’s German original as Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady. Shneur Zalman was the founder of Chabad Chassidism, one of the few branches of the Chassidic movement ever to overcome the Gaon’s opposition and establish a foothold in Vilna. The Rebbe remains anonymous in the English edition, perhaps because Shneur Zalman was born in 1745 rendering his encounter with the Ger Tzedek an anachronism of intolerable proportions even for the pious adapter of Schachnowitz’s novel! The Rebbe, whom Avraham engages in constructive conversation, is an overwhelmingly positive character. He blesses the Ger Tzedek and articulates his support for his mission of peace and reconciliation. He laments the Gaon’s unwillingness to concede that Chassidim share his goal of piety and the service of God. Avraham assures the Rebbe that he will convey his sentiments and a sense of his sincerity to Rabbi Elijah. The Chassidic leader shares two parables with his faithful followers, who are transfixed by his every pronouncement. Both par-

Ibid. 226, Compare Leiman, 148. Ibid. See Leiman, 148. 20 Leiman, 154. 18 19

102

NOBLE SOUL

ables bespeak the national unity to be found in Judaism’s rich legacy of diversity. The first tale describes builders working to construct a royal palace, using bricks of various colors in a seemingly haphazard and chaotic manner. “…And behold, from the very variety of colors and shapes, a beautiful building arose to gladden the king.”21 A second parable tells of sentries posted at the many gates of a royal garden. With sharp, gruff voices, the watchmen would call out to each other throughout the night. Thieves, hearing the shouting, assumed the guards were too preoccupied with their seemingly argumentative yelling to guard the garden effectively. In truth, the parable concludes, “the sentries’ cries kept them awake and unified, to deal with the thieves.”22 Avraham, returning to Vilna reports his experience, indeed, his admiration of the Rebbe to his spiritual mentor, the Gaon. The Gaon, true to the historical record, is unrelenting in his disdain for the Chassidim. He expresses his urgent concern for Avraham’s safety, insisting that he leave Vilna, where is sure to be discovered by the civil and Church authorities who seek him. Before departing the city, Avraham is overjoyed to be reunited with his dear friend and former classmate, Boris Zarembo, now Baruch ben Avraham, who is visiting from the Holy Land. Baruch also urges Avraham to flee the city, explaining that his own presence is far less likely to attract attention or consequences. “Boris Zarembo is forgotten, expunged from hearts as from the records of the Church. But not you, Count.”23 Avraham departs for the relative seclusion of the village Iliya, where he establishes a relationship with Tzemach and Esther, the Jews he had rescued twelve years earlier from the mob outside the cathedral. It was the memory of Esther, then an innocent ten-yearold, that had haunted Valentin and inspired him to investigate and to embrace Judaism. Avraham does not reveal his identity to Esther, even when they discuss the incident, which was so formative in both their lives. “Had he told her who he was at this stage,

Schachnowitz, 251-252. See Leiman, 159. Schachnowitz, 252. See Leiman, 159. 23 Ibid., 264. 21 22

FANTASY IN BERLIN

103

he would have been donning a halo a few sizes too big for him.”24 Esther does surmise, however, that Avraham is a convert, terming this information “a holy secret.”25 She realizes his true identity only after his ultimate arrest. Esther is now a beautiful and vibrant, twenty-two year old, unmarried woman. Her father and she have rejected a number of suitors and marital prospects, including Lemke Kneppel, an unscrupulous and seemingly assimilated Jew. It is Kneppel who is destined to betray Avraham to the authorities. The name Kneppel is otherwise unattested in the various renditions of the Ger Tzedek’s biography. In time, Avraham determines to marry Esther. He receives personal approval for his plan from the Gaon himself. This Rabbinic endorsement is secured by Avraham while a guest at the Gaon’s Passover Seder! The wedding is scheduled for Rosh Chodesh Iyar, just over a month preceding the Festival of Shavuot. The wedding ceremony is held. Esther and Avraham are joined in marriage in a celebration attended by all of Iliya, frustrating Avraham’s prudent desire for a quiet, private ceremony. Avraham informs his bride that they must flee Iliya as soon as possible for reasons of safety. The wedding celebration is lively but, alas, is interrupted by the arrival of the local police chief, accompanied by a number of armed guards. Avraham’s identity has been discovered; he is arrested and placed in chains. The wedding reception quickly turns to a mournful gathering, as the bridegroom, the Ger Tzedek, is led away to prison. Like his dreams of bringing a new and loving unity to his adopted People, Avraham’s hopes for personal fulfillment through marriage to his beloved Esther are not to be consummated. The betrayal of the Ger Tzedek is immediately traced to Lemke Kneppel. The traducer is vilified, stoned, and effectively excommunicated by the Jewish community… and rejected and beaten by the authorities who had exploited his disloyalty. Kneppel disappears amid speculation that he has committed suicide.

24 25

Ibid. 287, See Leiman, 184. Ibid., 291.

104

NOBLE SOUL

Avraham, remanded to a Church prison, is tortured and interrogated. He firmly and courageously declines either to confess his true identity or to renounce his new faith. His mother identifies him, only later to recant when she realizes the consequences of her incriminating testimony. Her reversal is unconvincing. In addition to his mother’s pleas and the physical abuse he suffers, Avraham endures the news of his father’s death. The prisoner is brought to his late father’s estate in an attempt to break his will: “Count Valentin Potocki, we have brought you here to your father’s lands to show you exactly what it is you are giving up.”26 Constant and unbroken, Avraham’s execution date is set for the second day of Shavuot, the Festival commemorating the Sinai revelation… “the day on which the Jews received the Torah through fire, the day that had at last been set for his personal fire.”27 A huge pyre for Avraham’s execution is constructed and burns in the cathedral square, where a three-tiered structure has been erected to provide seating for dignitaries and curious spectators. The execution processional is attended by all the pageantry of a medieval auto-da-fe. In a desperate final attempt to save her “errant” son’s life, Countess Potocki suddenly halts the execution, again recanting her earlier identification of the condemned man. She is momentarily mistaken for “the Holy Madonna”28 by the Christian faithful, who believe the Virgin Mary has miraculously appeared before their eyes. The “apparition’s” identity is quickly discovered, however, and she is firmly but respectfully restrained. No mention is made of a Potocki family appeal to Pope or Potentate for their son’s acquittal. Countess Potocki does not produce a written if delayed pardon, as in several other accounts. Perhaps such a departure from “tradition” is necessary for the author to allow the Countess’ presence at her son’s execution. Her presence reinforces the parallel between the Ger Tzedek’s execution by the Church, and the Crucifixion, which was attended by the very Saint for whom Countess Potocki is mistaken. The significance of this Christological imagery is considered in a separate chapter of this study, devoted exclusively to that topic.

Ibid., 321. Leiman, 210. Compare Schachnowitz, 326. 28 Schachnowitz, 335. 26 27

FANTASY IN BERLIN

105

In the final moments before he is consigned to the flames, the Ger Tzedek experiences a dream-vision not unlike that of his revered and martyred teacher, Menachem Laib. The vision includes images from Avraham’s youth as Valentin Potocki, from his Seminary education, and the day he rescued Esther. He sees Menachem Laib, Onkelos, and Munbaz. His vision includes many of the disparate parties to the various Jewish communal rifts he had sought to mend: Rabbis Emden and Eybeschutz, the Rebbe and the Gaon now meeting as colleagues and intimates. Finally, Avraham is thrown on the executioners’ pyre as he pronounces the words of the Shema Yisrael. The gathered crowd responds to the martyr’s death with the singing of the Magnificat, Mary’s song of praise at the annunciation, that is, upon learning that she will become the mother of Jesus. Magnificat anima mea Dominum (“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord”). 29 If the thoughts of the executioners and their spectators are turned to the Christian Savior and to Mary, the bereaved Jewish community is also moved to Messianic speculation. The Vilna Gaon himself bespeaks the holiness already ascribed to the Ger Tzedek. His unrestrained testimonial, entirely consistent with the spiritual career of the martyr, is inexplicably excised in the English adaptation. “More than once has Elijah appeared in one form or another, and more than once will a Messiah, Son of Joseph, have to fall, before the true Messiah of the House of David comes, to lead God’s People home to Zion.”30

In a considerably more normative, liturgical response, Rabbi Elijah halts the Shavuot Festival service as Church bells toll Avraham’s death. The Gaon takes a scroll of the Torah and intones a memorial prayer for his martyred disciple: Jiskor! Es gedenke Gott der Seele des Heiligen und Reinen, Abraham, Sohn Abrahams, des Ger Tzedek, der sein Leben hingegeben für die Heiligung des göttlichen Namens.

29 30

Ibid., 340. See Luke 1:46-55. Ibid., 330.

106

NOBLE SOUL “Yizkor! May God remember the soul of the holy and pure, Avraham ben Avraham, the Ger Tzedek, who gave his life for the sanctification of God’s Name.”31

At the conclusion of the Festival, under the cover of night, the martyr’s few remains of ash and bone are retrieved by Tzemach and Esther, who must bribe a night watchman for the privilege. Only a kerchief full of ash is collected and buried in the cemetery. This final conveyance is reminiscent of the snuff, comprising its sneeze-inducing “secret ingredients,” from which Tzemach had made his meager living: a dramatic reminder of the transitory nature of even distinguished and sanctified mortal life. Interment is conducted without benefit of open grieving or Kaddish, for fear of attracting attention, and without eulogy, as is customary on the day following the Festival. A simple sign is left to mark the grave: “Here rests the martyr, Avraham ben Avraham, Ger Tzedek.”32 As described above, the Gaon instructs that, upon his passing, his grave be placed in close proximity to that of the Ger Tzedek. His wishes would be carried out some fifty years later. The English adaptation deletes this passage, strangely altering Schachnowitz’s conclusion to avoid any mention of the Gaon’s burial place. Schachnowitz concludes his wildly imaginative novel with a description of the “miraculous” tree that grew over the Ger Tzedek’s grave. He records the tradition that a branch would break off the tree to signal imminent disaster in the Jewish community. He conveys the specific tradition that just such an incident transpired on Tisha b’Av 5674… the day that marked the onset of World War I (although that protracted conflict was not yet so designated when Schachnowitz recorded the event in 1930). “The wind shrieked and howled through the branches and the leaves of the amazing tree, and it seemed to those who heard it that wailing voices were rising from the holy grave beneath it [German original: ‘aus den tzwei heiligen Gravern darunter --from the two holy

31 32

Ibid., 341. Ibid., 347.

FANTASY IN BERLIN

107

graves beneath it’]. And then a big branch broke off and flew to the ground in a terrible clamor.”33

The task which, with these memories, Schachnowitz brings to its conclusion, is clearly not that of the objective, dispassionate historian. His is a work not of Weltgeschichte, “actual history”34 but of Heilsgeschichte, the more subjective “history of God’s actions in the world and man’s relation to them.”35 The latter is a genre of literature which conveys indispensable and eternal truths, a genre in which “the sense of urgency in the writing comes out much more freely for not being hampered by the clutter of what might actually have occurred.”36 The historical significance of Vilna’s Ger Tzedek, the esteem in which he has been held by religious seekers and pilgrims for two and a half centuries, is most clearly and most accurately expressed by placing him in intimate conversation with other giants of Jewish history: the Vilna Gaon, Shneur Zalman of Lyady, Moses Mendelssohn, Jacob Emden, and Jonathan Eybeschutz, among others. In a Jewish world divided by the pathology of partisan politics, Schachnowitz’s Ger Tzedek is an “urgent” reminder that conversion to Judaism by those with seemingly attractive alternatives is properly viewed as a unifying, redemptive force. Woe to the generation that finds in the institution of conversion yet another arena for obduracy and dissension. Anachronism and historical invention are effective, creative tools unabashedly wielded by the masters of Heilsgeschichte. The reader of Abraham Sobn Abrahams thus achieves a richer understanding of the affecting legacy of Count Valentin Potocki, the martyred Ger Tzedek of Vilna… “der personifizierte Sieg der ewigen jüdischen Wahrheit―who personifies the triumph of the eternal truth of Judaism.”37

Schachnowitz, 349-350. Leiman, 224. Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981), 48. 35 Ibid., 47. 36 Ibid., 40. 37 Schachnowitz, 225. 33 34

CHAPTER 9 ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE: BEN-DAVID, 1938 I. H. Ben-David’s drama, “Graf Potocki,” provides a reverent counterpoint to Kacyzne’s dark subversion of the Ger Tzedek saga in “Der Dukus.” The author’s recognition that his literary task concerns a subject of abiding religious significance is evident, quite literally, from cover to cover. The frontispiece provides the play’s title in full: Graf Potocki, o Ger haTzedek, that is, “Count Potocki, or The Ger Tzedek.” A subtitle of particular significance is also provided: “A Dramatic Aggadah in Five Acts.” The term “Aggadah” usually signifies the corpus of Rabbinic interpretive and homiletical literature which, together with the legal texts, the “Halachah,” constitutes the Oral Torah. As to the religious import of Aggadah, H. N. Bialik’s observation is instructive: “Halachah is the crystallization, the highest quintessence of Aggadah, while Aggadah is the refinement of Halachah.”1 Clearly, Ben-David presents his drama as an act of spiritual speculation and celebration. The reader is reminded of this goal at the play’s conclusion. Where one would expect to find a stage direction indicating “Curtain,” as at the end of each preceding Act, or “The End,” the author writes simply “Amen.” Published in Tel Aviv in 1940, “Graf Potocki” was completed in that city, the author indicates, two years earlier, in the month of Sivan, 5698―June, 1938. This date is significant on a number of counts. The play is a tribute to a celebrated martyr of noble Polish birth, written on the very eve of the Holocaust. The Anschluss―the Nazi invasion and occupation of Austria―occurred in March of 1938, as Ben-David was composing his drama. Krystallnacht―Nazi Germany’s nation-wide pogrom generally considered the beginning of the Holocaust―would take place the following November. In keeping with Ben-David’s religious framework, Sivan is the month

1

See Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) Vol, II, 354.

109

110

NOBLE SOUL

in which the Festival of Shavuot, and with it the anniversary of Potocki’s martyrdom is observed. June 6, 1938 was the Ger Tzedek’s 189th Yahrzeit. It is in this historical context that Ben-David’s exploration of the human capacity for murder is properly to be considered. Similarly, the author’s repeated recourse to imagery of fire, prefiguring and culminating in the protagonist’s immolation at the stake, appears all but prophetic to the post-Holocaust reader of “Graf Potocki.” In Act I, Young Potocki (his first name is not used) describes, indeed, confesses his personal torment concerning a violent incident, the murder of a Jewish pedlar, Zechariah. He laments, “For some while I have been carrying this within me. I can no longer bear it by myself… or it will entirely consume me in its flames!”2 The phrase “entirely consume” (t’vareini kalil) is reminiscent of the poetic description of the Ger Tzedek’s death by Fuenn in Kiryah Ne’emanah: alah kalil―“consumed in sacrificial fire.”3 This characterization of his emotional state is, of course, ironic. It is his confession, and subsequent conversion, which lead ultimately to his death in fire. The incident described by the young nobleman had transpired several months earlier, the day he returned from his university studies in Paris. Although his study of Judaism in Paris is a well established aspect of the Ger Tzedek saga, this is left unexplored by Ben-David, perhaps to be inferred or assumed by his audience. His father and an impressive retinue welcome Young Potocki home in a manner befitting his noble station: “Fifty riders, a hundred horses, twenty-five dogs, male and female servants…”4 Riding home, the welcoming party encounters Zechariah, who, unfortunately, is traversing the Potockis’ land. He is set upon by a number of the hunting dogs, as well as several of the servants, suffering a vicious, senseless death. Young Potocki, in this painful confession, unburdens himself to a young Jewish woman. Rachel, whom Potocki will marry fol-

2

Israel H. Ben-David, Graf Pototski [Hebrew](Tel Aviv: Shnir, 1940),

3

Samuel Joseph Fuenn, Kiryah Ne’emanah [Hebrew] (Vilna, 1860), 120. Ben-David, Ibid.

7. 4

ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE

111

lowing his conversion, plays a critical role in his personal life and religious journey. Rachel also serves a symbol of the Jewish People as a whole, as the eponymic treatment of her name suggests. She laments to the repentant Potocki: “We are all sheep (r’chelim; singular: Rachel: sheep) here in this world; the attack dogs are at our heels.”5 The Hebrew term here translated “at our heels” is ya’akvunu, taken from another Biblical name of eponymic significance, Ya’akov, Jacob, who was born clutching the heel of his twin brother Esau. The root from which Jacob’s name is taken also signifies “deceit” or “supplantation.” Ben-David, by selecting names and language of such nuanced etymology, bespeaks the fratricidal animosity which threatened the Jewish community of eighteenth century Poland. The young nobleman recalls the funeral he personally arranged for Zechariah, and describes his profound grief at the murder perpetrated by his associates. Contrite, he falls prostrate before Rachel, indeed, before the Jewish People she symbolizes: “To wallow in the dust at your feet (literally, of your dress), alas, I am not worthy (eini k’dai)!”6 Potocki’s self-effacing supplication reflects the language of the Babylonian Talmud, in its classical discussion of the prescribed treatment to be accorded aspiring converts. “In this day and age, we are to say to an aspiring convert: ‘What do you see (in Judaism) that you have come to convert? Don’t you realize that in our day Israel is persecuted, oppressed, despised, harrassed, and subject to all manner of suffering?!’ If he answers, ‘I know, and I am not worthy’ (eini k’dai), he is to be accepted immediately.”7

The Talmudic resonance of Potocki’s remark effectively describes the oppressive conditions under which his Jewish contemporaries suffered and to which Zechariah’s death can be attributed, as well as his own sincere desire to convert. Indeed, as the startled Rachel departs the scene in response to her father’s voice, Potocki calls after her: “Please wait, wait! Just take me along with you, for

Ibid., 6. Ibid., 10. 7 Yevamot 47-A. 5 6

112

NOBLE SOUL

tomorrow, it is evident to me, I, too, shall already be a Jew!”8 Potocki’s declaration of his new religious loyalties is overheard by three of his father’s servants, who had been dispatched to track the young count. They plan to report on the aspiring convert’s activities to his father who, they comment, “keeps him away from Jews, as if from fire.”9 The most alert of these spies understands precisely the significance of young Potocki’s attachment to Rachel: “It is not the Jewess, but Judaism itself with which the young man is in love!”10 The first Act concludes with the arrival of the elder Count Potocki, and the ensuing confrontation between father and son. The young count severs his noble ties: “I no longer share your outlook. You are strangers to me, strange indeed! You and your uncivilized ways! You and your arrogance, too!”11 Young Potocki suddenly flees the scene on horseback, eluding those his father sends to pursue him. Unbeknownst to his father, the young count simply doubles back, secretly returning to Rachel and her father’s house, where he begins his formal preparations and studies for conversion. The elder Count, however, initiates a world-wide search for his “prodigal” son. “His father has sent a hundred emissaries to search for him. They are conducting a thorough search throughout all of Poland! They have invaded Germany, Austria, Hungary… and farther still in pursuit of him! They say he even sent agents to America, to the New World, hoping to find him there in peace!”12

In this passage, it becomes clear that, just as Rachel represents the oppressed “flock” of Israel, the elder Count Potocki is emblematic of those who persecute the Jewish People, and, unmistakably in June of 1938, of Hitler’s Third Reich. Discussing the search for Count Potocki’s son in terms of an “invasion,” and the Count’s dispatching of foreign “agents” to America, unlikely in

Ben-David, Ibid. Ibid., 11. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 17. 12 Ibid., 20. 8 9

ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE

113

1749, reflect somewhat more plausibly the political conditions prevailing in Europe on the eve of the Second World War. This dimension of Ben-David’s drama is convincingly reprised in the final moments of the play. Conceding defeat in his attempt to win back the loyalties of his “errant” son, the elder Count delivers a moving soliloquy which reveals the origins of Ben-David’s work in the context of Zionist doctrine and anti-Nazi rhetoric. Describing the Jewish People, the senior Potocki states that “to wage war against them is futile and for naught! They are stronger and more powerful than we… than Poland, than Christians and Christianity together… It is now they who are bludgeoned… but tomorrow the Germans… Once again they have triumphed!”13

Having pursued the studies preparatory to conversion, young Potocki distinguishes himself through scholarly erudition and personal spiritual gifts. His instructor validates his chosen path with warm words of support, as the Rabbinic court is assembled, together with the physician who will conduct the circumcision. “Your soul is pure, and your spirit as refined as a sapphire beneath the Heavenly Throne… I shall now bring you under the wings of the Jewish religion, thus also making the destiny of the Jew your own, my son… You are a Ger Tzedek!”14

The aspiring convert forcefully articulates the motivating factors which have led him to Judaism. “I have come to a clear and profound recognition that my people, like many peoples of the world, live on carrion…on carrion and murder alone, all their days! If this is merely a consequence of their innate predilection, their animal instinct, I am in no position to say… Alas, they are no longer human beings! Their’s is a pre-human existence, and so it shall remain! They, therefore, their existence, their fate, and all that pertains to them means nothing to me, as it means nothing to Almighty God… I am thus compelled to expedite my

13 14

Ibid., 78-79. Ibid., 23-24.

114

NOBLE SOUL departure from them, for the sake of my personal integrity and humanity! … I shall therefore bind myself to the Hebrews. Thus, their destiny will be my destiny, in every conceivable way!”15

Young Potocki is congratulated on his sensitivity and eloquence. He is also warned of the pain involved in the circumcision he is about to endure, “a mere pinch to an infant, it is, for an adult, like a sword to the heart.”16 In the case of the Ger Tzedek, this admonition is doubly cogent, for it was the conversion effected by the circumcision more than the surgical procedure itself which placed him in mortal peril. It is his principled adoption of Judaism which is “like a sword to the heart.” A measure of stealth attends the circumcision of the new convert. The procedure is held simultaneously with that of an infant. This allows a sizeable assemblage to gather for a celebration without attracting suspicion. The juxtaposition of adult conversion with infant circumcision also alludes to the “rebirth” of the convert into a new life and identity―unburdening him of his former, less enlightened parentage. Count Potocki suddenly arrives at the home at which the dual circumcision ritual has been concluded, and the attendant celebration commenced. One of the youths in attendance, Yossel, informs the Count that his son is inside. The character of Yossel seems to be suggestive of the “Yoshke” familiar from the writings of Litvin and Kacyzne: the tailor who maliciously betrays the Ger Tzedek to the authorities. Here, however, Yossel seems merely to reflect clumsiness and youthful indiscretion, more than malice or vindictiveness. The youth does not mention the young nobleman’s conversion to his father! Indeed it is Rachel’s father, young Potocki’s teacher and spiritual mentor, who confirms to the Count his son’s new religious status. The disclosure of young Potocki’s conversion is actually depicted as an act of self-preservation. Upon learning that his son was

15 16

Ibid., 24. Ibid., 26.

ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE

115

among the Jews, “kidnapped,”17 the elder Count insists, he orders a pogrom: “Raze the house! Destroy it and burn it to ashes!”18 The attack begins in earnest, but is called to an abrupt halt when the Count learns of his son’s condition. “You should know, now your son has just been circumcised (and we have given him the name Avraham). If you disturb him now, if you do not give him some rest and quiet, he will bleed profusely, he will breathe his last and be no more! He will die a Jew!”19

The newly converted Avraham’s groans, emanating from offstage, confirm this shocking report. The elder Potocki backs away in horror. Ben-David’s stage directions indicate that he “moves from his place like a flash of lightning. Backing away, he runs and flees, as if from a plague.” 20Watching their persecutors taking flight, and marveling at their seemingly providential salvation, the Jews give thanks to God, paraphrasing the words of Psalm 118: “I will give You thanks, 0 God, for You have answered me!” Act III introduces an element of the Ger Tzedek saga first developed by Schacknowitz: the marriage of Avraham ben Avraham! Avraham’s bride is Rachel, to whom he had declared his desire to convert in the first moments of Act I. Abandoning discretion and the relative safety of secrecy, the converted nobleman insists on a public wedding ceremony, on land under his father’s noble rule. Indeed, in order to emphasize the public nature of the ceremony, the wedding will take place outdoors. Remarking that such a ceremony is in accordance with ancient tradition, one of the synagogue officials notes: “Beneath the dome of the Heavens, in keeping with the command of the Creator of fire and water.”21 This curious divine epithet provides yet further recourse to the imagery of fire. Is the intent simply to heighten tension by prefiguring the bridegroom’s death as a martyr? Perhaps the reference to fire and water implies that despite appearances suggested by the

Ibid., 30. Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 31. 21 Ibid., 32 17 18

116

NOBLE SOUL

remarkable convert about to be married, Jews and non-Jews are inherently incompatible elements: fire and water. The audience may further ponder this ambiguous symbol as the bridegroom is escorted to the wedding canopy by torchlight. Avraham dismisses the danger inherent in the brazenly public nature of the celebration: “True enough! A match, a little spark, any hint of flame, if directed into a house, is liable to ignite a fire. Lightning bolts in violent storms could have the same ill affect on a house, a street, an entire city, if God but wills it!”22

After Avraham and Rachel are joined in marriage, and the celebration ensues, the bridegroom addresses his guests. Eliciting laughter by humbly referring to himself as an “insignificant member of the Children-of-Ham,”23 Avraham articulately compares the union of bride and groom with the destined unification of diverse peoples, and with the mutual, loving attraction of humanity and God. Before the wedding celebration concludes, the elder Potocki launches a second, abortive attack on the Jewish community. Avraham leads his new co-religionists in resisting the attack, signaled by the approaching sound of gunfire. The “battle” is defused when Avraham challenges his father to direct, personal combat to settle the matter. The Count throws down his sword and departs in despair. The Jewish community views this second “victory” over the forces arrayed against them as nothing short of miraculous redemption. Act III concludes with the fervent citation of a celebratory biblical verse: “I have hoped for Your salvation, 0 Lord!”24 The Jewish community’s assertion of victory over the malevolent Count Potocki is, however, premature. The elder Count laments his son’s “descent” from his noble station to Judaism. He recalls the incident which sparked this unusual personal transformation: the murder of Zechariah on the day of young Potocki’s return from Paris. His account of the day, however, provides details of his son’s immediate reaction to the murder.

Ibid., 35. Ibid., 42. 24 Genesis 49:18. 22 23

ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE

117

“He grabbed a rifle from one of the men, and like an absolute maniac, started shooting, to the right and to the left, shooting dogs and men indiscriminately… eighteen dogs were shot immediately. Two or three men were also killed where they stood… He then ran off… For three days and three whole nights he hid himself in the castle, and allowed no living soul to get close to him. He chased even me away like a demon!”25

Avraham had earlier confessed this incident (albeit in considerably lesser detail) to his mentor, Rachel’s father, prior to the conversion proceedings. It was thus not merely the violent “predilections” of his countrymen and fellow noblemen which motivated Avraham’s conversion…it was his own demonstrated potential for violence that prompted him to find a more elevated moral framework. This moral framework would soon be grievously tested. In order to recapture his son, Count Potocki arranges to kidnap Rachel. She is brought to the Count’s castle. Her father soon arrives to plead for her release. Introducing yet another innovative detail to the Ger Tzedek’s evolving biography, he explains that his daughter is pregnant. One is forced to wonder whether this claim is factual and Rachel’s father is protecting her well-being and that of an unborn child… or whether he is simply playing on the sympathy of a fellow, prospective grandfather! Later in the play it is confirmed that Rachel was in fact carrying the Ger Tzedek’s child…but miscarries during the violent kidnapping episode. Rachel’s father berates his daughter’s captors. Cursing them for menacing a pregnant woman, he invokes a fitting malediction: “May your wives conceive sick children! May they deliver only plagues; sitting on the birthing stool, may they bear you a thousand deaths, you scoundrels! Molest a pregnant woman will you? You filth!”26 This curse, pronounced by Avraham’s father-in-law, is reminiscent of the curse well attested in Ger Tzedek lore, attributed to the Ger Tzedek himself. Not only does it invoke suffering on future generations, like the ten generations of Yoshke’s descendants discussed and encountered by Litvin, it provides a primitive moral

25 26

Ben-David, 48. Ibid., 57-58.

118

NOBLE SOUL

basis for this suffering. Unborn generations are punished in recompense for the suffering of the Ger Tzedek’s unborn child… in the symmetrical manner of lex talionis. It should be noted with interest that, in a departure from “traditional” accounts of the curse, this imprecation is directed against only non-Jews. Ben-David’s 1938 account understandably thus includes neither Jewish infighting, nor Jewish collaboration with the enemy. His father-in-law’s indignation is shared by Avraham himself, upon his arrival at the Potockis’ castle. He confronts the elder Count with the (unattributed) words of the Book of Esther:27 “Who is it?! Where is the man who molests women?! Women―my wife no less, so fine and delicate!”28 In their Biblical context these words are spoken by King Ahasuerus to Esther, who had informed the monarch of the mortal peril she and her people faced. Esther’s response is direct: “An adversary and an enemy, this wicked Haman.”29 This exchange signals the imminent downfall of Haman (who had risen to noble station), and the concomitant ascendancy of the Jewish People. The parallels to the dynamics depicted in the play are obvious… and provide a measure of hope. The Jew-hating elder Count is identified with the Biblical Haman. Hebrew speaking theater audiences in June of 1938 had no difficulty in identifying the ruler on the world stage, the contemporary “Haman,” to whom the playwright was “subtly” alluding. Rachel and her father manage to escape in the commotion which follows. Avraham lashes out physically against a woman who spits at Rachel and abuses her verbally. He also attacks Vincent, his father’s senior servant, menacing him with a sword. The elder Count vows that his son will never again return to his fellow Jews, and orders him imprisoned. In prison, the elder Count implores his son, at considerable length, to return to the Church. He invokes the memory of his wife, Avraham’s mother, a devout Christian “disgraced” by her son’s “apostasy.”30 In many renditions of the Ger Tzedek saga, it is his mother who secures a pardon for him, arriving, however, after

Esther 7:5. Ben-David, 58 29 Esther 7:6. 30 Ben-David, 67. 27 28

ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE

119

his execution. In Gersoni’s account, the senior Count Potocki dies following his son’s conversion; it is at his grave that his noble mother discovers the true identity of the Ger Tzedek. It is significant that Lady Potocki, a consistently sympathetic character, is absent from Ben-David’s rendition. Count Potocki’s protestations and preaching are fruitless. His son explains that they share no common frame of reference, thus precluding not only his acquiescence, but any sort of rapprochement whatsoever. “What do I have to say to him?! How can a deaf man understand music? How can a blind man appreciate the rich colors and shades of a rainbow?!”31 Abandoning his efforts personally to influence his son, a contingent of three Bishops takes up Count Potocki’s cause. They offer Avraham absolution and salvation if he but returns to the Christian fold, assuring the prisoner that eternal damnation to the fires of Hell is his only alternative. A gathering of three Bishops is an impressive representation of Church hierarchy, even for a noble clan of the Potocki’s stature. The clerics provide a striking counterpoint to the Beth Din, the Rabbinic Tribunal comprising the Rabbi and two Dayyanim (judges) who supervised Avraham’s conversion. The Bishops, however, fail to achieve their goal. A central aspect of the abiding interest in the Vilna Ger Tzedek, the reason for the enduring affection with which he is esteemed, is his self-sacrificing devotion. That is, he happily accepted a martyr’s death rather than renounce his faith or live the spiritually unsatisfying life of power and privilege to which he was born. In Ben-David’s rendition of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, this theme is revisited. “Now, now, let death come and work its influence on you,”32 the elder Count tells his son in his final attempt to force his return to Christianity and his noble roots. Defiantly, the Ger Tzedek replies: “Death? I await such a paradise of pleasure, Count! Like an invited guest will death arrive!”33 Avraham’s bold response, his readiness to die a martyr, is completely in keeping with earlier accounts of the Ger Tzedek’s life

Ibid., 69. Ibid., 75. 33 Ibid. 31 32

120

NOBLE SOUL

and death. Here, however, Avraham’s father has other plans. Here, too, in his most dramatic innovation in preserving the storied martyr’s memory, Ben-David reflects the political realities and the national concerns pre-occupying his contemporary audience. The elder Count reveals his “final solution” to the “Jewish problem” presented by his son’s conversion. “Ha, ha, ha! Death? Yes! But not your death! The death of the entire Jewish community, my dear son! And perhaps of all Jewish communities throughout the world!”34 Avraham understands the choice his father has forced upon him: a genocidal ultimatum. “To be a Jew, and thus to destroy the Jews…or a Christian, and to preserve their lives!”35 Having learned of the Count’s threat, a sizeable delegation of Jews, led by Rachel and her father, come to Avraham’s cell to plead for their lives. The very souls who taught and mentored the young nobleman, facilitating his transition to Judaism, now beg him to renounce his faith. A group of men implore him: “Save an entire community of Jews from death, Avraham!”36 Pathetically, a group of children cry: “Don’t let them burn us, Avraham!”37 Even his wife, with whom he had earlier been granted a private and emotional reunion, now urges him to renounce Judaism: “Do this, as my father advises, and you will rise above the saints of all the generations!”38 After considerable soul-searching, Avraham relents. He accepts baptism and, “turning away and recoiling with disgust and loathing, as one would take flight from a leper,”39 he submits to the Bishops’ demand for veneration by kissing the crucifix they offer him. The clergymen rejoice and celebrate, congratulating the Count for his compassion in saving his son’s life, and soul. Count Potocki, however, does not rejoice. He understands that he has achieved no victory.

Ibid. Ibid., 74. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 76. 34 35

ZIONIST PERSPECTIVE

121

“He is ninety-nine percent a Jew even after baptism! The other one percent is Satan! There is no trace of Christian in him, nor will there be for all eternity… ‘Thou shalt not murder!’ … This imperative to humanity is the most exalted value to the Jews. He recognized, and willingly sacrificed his life for this imperative; he is a Hebrew, the most distinguished Jew of them all!”40

His father understands the true nature of Avraham’s spurious “return” to Christianity. By “renouncing” the faith that was so precious to him, Avraham actually confirmed his absolute commitment to Judaism and its highest mandate. It was the incalculable value Judaism places on human life and its rejection of the murderous conduct associated with the Polish nobility to which Avraham was born that brought the young nobleman to his new faith. His refusal to renounce Judaism, at the cost of countless innocent Jewish lives, would have betrayed the values he held most dear. This was the insidious nature of the “test” devised by Count Potocki: only his son’s rejection of Judaism could prove the sincerity of his Jewish convictions, and the rejection of his noble heritage. Understanding that his son’s baptism is a hoax, as would be his life as a Christian, Count Potocki allows him to meet his rightful destiny. He provides an auto-da-fe. His son, burnt at the stake, dies a Jew and thereby finds contentment. The martyr’s last words, with which Ben-David’s drama concludes, are the Shema Yisrael. Vilna’s most famous convert, and its most famous martyr, came to Judaism not because of insanity or psychosis, nor due to the influence of a spell, as some of his Polish countrymen suppose in Ben-David’s drama. He was not possessed by the spirit of the Jewish pedlar he saw murdered, as some theorize, nor, as others suggest, is he the reincarnation of a Jewish saint. Young Count Potocki embraces his new religion because it was Judaism that taught humanity the sanctity of human life. By embracing Judaism, the young nobleman chose civilization over the power to which he was born… a power that maintained itself through persecution of the weak and murder of the innocent. It was the murder of a poor Jewish pedlar named Zechariah that sparked Potocki’s remarkable personal transformation. It was

40

Ibid., 77.

122

NOBLE SOUL

the Hebrew prophet Zechariah, for whom this poor Jew was named, however, whose most widely quoted teaching the young Count would come to embody: “Not by might, and not by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord of Hosts.”41 For Hebrew speaking theater audiences in 1938 Tel Aviv, Ben-David both documented the abiding appeal and relevance of the Ger Tzedek of Vilna… and effectively dramatized old battlelines currently being re-drawn between murderous, despotic regimes and life-affirming Jewish civilization. On the eve of the Holocaust and ten years before re-establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in the Land of Israel, no theme could have been more timely. To readers of “Graf Potocki” sixty years later, Israel Hayyim Ben-David provides prescient insight into one of Jewish history’s most critical and tragic periods.

41

Zechariah 4:6.

CHAPTER 10 HISTORICAL NOVELTY: SAUL SAPHIRE, 1942 Saul Saphire (Sha-ul Sapir) was a prolific author of Yiddish historical novels. Among his works are, notably, Caliph fun Cordova, Esther ha-Malkah, Tzvishen Roym un Yerusholoyim, Colombus der Yid, Fertzig Yohr in Midbar, Yiftach un Zayn Tochter, Prinz fun Mitzroyim, Rambam, as well as novels devoted to the lives of Biblical heroes such as Ruth, Samson, David, and Solomon. In 1942, Saphire published Der Ger Tzedek fun Vilna, providing the title in English as “Count Valenti Potocki.” Saphire weaves an expansive and intricate web of personal grudges, illicit liaisons, intrigue, betrayal and murder as the literary backdrop for his fictionalized account of the life and execution of the Ger Tzedek. The novelist reprises a number of details introduced to the martyr’s saga by Alter Kacyzne in “Der Dukus.” In so doing, he provides compelling evidence of Kacyzne’s determinative, if undue influence over his subject. Among the most basic elements borrowed from Kacyzne is the depiction of the elder Count Potocki as a sadistic and virulent anti-Semite. He is described as “one of the most powerful noblemen. He was famous for his cruelty.”1 The power wielded by the elder Count over the lives of his Jewish “subjects,” together with the constant, implicit threat of violence at his hands is illustrated by the customary prayer recited by Lazer Ziskes’ wife, Rivka: “0, merciful God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of our mothers, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah: On their merit, and on the merit of these candles we kindle for the Holy Sabbath, may You imbue the Count’s heart with kindness and mercy, so that he will do us no harm. May he not deprive us of our liveli-

1

Saul Saphire, Der Ger Tzedek fun Vilna, 1942 [Yiddish], 15.

123

124

NOBLE SOUL hood. Protect us and all Israel from our enemies. May we all have the merit to hear the Shofar heralding the Messiah. Amen!” 2

The economic reliance of a subjugated Jewish populace on the Count in whose domain they reside was a reality of eighteenth century Poland. This relationship is dramatized by Kacyzne and Saphire in similar ways. Both describe a main “supporting actor” in their accounts of the Ger Tzedek’s experience as an arender― a lessee on the Count’s estate. Kacyzne’s Moshik is a tenant-innkeeper. The inn had been won by Moshik’s grandfather in a chess game with the Count, further illustrating the noble whims on which a Jew’s economic stability may turn. The same lessee role is filled in Saphire’s novel by Lazer Ziskes, the tenant-miller in whose home the Ger Tzedek first encounters the beauty of the Sabbath and Jewish observance, and with whose daughter he falls in love. Subsequent to the Ger Tzedek’s execution, his ashes are furtively retrieved from the pyre for burial in each of these accounts, by the arender, the tenant-lessee. Thus, while the commercial station of Saphire’s Ziskes is based on that of Kacyzne’s Moshik, the character of Moshik was itself based on the role traditionally ascribed to Lazer. Also borrowed from Kacyzne is the close association of the elder Potocki to a Roman Catholic priest. The unnamed cleric in “Der Dukus” seemed to be a fixed presence in the Potocki household. Saphire’s priestly character, Father Anton, plays a much more extensive and nefarious role in the lives of both the elder Count and his son, the Ger Tzedek. Anton seduces women who turn to him as their father-confessor. Significantly, he shares a lover with the elder Count. Ultimately, he conspires to assure that the execution of the Ger Tzedek will be neither stayed nor commuted. For Kacyzne, the Potockis’ priestly associate simply represented the Faith left behind by the Ger Tzedek. For Saphire, Father Anton graphically personifies the perceived moral deficiencies of the Church, the very failings which drove the young nobleman to abandon its ways for Judaism.

2

Ibid., 7.

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

125

The element of Saphire’s novel, most clearly drawn from “Der Dukus” is the image of the dancing bear. The bear, and the demeaned servant dressed in bear pelts, are an extreme expression of the seemingly boundless self-indulgence and cruelty of Count Potocki. The frenzied bear is slain by the young Count in Kacyzne’s drama. The young nobleman ingeniously conspires to obviate the similarly lethal threat posed by the “bear-dance” in Saphire’s account. The symbolic import of the bear is subtly revisited by Saphire. The tailor’s son, whose petty altercation with the Ger Tzedek leads to his capture and martyrdom, is, significantly, named Berke, “little bear.” The bear dance is an elaborate “ritual” contrived by the elder Count Potocki as a form of entertainment for guests at his frequent dinner parties. A Jew from the Count’s domain is compelled to dress in a bear pelt, and to compete in a dancing contest against the Count’s hired dancer, Yoshzik, who is similarly attired. The loser, invariably the Jew, is ordered to climb a tree; Yoshzik, also skilled with a rifle, is permitted to shoot the hapless Jew from his vulnerable perch, to the delight of the Count and his invited guests. On the Sabbath Eve on which Lazer Ziskes is ordered to dance in this demeaning and deadly competition, he is saved by a series of seemingly providential turns of fortune. Lazer has opened his home to an out-of-town guest, Chayim, who had, mysteriously, specifically requested to spend the Sabbath at the Ziskes home. Chayim insists on taking his host’s place in the bear dance, citing the Halachic principle of Pikuach Nefesh, the Divine Command to engage in life-saving efforts. Soon after Chayim’s departure for the Count’s estate, Lazer is stricken with remorse at having permitted the substitution, even speculating that the courageous guest was the Prophet Elijah himself! “I should not have let him go! He was my guest! A Jew must lay down his life for his guest…not allow his guest to lay down his life for him!”3 Circumstances are considerably more complex than Lazer understands, however. Chayim’s presence in his home on this particular, fateful Sabbath, is the result of a secret conspiracy involving

3

Ibid., 12

126

NOBLE SOUL

Menachem Mann, who is identified as a powerful Jewish merchant in Vilna and as Chayim’s grandfather. Mann’s co-conspirator is Valentin Potocki, the cruel Count’s own son. Mann, from whom the Count buys the bear pelts for the dance, learns from his noble accomplice the identities of the Count’s intended victims. The pious merchant arranges for the would-be dancers to be sent away on business, thus escaping the lethal “invitation.” While this method of intervention enjoys a measure of success, Mann and Valentin further escalate their deception. Chayim trains both as a dancer and a marksman, with the intention of taking a fellow Jew’s place in the bear dance, and defeating Yoshzik! Reflecting the Holocaust period in which the novel was written, Chayim explains: “I have always thought that a Jew must learn to shoot and must exercise his body, so that when it becomes necessary, he can defend himself against his enemies.”4

His grandfather states the case for Jewish self-defense even more graphically. Considered in the context of the historical Menachem Mann, martyred in July of 1749, shortly after the Ger Tzedek, his words are particularly poignant: “We live in a world filled with beasts thirsting for Jewish blood. Hence, we must know the skilled use of the fist just as well as our enemies… The time has come for us to pay them back in kind… Even our enemies have respect for a Jew who knows how to use his fists.”5

Remarkably, Chayim, though victorious, does not fully exploit the opportunity for vengeance against Yoshzik, who had himself killed numerous Jews. He defeats the hired Polish dancer in three consecutive dance competitions. The cowardly Yoshzik attempts to flee, but is retrieved and compelled to climb the tree like his earlier victims. The elder Count’s dinner guests, including his conspiratorial son, “the young Graf Potocki went outside to see what Chayim would do with Yoshzik.”6 Chayim refuses to murder the murderer:

Ibid., 22. Ibid. 6 Ibid., 39. 4 5

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

127

“I am a Jew, and a Jew is not blood-thirsty. I know what he has done to my brothers… and now I have the opportunity to do the same to him, and I would have every right to do so. But a Jew does not thirst for revenge.”7

Declining to take the life of his opponent, Chayim proposes to shoot the tail off the bear pelt Yoshzik is wearing!! In so doing, he will demonstrate that he is “as good a shot as Yoshzik, and possibly better.”8 To the delight of all in attendance, he succeeds in this merciful demonstration of his prowess with a weapon. In a further act of principle, Chayim, still covered with a bear pelt and thus assumed by the Count to be Lazer, refuses the gold pieces offered him as the victor’s prize. He is unable to accept the coins on the Sabbath. His previous Sabbath “violations,” including firing the rifle, were justified as necessary to the preservation of life. Rather than a cash reward, Chayim asks the Count “to be considerate with the Jews in his domain and not to treat them like animals.”9 The elder Count agrees, and awards “Lazer” the mill he leases for ten years, rent-free. Having won the day, and ostensibly halted the much feared bear dance ritual, Chayim departs the Count’s estate, reflecting on the sadness of the Jewish condition: “The Count can do with them as he pleases. It is within his rights to play games with a Jewish life… an innocent Jew, a family man. The life of every Jew who is dependent on the Count for his livelihood is constantly in mortal danger.” 10

Lazer Ziskes “witnessed” the “shooting” from a distance, and assumed that Chayim had been murdered. Having returned to his family to bewail his guest’s fate, he rejoices when Chayim returns safe and sound. Chayim recounts the evening’s dramatic events, and the precise circumstances of the “shooting.” He summarizes, “In so doing, I sanctified God’s name (Durchdem, hob ich mekadesh

Ibid., 41. Ibid. 9 Ibid., 43. 10 Ibid., 44. 7 8

128

NOBLE SOUL

ha-Shem geven)!”11 The reader is left to wonder whether this asserted act of sanctification was the sparing of Yoshzik’s life… or the precision of Chayim’s marksmanship! Lazer refers to his mysterious, heroic guest variously as a saint (Heiliger), a “lamedvovnik” (one of thirty-six saints allotted the world in each generation) and, again, as Elijah.12 So, too, Lazer’s wife, Rivka: “We don’t have enough words to thank you for all you have done for us! Like an angel from Heaven, God has sent you to us, and you have saved my husband from certain death… We thought you were Elijah the Prophet…and now it seems to me that you are indeed!”13

Elijah, of course, is traditionally described as the herald of the Messianic Era. It is telling that it is here Chayim, the physically gifted, dancing, shooting, fighting Jew who seems to partake of the Redemptive Process. The pious, subjugated Jew, Lazer Ziskes, unable to save a human life, is destined merely to retrieve and to preserve the ashes of a sanctified past. This represents a significant subversion of the Ger Tzedek tradition, which celebrates the martyr’s principled decision to renounce his birthright of power and influence, of nobility steeped in military tradition, in order to embrace a life of piety and, ultimately, victimhood. Young Potocki’s arrangement with Menachem Mann, culminating in Chayim’s life-saving deception, is the result of a childhood incident involving the nobleman’s friend, Zarembo. Many years earlier, Zarembo and an unnamed classmate at a Roman Catholic Seminary had attacked Chayim, engaging him in a fistfight in which he more than adequately defended himself, winning his assailants’ respect. The seminarians explained to Chayim, then a young Yeshiva student, that they had been taught to hate Jews for their crime of deicide. Through this encounter, Zarembo, and then Valenti, come to know Chayim’s grandfather. Mann taught the young Count “about the Jews who were burnt alive with the sacred

Ibid., 47. Ibid. 13 Ibid. 11 12

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

129

prayer Shema Yisroel on their lips, though they were offered riches and honor to renounce their Judaism.”14 Valenti develops an interest in Judaism and a sympathy for Jews, even as he begins to question the Church and his priestly instructors. Valenti compassionately devises the plan to save Jewish lives through Chayim’s efforts. Menachem Mann similarly develops an admiration for his young, noble friend. “He has a heart of gold. Whenever I talk to him, I am amazed at how such a precious son could come from such an evil man, Graf Potocki.”15

Lazer and his family, particularly his daughter Yehudis, are similarly impressed when Valenti calls on them at their home the morning after the bear dance. “If Chayim seemed to them like Elijah the Prophet, the young Graf was, in their eyes, like an angel from Heaven.”16

The future Ger Tzedek is served Cholent and Kugel! He greets his hosts in Polish. Chayim welcomes him in Polish, telling him the famous Talmudic story of the “Sabbath Spice.”17 The young Count explains that Chayim’s grandfather, too, had taught him stories from the Talmud. Valenti is entranced by the Sabbath atmosphere in the Ziskes home. “As I approached your home, I heard a very beautiful melody from your holy songs… I would like to hear more… Even here, in this modest little room, one can sense Godliness in every corner. What a lovable, dear people the Jews are!” 18

Lazer’s daughter is no less enchanted by their noble guest: “Yehudis couldn’t take her eyes off him… She saw how mild and gentle his face was, how he was possessed of such tenderness, with gentle, dreamy blue

Ibid., 57. Ibid., 24. 16 Ibid., 59. 17 Ibid., 54. See Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 119-A. 18 Ibid., 56. 14 15

130

NOBLE SOUL eyes… how his high brow would wrinkle slightly, and how his hair was combed.” 19

Upon conclusion of the Sabbath, curious members of the Jewish Community, who have heard of the young Count’s visit to Lazer’s family and have grown suspicious concerning the previous night’s events, arrive at the Ziskes home. Lazer, with foreboding and prescience, urges the strictest of secrecy on his family and Chayim: “All Jews should know how to keep a secret, but nevertheless, someone will talk to someone and I and we all could come to harm.”20

He is particularly concerned about Yossel the tailor, a rich Jew who does business with the elder Count Potocki and “knows everything about everybody else’s business.”21 Chayim offers both Valenti and Zarembo, who has also arrived, a thorough introduction to the principles of the Sabbath and its sanctity, to which the young noblemen attend with great interest. Zarembo recalls the fisticuffs of his first encounter with Chayim: “I am ashamed to admit the manner in which our friendship started, but I must tell you the truth: I am also happy about it! For it opened my eyes, and I saw so many things to which I had, until then, been blind.”22

Valenti indicates his intention to study Hebrew with Menachem Mann, who has offered to instruct him. The young Count exclaims, “How wonderful it must be to know the language in which the Holy Bible was written!”23 This turn of events is, understandably, perceived by Lazer and his family as miraculous in nature. This is due in no small part, it would seem, to the marked contrast beween the young Count and his father, as remarked earlier by Menachem Mann.

Ibid., 59. Ibid., 51. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 65. 23 Ibid., 66. 19 20

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

131

Saphire suggests that the sensitive spiritual searcher in Valenti is a reflection of his mother’s character and influence, expanding on the special relationship between mother and son explored by Gersoni in his essay on the Ger Tzedek. Like his mother a student of Jesuits, “he was also modest, very religious, and good-hearted.”24 His nascent religious transformation found a catalyst in an altercation with his less soulful father. Valenti “confided to him that he found no satisfaction in the Jesuit Seminary, as he felt they give an inaccurate interpretation of the Old Testament.”25 When Valenti proceeds to manifest his interest in matters Jewish by objecting to his father’s violent treatment of Jews, the elder Count mocks his son. This experience motivates Valenti to pursue his studies with Menachem Mann in earnest. Count Potocki’s moral turpitude finds expression not only in his ill treatment of Jews, but in his adulterous sexual escapades, as well. He is engaged in a long-term affair with Mademoiselle Rochelle, the childhood governess of Valenti’s sister, Katarina. Katarina speaks approvingly of their father’s affair as a demonstration of his vitality and strength, his lust for life. She eschews her mother’s spirituality. Valenti, in contrast, expresses shock and disdain at the betrayal of his pious mother, defending her otherworldliness in terms foreshadowing his own fate as a martyr: “Eternity begins at death.”26 When Count Potocki plans a liaison with his French mistress, offering the pretense of a hunting expedition to explain his departure, Valenti insists on accompanying him. In so doing, Valenti hopes to defend his mother’s honor by precluding his father’s illicit rendez-vous. While the young nobleman is unsuccessful in this noble attempt, the “hunting” trip allows him to confront Father Anton, the family’s priest and “spiritual” advisor. Anton is, in fact, himself a sexual predator, who has betrayed both his religious obligations and his friend Count Potocki, by conducting his own clandestine affair with Rochelle.

Ibid., 69. Ibid. 26 Ibid., 71. 24 25

132

NOBLE SOUL

Valenti accuses Anton of “sinning with my father’s lover.”27 By threatening to inform against the corrupt priest to Church authorities, Valenti compels him to confess and to lead him to his father’s tryst. His adulterous affair now exposed, the elder Count agrees to have Rochelle sent away, and instructs Anton to arrange for her return to Paris. Unbeknownst to the Potockis, however, Anton sends their shared paramour to the estate of a rival noble clan, the Lineckis, no doubt to maintain the possibility of her continued sexual availability. Believing he has effectively ended his father’s affair, Valenti agrees to keep the matter confidential. He further agrees not to inform the Church hierarchy of Anton’s priestly profligacy, not so much in deference to the father-confessor, but so as to prevent the scandal from exposing his father’s marital transgressions. In exchange, Valenti exacts a commitment from his father to curtail oppressive treatment of the Jews under his domain. This critical juncture in the affairs of the Potocki family provides a dramatic turning point in the future Ger Tzedek’s evolving religious identity. His noble father’s ignoble character, and his family priest’s unchaste dereliction, provide Valenti with transforming personal insight and focus. “Valenti suddenly felt a disdain for the Catholic faith as a whole. He realized he would never find contentment with that religion. He began to think about Reb Lazer the Jew, with whom, not long before, he had spent a few hours of their Sabbath. How beautiful and peaceful their Sabbath had been. What devotion they had for their God and their Torah… Every one of them is prepared to sacrifice himself for their God.”28

This burgeoning disenchantment had actually begun considerably earlier, when Valenti “realized how the priests in the Catholic seminary preached hatred and incited pogroms against the Jews, who were so helpless… This he found repugnant. Valenti felt this was a grave injustice against the Jews

27 28

Ibid., 84. Ibid., 95.

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

133

and, indeed, against the Catholic religion… It was at this moment that the thought of becoming a Jew was born in Valenti…that he would rather be among the oppressed than among the oppressors.”29

Valenti soon finds himself a Sabbath guest once again in the home of Lazer Ziskes, where he had found such inspiration during his first visit. To the delight of Lazer’s daughter, and stimulating both her scholarly and romantic interests, the young nobleman “spoke of the Jews’ Torah as the greatest gift bestowed upon the world by the Jewish People.”30 This sentiment, ascribed to the Ger Tzedek by Saphire, has found a wider contemporary audience in The Gifts of the Jews, Thomas Cahill’s best-selling paean to the Jewish People and its sacred Scriptures. Valenti reveals to his host his desire to convert to Judaism. Lazer discourages the aspiring convert, suggesting he could do more for the Jewish People by remaining Catholic and noble. Valenti persists: “Much has happened…a great transformation in my soul.”31 He intends to travel to Vilna and thence to Amsterdam, in order formally to embrace Judaism. Rivka Ziskes describes Valenti as “an angel in the form of a man.”32 Lazer, too, recognizes that the young nobleman is possessed of “a precious soul,”33 but warns him of the mortal peril attending his desired course. He explains that many Jews would suffer if it becomes known that they helped or encouraged him. Much will depend on his choices and his discretion. “I have an inner yearning to turn to the Jewish God!” Valenti proclaims. “I have decided to become a Jew… I am prepared for anything… I am even prepared to sacrifice my life for the Jewish God!”34 Pointedly, the emergent Ger Tzedek subsequently shares his plan with his companion, Zarembo: “I have…decided to become a Jew, even though the Jews themselves want to talk me out of it!”35

Ibid., 108. Ibid., 109 31 Ibid., 114. 32 Ibid., 113. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., 114. 35 Ibid., 115. 29 30

134

NOBLE SOUL

Zarembo, too, has contemplated conversion. Although also disenchanted with Catholicism, more so now that he has learned of Anton’s licentious behavior, Judaism has not yet replaced Catholicism in his heart. Furthermore, he is in love with Julia Linecki, the nobleman’s daughter. The novelist spares neither complexity nor salacious intrigue: Julia’s older sister has romantic designs on Valenti! Valenti travels to discuss his religious aspirations with Menachem Mann. With a plaintive confession of faith, Valenti movingly assures the influential Jew of his commitment, and implores him for his assistance: “I did not just start thinking about this today; I have thought about it for many years…ever since I could tell the difference between good and evil…. My heart is filled with a powerful desire to become one of your People, and so to find contentment in my heart and a balm for my soul in your Holy Torah.”36

Mann agrees to help facilitate the conversion process. Wary of the peril involved in undertaking such a process in Vilna, Mann persuades the young nobleman to travel to Paris to pursue his Jewish studies. He provides the young supplicant with a letter of introduction to a Parisian scholar, Aharon Lipman, who will instruct him. Zarembo, though not yet personally committed to conversion, will accompany his friend and study with him in France. His intended bride, unaware of the purpose of his journey, assures him of her love and her willingness to await his return. Also ignorant of his son’s reason for traveling to the French capital, the elder Count Potocki provides horses, a coach and driver for the trip. The journey takes weeks, as the young noblemen stop in every big city along the way. So as not to chance exposing their furtive religious studies, the coach and driver, intended to stay at the young noblemen’s disposal, is sent back home to the Potocki estate. The Parisian mentor under whose tutelage Valenti and Zarembo labor corresponds with Menachem Mann concerning their spiritual progress and the question of their eventual conversion.

36

Ibid., 118.

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

135

“The young Count Valenti Potocki has within him a holy soul,”37 writes his teacher. Mann also attests to the students’ growth in Jewish knowledge and commitment. He offers to a concerned Lazer Ziskes a testimonial on their behalf, the likes of which few adherents of Judaism would merit: “The few months he and his friend Zarembo spent with me, they both studied with great devotion and persistence… As for the young Count Potocki…he is possessed of a sharp mind. He thoroughly understands the foundations of our Torah, and has taken them into his heart, and reflects them in his life… I can say with confidence that he will attain great spiritual stature in Israel (a godol in Yisroel), and that he is prepared to sacrifice himself for our faith, in sanctification of God’s Name. Who knows, perhaps even a meaure of Salvation (a y‘shuoh) will come to the Jews through him.”38

As for the wisdom of proceeding with the controversial and, indeed, perilous step of formal conversion, Mann offers a sensitive perspective. His wisdom and humility provide a sobering and refreshing contrast to the political posturing with which all too many contemporary religious authorities and Rabbinic decisors of various affiliations approach matters pertaining to conversion. “Were I to dissuade him from his present course, I would utterly destroy his soul, and he would not be able to exist. So convinced am I of this that I have reached the conclusion that I have no right to discourage him from our faith.”39 Lazer’s daughter Yehudis was decidedly pleased at the prospect of Valenti’s conversion. “From the few visits Valenti had made to their home, Yehudis had seen that he had a gentle, noble soul, and she was thus very happy to hear that he wanted to become a Jew.”40 Yehudis’ obvious romantic interest in Valenti is neither scandalous nor stigmatized; neither does her growing personal attraction in any way cast doubt on the propriety of his conversion.

Ibid., 166. Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., 169. 37 38

136

NOBLE SOUL

The young nobleman’s undeniably sincere adoption of Judaism provides him an impeccable spiritual pedigree, rendering him not merely an acceptable, but a highly desirable marital candidate for a pious and learned Jewish bride such as Yehudis. The wholesomeness of Yehudis’ infatuation is in no way tainted simply because it first manifested itself before Valenti had made any explicit, much less formal declaration of his commitment to Judaism. “She thought of him the whole night, and when she fell asleep, she dreamt of him.”41 As discussed in the preceding chapter on Kacyzne’s drama, the Vilna Ger Tzedek himself speculated on the nature of the spiritual credentials properly attributed to converts to Judaism. In time, the elder Count Potocki, who has been embroiled in financial and political intrigues with Linecki, an unprincipled noble rival, turns his attention to the matter of his “missing” son. He initiates a search for Valenti who seems to have “disappeared” in Paris. He travels to the French capital, where his search leads him to Aharon Lipman himself, perilously close to the truth about his son. In a humiliating turn of events, the Count is robbed by his new paramour, leaving the wealthy, powerful nobleman penniless in a foreign city. Ironically, Potocki borrows a sum of money from Lipman, who is, unbeknownst to the Count, his son’s religious mentor. Lipman is a jeweler by profession, a man of substantial material means. His unlikely loan, however, functions effectively to reinforce the spiritual dynamic at the heart of the Ger Tzedek saga. The aspiring Ger Tzedek discovers a precious religious tradition, and amasses spiritual riches under the tutelage of his teacher, significantly, in Saphire’s rendition, a jeweler. These riches, entrusted to the devoted safe-keeping of an embattled Jewish minority often living in abject poverty, contrast dramatically with the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of the elder Count, and of the noble patrimony of wealth and power to which Valenti was born. Lipman, not fully attuned to the delicacy of his dealings with the Count, uses the opportunity to return a sum of money owed to Menachem Mann. After arranging for the Count to deliver the

41

Ibid.

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

137

money, Lipman realizes the danger inherent in the exchange: the nobleman may connect him, through Menachem Mann, to Valenti. Demonstrating renewed discretion, he sends along a “coded” message to the Vilna businessman, a shrewdly selected Biblical citation: “Genesis 34:5.” Mann would understand that this reference is to the verse “Jacob kept silent until they came home.” This quotation is from the narrative describing the rape of Jacob’s daughter, Dinah. It evokes the urgent need for guarded speech Lipman wished to communicate, while implicitly drawing a comparison between the Count and Shechem, the rapacious nobleman who assaulted Dinah. The biblical narrative ends in a duplicitous alliance between the clans of Jacob and Shechem, culminating in wholesale slaughter of the latter. Lipman’s biblical allusion thus bespeaks the potential consequences of indiscrete communication. Finally, the spurious alliance with Shechem was predicated upon that tribe’s submission to circumcision, a procedure analogous to conversion. By simply citing chapter and verse, Lipman is thus able clearly to apprise Mann of the volatile dynamic in which they are together involved. When the elder Potocki, accompanied by Father Anton, meets with Menachem Mann in Vilna, Mann is less than reticent. They engage in a theological debate regarding Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus. Mann boldly asserts, “You should be grateful; that is to say, to those who made it possible for humanity to be forgiven and absolved of sin by His death!”42 This theological tension, inherent in charges of deicide, is explored thoroughly in Hyam Maccoby’s compelling study, Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil. Mann continues to decry Christian anti-Semitic violence: “Christians have treated Jews in a decidedly un-Christian manner!”43 In contrast, Mann, though denying any knowledge of his whereabouts―speaks with admiration of Count Potocki’s “missing” son.

42 43

Ibid., 198. Ibid., 200.

138

NOBLE SOUL “I never engaged in any disputations with him. From what I have seen of him, he was a true Christian, one who practiced that which Christ proclaimed.”44

Anton senses precisely the connection between Mann and Lipman that the Parisian scholar had hoped to conceal. The priest presses Mann for information about Valenti. Had Mann influenced the young Count? What does he know of his “disappearance?” Anton, reflecting the very malice Mann had ascribed to his Church, suggests the possibility of a blood libel, implying that Valenti might have fallen victim to ritual murder. The corrupt father-confessor adds, “You know what they do to their own children, to boys just eight days old!”45 Mann writes to Lipman of the imminent danger of reprisals against the Jewish community through the offices of Anton and the Count. Lipman departs for Amsterdam, where Valenti and Zarembo have already travelled in order to effect conversion. Zarembo has committed himself to this decision, as well, following the example of his noble companion. Their erstwhile instructor plans to prevent their conversion, so as to forestall the threatened violence against the Jews of Vilna. As history records, however, the conversions and all requisite rituals were indeed completed in Amsterdam. The Rabbi of Amsterdam prudently keeps the young men’s status as converts secret, observing that “They found their Source of life in the Torah.”46 Upon his daring return to Vilna and environs (specifically, to the village of Ilye), Valenti goes to see Lazer Ziskes. The Jew in whose home Valenti first experienced the beauty of the Jewish Sabbath does not recognize the young Count, now identifying himself as Avraham, He inquires regarding the stranger’s place of origin: “Fun vonen kumt a Yid?”―literally, “Where does a Jew come from?” Avraham responds with carefully chosen words: “Fun merchokim; yo, fun zehr vayt”―“From a great distance. Yes, from very far away.”47

Ibid., 201. Ibid., 201. 46 Ibid., 205. 47 Ibid., 208. 44 45

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

139

Once aware of his interlocutor’s identity, Lazer voices his continuing admiration: “You have done something that not everyone is privileged to achieve… We consider you not merely a Ger―you are a Ger Tzedek, for you have made the greatest of sacrifices for our faith. You are a Tzadik Gamur (an absolute saint). May God protect you and grant you good fortune.”48

While the “greatest sacrifice” to which Lazer refers is the life of wealth, power, and position which the young Count had renounced in order to embrace Judaism, the Ger Tzedek has a markedly different perspective on his noble origins. “I have already had the greatest good fortune…now that I am a full-fledged Jew. I have broken the chains of my past and I look ahead to the future. I hope for the redemption. And may God give me the strength to dedicate my life to our Holy Torah.”49

With a homiletical flourish, the Ger Tzedek cites the verse from the first section of the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:5. “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might.” In his dying words, Rabbi Akiba famously expounded this verse as fulfilled through his own horrific martyrdom. Avraham ben Avraham’s reference to the text anticipates and foreshadows his death at the stake―“the greatest of sacrifices for our faith.” Lazer vows to maintain the strictest confidentiality regarding Avraham’s former identity. The young nobleman’s conversion will be kept secret even from Lazer’s sons. This measure in particular is critical, as Yossel the tailor persistently attempts to compel the youngsters to divulge any private information of which he feels he has been deprived. The unscrupulous tailor uses his son, Berke, in his invasive, investigatory endeavors. Lazer confides his secret only in Ilye’s religious leader, Rabbi Yechezkel. Referring to the famous proselyte who translated the Torah into Aramaic, the Rabbi issues his approbation:

48 49

Ibid., 211. Ibid.

140

NOBLE SOUL “He will follow in the footsteps of Onkelos, the convert… He will bring great benefits to the Jewish People and his name will be celebrated throughout the Jewish Diaspora… Surely, he must be a Gilgul (the reincarnated soul) of a great Tzadik (saint).50

The Ger Tzedek announces his intention to devote a period of five additional years to the study of Torah. Subsequently, he declares that he will study all of Shas―that is, the entire corpus of the Talmud―before he can consider matrimony. When the Ger Tzedek quotes the Mishnaic tract Pirkei Avot, Lazer exclaims to his wife and daughter: “How fortunate we should count ourselves… to hear words of Torah from the Graf’s mouth… Who knows, perhaps it is a sign of the Messianic Era!!”51

The former Valenti embarks on his quiet career of scholarship in Ilye’s “House of Study,” intermittently disrupted by Yossel’s prying and annoying intrusions, and widely admired by Ilye’s Jewish faithful. Naturally, Yehudis is among the Ger Tzedek’s most ardent admirers, though one of the few aware of his religious status. “When she saw how he spoke and learned like a scholar, she said that he had achieved his aspiration. He was a Ger Tzedek, and fortunate will be the Jewish girl whom he chooses for his wife.”52

Zarembo undertakes a somewhat different course. With the consent of the Rabbi of Amsterdam, Zarembo “disguises” himself as a Christian and travels home, assuming his original identity. By so doing, he hopes to prevent any planned violence against the Jewish community. He also hopes subtly to ascertain any possibility of his intended bride, Julia, following his example in conversion to Judaism. While not revealing his religious status, Zarembo informs his family that he has adopted the practice of vegetarianism, thus furtively facilitating his observance of the Dietary Laws by avoiding

Ibid., 216. Ibid., 212. 52 Ibid., 230. 50 51

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

141

forbidden meat. Both converts share the hope of eventually settling in the Land of Israel. The much feared anti-Jewish violence which Zarembo had endeavored to prevent at great personal peril, soon appears imminent. The elder Count’s investigator, Zukofsky, returns from his search for Valenti in Paris. He announces his “findings”―both Valenti and Zarembo had been killed in a ritual murder!! Anton, no doubt the author of these malignant lies, calls for revenge and wholesale slaughter. A grief-stricken Katarina weeps, “Then the Jew has done my brother harm?”53 Zukofsky, responds, “Harm? It’s horrifying…” 54 This brief conversation echoes a similar exchange between the priest and the “Dukus” in Kacyzne’s drama. Asked by the elder “Dukus” if his son had harmed himself, the priest exclaims, “Worse than that! He circumcised himself (ge’yiddisht― i.e., he converted)!”55 The response of the Ger Tzedek’s pious mother to his alleged murder is particularly noteworthy: “We must not allow innocent blood to be spilled. If a man is innocent, even if he be our enemy, he must not be punished. But if he is guilty, he must be punished even if he is our own flesh and blood.”56 The reader must wonder whether the Countess is simply articulating a commitment to the rule of law, or has deduced the facts of her spiritually gifted son’s religious journey. Father Anton’s heated conversation with Zarembo, whom he finds very much alive and still religiously incognito, is just as penetrating in its precision. Zarembo caustically refers to accusations of ritual murder as “invented by ignorant, fanatical Christians, who simply thirst for human blood themselves.”57 Anton berates Zarembo’s perceived blasphemy: “Soon you’ll be saying that the Holy Inquisition was not correct in burning the unbelieving Jews who outwardly accepted Christianity but secretly served their God!”58

Ibid., 233. Ibid. 55 Alter Kacyzne, “Der Dukus” in Gesammelte Schriften [Yiddish] (Verlang Y.L. Peretz, 1967), 71. 56 Saphire, 238. 57 Ibid., 239. 58 Ibid. 53 54

142

NOBLE SOUL

Zarembo discusses his discontent with the Roman Catholic Church, and with corrupt members of its priesthood, with Julia, though he does not immediately reveal the fact of his conversion. “I have discovered something altogether different,”59 he tells her cryptically. “Perhaps a time will come… that I will finally be able to reveal what is in my heart to you, and you will, I hope, understand.”60 Julia admires her intended’s gentleness, his inner drive to seek and to find the truth. She implores Zarembo to tell her his secret. “If you have already indeed found the truth, why don’t you reveal it to me?”61 Echoing the passage in the Book of Ruth, traditionally treated as the Biblical archetype of conversion to Judaism, Julia declares her devotion: “You are my love for all eternity, and therefore your path is also my path! Where you go I will also go; your faith will be my faith.”62

When the young convert ultimately relents and reveals the truth to Julia, she accepts him and consents to her own conversion. The approbation of her own reflections demonstrates the sincerity of her religious transformation: “She would often think about how it was possible for her to have experienced such a dramatic change in so short a time… Now she could see that Zarembo had but revealed to her that which was already ignited in her soul.”63 Julia takes the Hebrew name Rivka, a fitting complement to Zarembo’s Yitzchak. Zarembo explains that, while it is customary for all male converts to be called Avraham, he had wanted to remain together with his dear friend Valenti, and two newcomers named Avraham ben Avraham would create confusion and arouse suspicion. Reacting to Julia’s agreement to adopt Judaism and to marry Zarembo, he tells her, “I shall never forget this holy moment as long as I live.”64

Ibid., 248. Ibid., 249. 61 Ibid., 251. 62 Ibid. See Ruth 1:16. 63 Ibid., 257. 64 Ibid., 257. 59 60

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

143

Rumors of Avraham’s planned marriage to Yehudis pique Yossel’s curiosity. He intrusively probes Avraham for information, again sending his sons to assist in his “investigation.” Disparaging Avraham’s flawed Yiddish, the unprincipled tailor refers to him first as “half a Goy” and then simply as “a Goy.” Both couples discuss plans to settle in the Holy Land. They will claim to be Sephardim so that their Yiddishlessness will not arouse suspicion of their conversionary status!! A blushing Yehudis, also in the style of the Biblical Ruth, tells her fiance, “I belong to you, Avraham, and all your plans will also be my plans.”65 Yossel’s son Berke is ejected from the Ilye House of Study for disturbing Avraham with his unruly behavior, first by the Sexton and subsequently by Lazer. When the ill-mannered boy returns to the sacred precincts, he assaults the Ger Tzedek, throwing a wet hand-towel in his face. Enraged, Avraham strikes the child, slapping him hard in the face. Berke runs home in tears. Yossel is furious that his son has been mistreated; Yossel’s wife says the boy got what he deserved. The Ger Tzedek himself deeply regrets hitting Berke, explaining that it was the first time he had raised his hand against another. Lazer praises him for his violent action! Ominously, Yossel concludes that Avraham is a “former Pole”66 and now a convert. He vows revenge for the Ger Tzedek’s ill-treatment of Berke. The tailor’s lust for vengeance finds treacherous expression in an encounter with Father Anton. The tailor and the priest sit drinking together in Yossel’s home. Under the increasing influence of the liquor they share, Anton begins to recount the allegations of ritual murder raised by Count Potocki’s investigator, Zukofsky. In his highly imaginative, revisionist account of events, Anton casts himself in a heroic role as the protector of innocent Jews Anton’s drunken banter with Yossel exposes both discussants as hateful, self-serving malefactors. The priest observes: “You’re such a nice Yid! I can’t imagine someone like you wanting to drink Christian blood. I even have no doubt that, if you knew of a Jew --

65 66

Ibid., 265. Ibid., 271.

144

NOBLE SOUL

who used Christian blood, you yourself would hand him over to our custody!!” 67 Yossel promptly fills the role of informant ascribed to him by his priestly guest, revealing his suspicions that Avraham, the devoted scholar who had so mistreated Berke, was a convert―from Anton’s perspective, an apostate. “You know, Father, that we believe that a Jew must observe his faith, and a Christian must be a Christian.”68 Father Anton echoes the sentiments of his host, not missing an opportunity to lace his pronouncement with demeaning epithets and insulting incredulity “And I say so, too… a Yid must be a Yid and a Christian remain a Christian! What Christian would want to exchange his faith for the Jewish?!”69

Anton perceives in Yossel’s betrayal an opportunity to regain the favor of his bishop, who had heard disturbing rumors regarding his sexual misconduct with Rochelle. Identifying a Roman Catholic apostate to Judaism, and returning him to the fold, would be a great credit to the wayward priest. Anton has Yossel dispatch his son, Berke, to see when Avraham is alone in the House of Study. At the bishop’s behest, the local police chief sends officers with Anton, to effect the arrest of the as yet unidentified “apostate.” Arriving, Anton recognizes the Ger Tzedek as the former Valenti Potocki, who had, at an earlier juncture, threatened to betray the father-confessor to the Church hierarchy! Anton identifies the young Count at first by his voice. The Ger Tzedek’s scholarly response70 to the prospect of imminent arrest is reference to a brief biblical verse: Achein noda ha-davar ― “So, the matter is known!” In their original context, Exodus 2:14, these words are spoken by Moses, after his failure to conceal his killing of an Egyptian taskmaster. Like Moses, Valenti Potocki violated the law and social norms by taking up the cause of the Jewish People, by choosing Jewish identity over princely power and near royal status. Valenti’s

Ibid., 274. Ibid., 275. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid., 283. 67 68

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

145

conversion, like Moses’ act of homicide in defense of a fellow Israelite, constituted a capital offense. Yossel’s wife soon learns of his betrayal. She demands, “How could you inform against a Jew?!”71 Yossel answers with narrowminded bigotry and ignorance: “And what a fine Jew he is!! He is a former Goy! He is a convert!”72 His wife begs Yossel to intercede in the Ger Tzedek’s behalf, threatening otherwise to tell the Jewish community that it was he who betrayed their beloved scholar. Yossel, in turn, threatens violence against his wife, slapping her to dramatize his point. “Just try and open your mouth and I’ll knock out all your teeth… If you start blabbing with your tongue, I’ll break your bones!”73 As Avraham is placed in the bishop’s custody, word spreads throughout the Jewish community of his arrest, his heretofore concealed family origins, and Yossel’s act of betrayal. Lazer Ziskes rides posthaste to Vilna in order to warn Menachem Mann, Zarembo and Julia. Zarembo and Julia depart for safety in Amsterdam. Anton, reveling in his achievement, refuses bribes intended to effect the Ger Tzedek’s release. He sends for the former nobleman’s family for an “official” identification. His family’s reactions to his conversion are varied. Count Potocki feels betrayed: “If he could do such a thing to me, he is no longer my son!”74 His mother asserts that her son’s actions could only be the result of illness, while Katarina theorizes that her brother has fallen under the influence of a Jewish spell! Despite cruel torture and exetended imprisonment, the Ger Tzedek is steadfast in his chosen faith: “They can destroy my body, but not my soul. The Jewish People has endured much suffering, torment, and pain; they have been burned and roasted, they have been slaughtered like sheep. Yet they have outlasted

Ibid. Ibid. 73 Ibid., 284-285. 74 Ibid., 307. 71 72

146

NOBLE SOUL many peoples, for the Jewish spirit is strong, and their faith in Almighty God is strong.”75

During one of her visits to her imprisoned brother, Katarina expresses her own interest in conversion to Judaism. It is unclear whether she is sincere, or is trying to manipulate her brother’s emotions. She urges him to do all that is necessary to effect his release. Whatever her true intentions, the Ger Tzedek discourages her conversion. Anton suggests a suitable reprisal for the young nobleman’s scandalous apostasy. He proposes that Yehudis be subjected to forced conversion to Catholicism. Katarina conspires to warn her brother’s intended bride, and she is secreted away to a safe hiding place. Speaking to the Ziskes family, Katarina describes the conditions of confinement Valenti has endured. “My heart bled within me when I saw him. He was shackled and chained, his face was pale, and his eyes expressed so much suffering and torment, that at that moment I thought surely that was how our Lord Jesus must have looked when he was crucified… My heart ached just to look at him.”76

Although she repeats her stated interest in Judaism, Katarina accepts her brother’s advice: she will not convert, but will use her status and position to help Jews, just as she has saved Yehudis. The consequences of Yossel’s betrayal continue to mount, not only for the Ger Tzedek, but for his traducer, as well. Yossel’s wife leaves him. Fellow Jews will neither speak to him, nor stand in proximity to him, effectively imposing the standards of excommunication on the informant. Father Anton urges Yossel to convert to Catholicism, promising he will be rewarded for his good works. As Anton works to win Yossel’s soul for the Church, the bishop presses Valenti to renounce his Judaism. The Ger Tzedek, of course, declines. “Unfortunate is the man who has remorse for the good he has done.”77 Provocatively, Avraham ben Avraham proceeds to inform the bishop of the gratitude he feels toward An-

Ibid. 306. Ibid., 309 77 Ibid., 316. 75 76

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

147

ton, who, by his sinfulness, disillusioned him, and led him to Judaism!! Flatly refusing the bishop’s demands that he recant, Avraham concludes: “If I listen to you I will save my body, which is but temporary, and lose my soul, which is eternal. Thus I believe that saving my soul is somewhat more important than saving my body!!”78

The Ger Tzedek’s moving assertion of devotion to his faith is, in fact, a homily of considerable irony. The convert to Judaism, soon to be martyred, here paraphrases the Gospel According to Matthew for a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church! The scriptural resonance in the former nobleman’s refusal to “lose his soul” is unmistakable. “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it… For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”79

Ired by the audacity of his prisoner’s preaching, the bishop slaps Avraham. The Ger Tzedek responds with yet another biblical allusion: “‘The hands are the hands of Esau’ ― It is always this way. When Esau has no answer for the voice of Jacob, he uses his hands.”80 The reference, as usual, is carefully chosen and nuanced in its aptness. Valenti Potocki, like Jacob, altered his appearance in order to claim a blessing, a covenantal heritage which otherwise would not have been his. The explicit comparison of the Christian Church to Esau, predator and huntsman, is common fare in medieval Jewish exegesis. The analogy suggests that the Church may enjoy apparent ascendancy, much as Esau was heir apparent to the Patriarchs of Israel. Both, however, are shown to be unsuitable successors, unworthy of the heritage they claim, destined to be replaced, usurped by the underdog Jacob.

Ibid. Matthew 16:24-26. 80 Saphire, 316. See Genesis 27:22. 78 79

148

NOBLE SOUL

Hoping to succeed where her daughter had failed, Countess Potocki visits her son in jail, further urging him to recant his conversion. The Ger Tzedek’s love for his mother, from whom he inherited his spiritual sensitivity, is apparent in his response. “I know every mother longs to see her son happy… and I am very, very happy… It is exactly like one who wanders in the desert. He is thirsty, tired, and hungry, and has not even the strength to drag his feet. It seems to him he will stay there until he dies of thirst, when suddenly there appears an oasis… with fruit trees and springs of fresh water… Yes, Mother, I feel just that way now. All my life, I have wandered about in a desert, lost, not knowing how I will reach my destination, and suddenly the God of Israel opened my eyes and showed me the fresh, cool spring―His Holy Torah―and I am refreshed and revived. Now you want me to forsake this wonderful spring and go back to being so lost and thirsty?! No, Mother, I will not give up my new faith, for it is the spring of life eternal.”81

This articulate, sensitive response is more than Countess Potocki, a devout Catholic educated by Jesuits, can abide. She, too, rejects her son, eschewing even his embrace. “Your hands are the hands of an unbelieving Yid. So long as you have no remorse for your shameful deed, you are no longer my son!”82 Katarina returns to her brother, having devised an escape: the guard is bribed, and will remove his chains; Menachem Mann stands ready with a carriage to speed the Ger Tzedek to safety. Avraham, however, refuses to flee the prison, for fear that his escape would lead to a pogrom and other reprisals against the Jewish community. Katarina turns to Mann: “He is willing to die for your Torah, for your God, for your People! May God be merciful with him!”83 Menachem Mann offers solace to the young woman: “Your

Ibid., 319. Ibid., 320. 83 Ibid., 328. 81 82

HISTORICAL NOVELTY

149

brother… is a martyr, and his name will be inscribed in blood in Jewish history… he is a saint (a heiliger).” 84

Count Potocki learns that his son, refusing to recant the conversion which shamed and scandalized his noble family, has been sentenced to be burned at the stake. He is no longer able either to withhold his love for his son or to restrain his tears. He dispatches a courier with an urgent request for a pardon from the King. Anton, however, sends men to prevent the petition from reaching the royal court. Anton’s henchmen fail; the pardon is granted in Warsaw. Anton’s men are resourceful, however. They manage to get the Count’s messenger drunk on the way home. Evidently afraid to destroy a royal decree, they hide the document in the boot of the drunken courier as he sleeps. The ruse succeeds in delaying the rider’s return; he arrives after the brutal execution has already taken place, on the second day of Shavuot: May 24, 1749. Realizing what has transpired, the courier explains the role of Father Anton in assuring the execution of the Ger Tzedek. Enraged, the bereaved Count goes directly to the bishop, and tells him in damning detail of Anton’s unchaste escapades. The bishop summons the wayward cleric to confess his sins, and defrocks him, saying he will be tried as a common criminal. This form of justice is not to be. As Anton, on his knees, begs for his life, Count Potocki shoots and kills him in the bishop’s presence. The bishop declares that Anton has received his just deserts, assuring the Count of God’s forgiveness for the killing! Emboldened, the Count has Yossel the tailor, Anton’s accomplice and his son’s traducer, brought to him. He orders the informant hanged, not unlike the fate which befell Judas Iscariot following his act of betrayal! The Ger Tzedek’s death is bewailed by Vilna’s Jews, as well as by Zarembo, who receives the tragic news in Amsterdam. He and Julia subsequently relocate to the Land of Israel, where together they live out their lives in Jewish piety. Following the execution, under the cover of night, Lazer and Yehudis retrieve the Ger Tzedek’s ashes and the few remaining bones from the pyre. These they quietly bury in Vilna’s Jewish cemetery, providing a modest sign to mark the location and serve

84

Ibid

150

NOBLE SOUL

as monument. Yehudis prostrates herself in grief on the martyr’s grave. For two hundred years, Jews would behave in a similar fashion, making sacred pilgrimages to the Ger Tzedek’s grave, marveling at his nobility of spirit―his “noble soul”―and mourning his tragic demise. At his grave, pilgrims would unburden their own souls, addressing in prayer their countless, untold hopes and aspirations, individual woes and personal heartaches. Novelist Saul Saphire has provided a thoroughly detailed, albeit fictionalized account of the Ger Tzedek’s life, replete with unseemly family politics, love interests, and human frailty. In so doing, he has made of Vilna’s “Patron Saint” a more endearing and accessible intercessor for all the very human “pilgrims” who continue to venerate his memory, and marvel at his life.

CHAPTER 11 A QUESTION OF PARENTAGE: NATAN MARK, 1968 The preface to Ben ha-Rozen (“The Count’s Son”), describes its subject matter somewhat guardedly as a “half-historical legend” which was “passed from father to son until the writer Natan Avi AbirTzion (Mark) committed it to writing, as a story for young people.”1 It should come as little surprise that Mordechai Levanon, the Israeli painter who penned these words, was a devotee of expressionism, an artistic movement valuing subjective, emotional expression, and characterized by bold distortions of form and violent color! In truth, a rich body of literary testaments had already evolved around the Ger Tzedek of Vilna when Mark provided his youthful readers an account of “The Count’s Son” in 1968. Indeed, Mark drew his material not merely from oral traditions, as Levanon asserts, but borrowed extensively from Abraham Sohn Abrahams by Selig Schachnowitz and, likely, its 1952 translation into Hebrew. Valentin Potocki, described to his young readers as distinguished by his scholarly commitment to “wisdom and knowledge,”2 has his heart set on pursuing a higher education at the august Sorbonne University in Paris. His father consents, though he can not understand his son’s desire: “Do you lack anything… Why would you wander such a great distance, and deprive yourself of such a quiet life of luxury. It is just insanity!”3 Valentin’s father is identified as Józef Potocki. A Hetman by this very name was, in fact, a contemporary of the Ger Tzedek. Hetman Józef Potocki died in 1751, two years after the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, and was memorialized with majestic funerary

Natan Mark, Ben ha-Rozen [Hebrew] (Haifa: Renaissance, 1968), 6. Ibid., 7. 3 Ibid., 8. 1 2

151

152

NOBLE SOUL

rites. Nevertheless, it seems likely that Mark’s identification of the elder Count Potocki by name represents an abhorrence of anonymity, rather than a serious historical claim. Count Potocki arranges for an academically gifted local youth, from a common family of limited means, to accompany his son to Paris. The Count finances not only his own son’s travel and education, but that of his companion, Boris Zarembo, as well. Both Zarembo and Valentin are identified as students enrolled in the Seminary of Saint John. Saint John Collegium was founded as a Jesuit institution in 1570, and re-opened in 1803 as the University of Vilna. Saint John’s was still a commanding presence in the Lithuanian capital when historian Lucy Dawidowicz visited that city in 1938. Referring to her experience on the eve of the Holocaust, she described the University as “still what it had been in its earliest days as a Jesuit Seminary―a hot-bed of anti-Semitic hooliganism and the spearhead of anti-Jewish violence.”4 Both the identity of the local academic institution attended by Valentin and Boris, as well as the exposure to anti-Semitism it provided them, are based directly on Schachnowitz’s narrative. The heroic intervention of the two seminarians in behalf of a Jewish father and daughter (Tzemach and Esther) being attacked by an angry Christian mob is described in the opening pages of Schachnowitz’s account. The incident is repeated in retrospect at the conclusion of Mark’s rendition. Pursuing the busy life of intellectually curious university students in Paris, Valentin and Boris become inseparable friends and academic colleagues. The experience which will propel Valentin inexorably toward his religious transformation occurs as the two companions go out for a shared evening of theater. In a unique contribution to the literature of the Ger Tzedek, Mark even identifies the production the two planned to attend: Molière’s “Misanthrope.” It is to be noted that Molière’s comedy of manners satirizes the hypocrisy, social duplicity, and extravagances of the upper class. The disillusioned protagonist, not unlike the Ger Tzedek of Vilna, renounces a frivolous society for a quiet existence on the social fringe.

4 Lucy Dawidowicz, From That Place and Time (New York: Norton, 1989), 35.

A QUESTION OF PARENTAGE

153

Valentin, however, never reaches the theater. Along the way, he suddenly stops, transfixed by a sound that would change his life. “A voice. A kind of voice within which can be heard longing, as well as supplication, as well as the confidence of faith. The voice was so appealing, that the ear could not keep itself from listening to its unique quality, just as it can not keep itself from listening to the chirping of a bird or the undulation of the waves… He was enchanted, and did not stir from that place.” 5

Boris Zarembo also finds the voice appealing, but not altogether unfamiliar. His less sheltered youth had afforded him some contact with the Jewish community, in which, Valentin is soon to learn, the remarkable sound he heard was commonplace. Boris goes on to the theater alone. After the performance, Boris discovers his companion on the very same spot at which they had seven hours earlier parted company, still completely absorbed by the mysterious voice, and by the scene he so intently observed through a window. The seemingly prosaic statement that “he did not stir from that place (min ha-Makom)” is, in fact, nuanced and ambiguous. “Ha-Makom”―“The Place” (often translated as “the OmniPresent”) is a familiar epithet for the Divine. Valentin was not merely transfixed by an enchanting melody. From the moment he heard the voice of the Jew who was to become his teacher, raised in prayer and study, he would never turn away from God. The Jew who had this profound effect on the young nobleman is identified as Shlomo Abarbanel, a pious, elderly Jew, though not a Rabbi. Valentin returns the next day to introduce himself, and to inquire about the nature of the text he saw the Jew studying, and from which he had been singing so sweetly. The young nobleman identifies himself as a relative of Waclaw and Jan Potocki. Here, the author proves a sloppy historian. Waclaw Potocki shared only a surname, but no family ties, with the noble Potocki clan. Jan Potocki, author of Manuscript Found at Saragosa, flourished in the generations following the Ger Tzedek’s death. In response to Valentin’s inquiry regarding his book and its subject matter, the old man responds somewhat obliquely that he

5

Mark, 17.

154

NOBLE SOUL

was studying “Torat Elohim Chayim.” He explains the unfamiliar phrase. “Torat Elohim Chayim means this: the Torah of God, Who lives forever; Torah, which is life to those who discover her; and, the Torah that desires a good life for all the world’s inhabitants, without distinction of religion or nation.”6

His new-found teacher suggests that the fascinated Valentin begin studying the Bible in his native language, and subsequently begins teaching his gifted student Hebrew. The teacher himself is a man of meager means and few indulgences. “His bones were exposed by his gauntness,”7 the young man observes of his mentor. Here again, the author demonstrates his facility for word-play and double entendre. The term translated as “gauntness” is the Hebrew razon. The same word sustains an entirely different meaning: count, or nobleman. The emaciated scholar who becomes Valentin’s tutor stands in stark contrast to the young nobleman’s father, the elder Count Potocki and his lifestyle of privilege and plenty. The title of Mark’s book, “Ben ha-Rozen,” must itself be reconsidered in light of this word-play. Is Valentin simply identified as “The Count’s Son” or does the title allude to the paternal role played by Valentin’s gaunt, self-sacrificing mentor, a “Razon” in his own right? Such a reading is suggested by the author himself. It is this same teacher Valentin ultimately asks to facilitate his conversion. “From the moment Reb Shlomo agreed to fulfill his pupil’s request, he called him ‘my son’ ―insofar as ‘it is not he who gives life that is called father, but he who raises the child.”8 Valentin moves into his teacher’s home, living there for two years so as to gain an intimate knowledge and experience of Jewish life. Thus, “a child was born to Reb Shlomo in his old age.”9 This latter formulation is a clear reference to Abraham, to whom, in old age, a son, Isaac was born. Similarly, on the day Valentin is initiated into the Covenant of Abraham through cir-

Ibid., 24. Ibid, 21. 8 Ibid., 41. 9 Ibid., 45. 6 7

A QUESTION OF PARENTAGE

155

cumcision, his thoughts turn to his mother and to the nature of her reaction to his conversion. “My dear mother! Please don’t cry when you hear that your son, your only son, whom you so love… has changed his faith.”10 Taken almost verbatim from Genesis 22, the chapter describing the Binding of Isaac (“Take your son, your only son, whom you love…”), this phrase also alludes to the relationship between Isaac and Abraham. The description of Valentin Potocki as “Ben ha-Rozen” may allude either to his biological or his “spiritual” father. Ultimately, however, he is Avraham ben Avraham: the “adopted” son of Abraham. It is thus the “noble” Biblical patriarch to whom the title “Rozen” just as aptly applies. As has been documented elsewhere in this study, the framing of the Ger Tzedek’s experience in the context and language of the Book of Esther is a recurring motif. The inclusion, by both Schachnowitz and Mark, of a character named Esther in the Ger Tzedek saga, removes a measure of subtlety from this process. The dramatic turning point in Valentin’s life, his decision to renounce the nobility, wealth and power to which he was born, and to convert to Judaism, is described by Mark in this peculiar Biblical idiom. Ba-lailah ha-hu nad‘dah shnat Valentin―“That night, sleep eluded Valentin.”11 The young nobleman’s anticipation and agitation on the evening before he was to disclose his intention to embrace Judaism is reported in language extracted directly from the Book of Esther, describing a fateful, sleepless night endured by King Ahashuerus.12 The same linguistic style is employed to indicate Valentin’s recognition of the danger entailed in his conversion and subsequent, daring return to Vilna. “Should his presence within the borders of his homeland become known to the Church, there would be but one law for him.”13 Achat dato l’hamit―“There would be but one law for him: to be put to death”―is the verse from Esther14 from which this wording is borrowed, found there in reference to the consequences of intruding uninvited on the royal court. The

Ibid., 40. Ibid., 55. 12 Esther 6:1. 13 Mark, 48. 14 Esther 4:11. 10 11

156

NOBLE SOUL

allusion is so readily recognized, that the critical conclusion “to be put to death” is left implied, on the assumption that the reader, familiar with the Biblical expression, will understand that execution is intended. Despite the mortal danger involved, Valentin does indeed return to his native land, settling in Iliya, a village near Vilna. There, he inquires about Tzemach the tobacconist, whom he and Zarembo, while young seminarians, had rescued from a hostile Christian mob twelve years earlier. Also rescued from mob violence was Esther, Tzemach’s then ten year-old daughter. As in the Schachnowitz account, it was Esther’s purity of spirit and innocence, and her straightforward discussion of Jewish suffering that first aroused Valentin’s interest in Judaism. Perhaps because of the youthful nature of Mark’s intended readership, this “arousal” is discussed only in brief and in retrospect; Esther’s feelings about her childhood “savior” are left entirely unexplored. No doubt a similar desire for propriety and discretion explains the absence of any tavern or saloon as the locus of Valentin’s revelatory religious studies. As discussed in the chapter devoted to Schachnowitz, Abraham Sohn Abrahams is considerably less reserved in regard to the intoxicating effects of both love and strong drink! Zarembo and the former young nobleman enjoy an emotional reunion in Iliya. Zarembo has also embraced Judaism and taken the standard Hebrew name bestowed on converts, Avraham ben Avraham, as well. In this, Mark departs from Schachnowitz’s account, which asserted that Zarembo had been named Baruch (note the assonance to Boris) ben Avraham. Alas, from their vocal mutual greetings, the identity of Avraham “Potocki” is revealed. An unscrupulous Jew, named Titus Shroger (an appellation unique to Mark’s rendition of the Ger Tzedek saga), informs against the Ger Tzedek to the authorities. Shroger’s betrayal was apparently motivated by Avraham’s interest in Esther, who had spurned Shroger’s own romantic overtures. The Ger Tzedek is imprisoned, and, again in the idiom of the Book of Esther, “the village of Iliya was bewildered”15 (a formulation based on the verse hair shushan navochah―“The City of Shushan was bewildered”).16

15 16

Mark, 58. Esther 3:15.

A QUESTION OF PARENTAGE

157

In prison, Valentin is visited by his parents, who recognize him, bearded and dressed in distinctive Jewish garb, only with considerable difficulty. They plead with him to return repentant to the Church and to their noble station. Avraham’s reunion with his mother is heartfelt and loving. His father, however, ultimately disowns his “wayward” son. “The elder Count stood there, as if dumbfounded by the two powerful forces competing within him: a father’s compassion and the honor of nobility… The old nobleman’s sense of honor and pride overcame his paternal compassion, and he decreed: ‘If he will not return to his religion and to his people―he is no longer my son. Let him be sentenced according to the law!”17

As the executioners prepare to carry out the sentence of death at the stake, they mock the martyr: “You can seek your revenge against us from the World On High.”18 This taunt first appears in Ammudei Bet Yehuda (Amsterdam, 1766), in connection with the martyrdom of Rabbi Menachem Mann, who responds with a parable. Here, the Ger Tzedek responds with a different parable, taken almost verbatim from Rabbi Moshe Mayer Yoshor’s 1958 study of the Chafetz Chayim.19 The parable describes a childhood experience in which Valentin laboriously molded toy soldiers out of mud. He asks his father to exact revenge from the neighborhood children who destroy the figurines. When the elder Count refuses, Valentine vows to take revenge himself, once he grows older. Naturally, as an adult, he has come to understand that his earlier “suffering” merits no vengeance. Similarly, the murder and burning of his physical body, from the perspective of the Hereafter, will seem but a minor offense, undeserving of recompense. The sentence is carried out on the second day of the Festival of Shavuot, 1749. As he is burnt at the stake, the Ger Tzedek forcefully articulates the benediction prescribed for public martyrdom.

Mark, 62. Ibid. 19 Moshe Mayer Yoshor, Ha-Chafetz Chayim u-Fo’olo [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Netzach, 1958), 292. 17 18

158

NOBLE SOUL

Mark’s account of the Ger Tzedek’s demise concludes with two vignettes. The first reports the retrieval and burial of Valentin’s ashes by Tzemach and Esther. They risk their lives in so doing, just as the martyr had risked his life and standing years earlier to save them from an enraged mob. Only passing mention is made of the tree which stands near the martyr’s grave. The Vilna Gaon, who played such an extensive and central role in Schachnowitz’s novel, is mentioned only in the final lines of Mark’s account. Visiting the martyr’s grave, he instructs that, upon his own death, he be buried in close proximity to the Ger Tzedek. Avraham ben Avraham’s sacrificial devotion to Jewish life proved him a worthy disciple of the pious teacher who called him “son”… and, like Isaac, a worthy and beloved heir to the “noble” biblical patriarch whose name he claimed as his patrimony. Natan Avi Abir-Tzion (Mark) chose his title wisely. He effectively demonstrated to his young readers that, although disowned by his family and executed by the Church and countrymen he willfully renounced, Count Valentin Potocki was, to his dying day, in every sense, “Ben ha-Rozen.”

CHAPTER 12 PORTRAITS OF PIETY: YEDAEL MELTZER, 1996 It is with an attitude of veneration that Yedael Meltzer includes the chapter, “Rabbi Avraham ben Avraham―Graf Valentin Potocki” in his anthology, Anashim Me’Artsot haChayim (“People from the Land of the Living”). His reverence for the Ger Tzedek is evident from the quotation, taken from the Jerusalem Talmud, which prefaces his account of the martyr’s experience: “When Israel does the Will of the Holy One, Blessed be He, the Almighty searches throughout the entire world to see who is the most righteous among the Gentile nations, and He takes him and joins him to the People Israel.” 1

In a bibliographical note, Meltzer identifies the sources on which his account of the Ger Tzedek is based as “various encyclopedias,”2 as well as Rabbi Moshe Mayer Yoshor’s 1958 book on “The Chafetz Chayim and his Work.” Meltzer also cites the late Rabbi Shneur Kotler, of New Jersey’s Lakewood Yeshiva, from whom he received oral traditions regarding his subject. Specific details on the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom the author attributes to his father, Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Meltzer, as well as to his grandfather, Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer. His grandfather, a student of the Chafetz Chayim, served as one of the principals of the renowned Yeshiva of Slobodka, as a Rosh Yeshiva in Slutsk, and later in Jerusalem. He was imprisoned by the Bolsheviks for the crime of teaching Torah. His was considered a moderating voice among the founders of Agudath Yisrael. In addition to this impressive Rabbinic pedigree, it should be noted that Meltzer’s maternal

Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 2:8. Yedael Meltzer, Anashim Me’Artsot ha-Chayim [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Arzei ha-Hen, 1996), 65. 1 2

159

160

NOBLE SOUL

grandfather, Rabbi Tzvi Steinman, was Chief Rabbi of Rechovot, Israel. Meltzer’s narrative begins with young Count Valentin Potocki, together with Boris Zarembo, travelling to Paris for University studies. After an outing together to admire Parisian architecture and a visit to one of the city’s museums, the two tired, thirsty students enter one of Paris’ many taverns and order a bottle of wine. (Unlike his fellow Israeli, Natan Mark, Meltzer does not “sanitize” this well-established detail of the Ger Tzedek saga in favor of sober discretion!) The tavern-keeper who serves the two young noblemen is identified only as a distinguished looking Jew of advanced years. While his name is not given, Meltzer does report the Vilna tradition identifying him as Rabbi Menachem ben Aryeh Loeb (Mann) of Vizun. Having served the students’ wine, the proprietor of the tavern returns to the volume of Gemara he had been studying when “interrupted” by his youthful customers. Intrigued by the strange text, as well as by the scholarly demeanor of their host, they inquire about the nature of the weighty tome. “He explained to them the essential nature of the Gemara, that it is the detailed interpretation of the Commandments and Laws that are in the Five Books of Moses, and its importance and value to the People Israel. He likewise explained to them how extensive is the nobility of spirit of the Jew who studies the Torah of Israel and fulfills its Commandments.”3

After a period of repeated visits to the tavern to discuss the nature and teachings of Judaism with its proprietor, Valentin makes the decision to convert. Dutifully, the young man’s “tutor” makes an effort to dissuade him from his stated course, using the prescribed Talmudic formula. He also points out that Judaism embraces the possibility of righteousness among adherents of other faiths. He further explains the considerable beneficence Valentin would be able to bestow upon the Jewish People as the heir to the powerful Count Potocki.

3

Ibid., 65-66.

PORTRAITS OF PIETY

161

Valentin insists that he is aware of the risks entailed in his proposed conversion…and that his convictions are well-considered and sincere. “He preferred to be counted among the People pursued by oppressors, rather than among those peoples who pursue and oppress them.”4 Nevertheless, he undertakes to discuss the Catholic faith with a number of priests before actually effecting conversion. No mention is made by Meltzer of a trip to Rome for this purpose, as in several other accounts. Re-examination of his faith only reassures Valentin of the wisdom of his course, and he tearfully persuades his mentor no further to obstruct his conversion. The tavern-keeper consents, but explains that conversion is not possible in Catholic France. He writes to the Rabbi of Amsterdam, asking him to oversee the conversion process. Valentin travels to Holland. Convinced of his sincere commitment and “nobility of spirit,”5 the Rabbi supervises his conversion several weeks later, bestowing upon him the name Avraham ben Avraham. Meltzer’s account does not trace the religious journey of Valentin’s companion, Boris Zarembo, with equal care. His conversion, together with his wife and their young son, is subsequently mentioned only in passing. The Zarembo family lives out their years as pious Jews in the Land of Israel. Valentin daringly journeys to Vilna, in order to immerse himself in Jewish study and a life of piety. Return to his native land was particularly perilous. The influential and powerful noble family to which the Ger Tzedek had been born, with the assistance of the Roman Catholic Church, had initiated an international search for their “missing” son. Extending throughout Central and Eastern Europe, the search focused on the Jewish community, as the Potockis, based on information from their son’s associates in Paris, suspected he had converted. The Rabbis of Vilna urged the Ger Tzedek to leave the city, where he was likely to be discovered. Avraham moves to the nearby village of Iliya, a community so small that it would likely escape the notice of those in pursuit of the young nobleman.

4 5

Ibid., 67. Ibid. Hebrew: “atzilut rucho.”

162

NOBLE SOUL

In Iliya, Avraham continued his studies and his quiet, pious lifestyle. So widely known and well-publicized was the Potockis’ dragnet, however, that Iliya’s Jews begin to suspect that their Avraham ben Avraham, whom they have come to recognize as “a holy man,”6 may be “the” Ger Tzedek. After several uneventful months in Iliya, Avraham is involved in a fateful incident that leads quickly to his betrayal and arrest. A number of young boys, playing loudly in the Iliya Bet Midrash, disturb Valentin’s persistent study. They refuse to desist, despite the Ger Tzedek’s repeated requests. One child in particular purposely taunts and annoys Avraham. Avraham ultimately slaps him in the face and harshly upbraids him for his unruly behavior. According to the rendition of the incident transmitted by Yoshor, the Ger Tzedek calls the ill-mannered boy mamzer―a bastard.7 The boy reports the incident to his father, who becomes enraged at the stranger’s treatment of his son. The father refuses to accept Valentin’s apologies! Continuing the now well-established literary tradition of telling the Ger Tzedek’s story in the language of the Biblical Book of Esther, Meltzer says of the indignant father, Chamato ba’arah vo― “His anger burned within him.”8 Like King Ahashuerus, to whom these words were first applied,9 the boy’s father becomes the facilitator of a lethal plot directed against innocent Jews. He informs the authorities that young Count Valentin Potocki is the Ger Tzedek presently living in Iliya. Avraham is arrested and imprisoned. The Esther allusion also prefigures the Ger Tzedek’s demise: chamato ba’arah vo― the informant’s anger led to the burning of his victim. It should be noted that neither the occupation of the informant, nor his name is provided. These details are similarly absent from Yoshor’s account, on which Meltzer extensively draws. The father is generally described as being a tailor, and his name given as Yoshke or Yossel. Mark states his name as Titus Shroger; Schachnowitz as Lemke Kneppel.

Ibid., 69. Moshe Mayer Yoshor, Ha-Chafetz Chayim u-Fo’olo [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Netzach, 1958), 291. 8 Meltzer, 69. 9 Esther 1:12. 6 7

PORTRAITS OF PIETY

163

In prison, Valentin is visited by his family, who fruitlessly urge his return to the Catholic Church. The “exceedingly cruel torture”10 to which the Ger Tzedek is subjected in prison is similarly ineffective in achieving this end. The prisoner is sentenced to be burnt at the stake. The role assigned by Meltzer to Rabbi Elijah, the Vilna Gaon, is fascinating. Most versions of the Ger Tzedek’s biography entirely ignore the Gaon. Mark mentions him only in the context of his visit to the Ger Tzedek’s grave. Schachnowitz, as has been documented, treats him as a major force in Avraham’s life. According to Meltzer, the Gaon dispatches an emissary to visit the Ger Tzedek in prison, there to convey an unusual offer on his behalf. The Gaon offers to effect Valentin’s release from prison “by supernatural means.”11 Yoshor explains that this “apparently means by a miracle, by recourse to the mystical invocation of sacred names.”12 The Gaon’s messenger, according to Meltzer, also conveys the caveat that utilization of such extraordinary means would come at a cost: diminution of the Ger Tzedek’s portion in the Hereafter. Avraham declines the Gaon’s strange offer, preferring the sanctity of martyrdom and uncompromised divine recompense. According to Yoshor, the Gaon’s offer of mystical intervention was unqualified. That is, it would not adversely affect the Ger Tzedek’s eternal reward. Avraham declined such assistance not to preserve his heavenly inheritance, but because he embraced martyrdom as the supreme act of sanctification. Whether the Vilna Gaon was justified in withholding lifesaving measures at his disposal is a question to be debated only by the most self-assured theologians and masters of Jewish Law!! Despite his unequivocal acceptance of martyrdom, the Ger Tzedek, at the arrival of the Gaon’s emissary, was found dejected and tearful. Avraham explained his emotional state to his visitor. I am not weeping because I am to be burnt at the stake, but because of the fact that I did not have the privilege of being born a member of the People Israel. For this I am sick at heart that I have no Jewish father and mo-

Meltzer, 69. Ibid., 70. 12 Yoshor, 292. 10 11

164

NOBLE SOUL ther, and that I will not even be privileged to leave behind any Jewish children.”13

The emissary reports this conversation back to his master, who instructs him to relay to the Ger Tzedek “the meaning of the words of the prophet Isaiah.”14 The verse cited by the Gaon is Isaiah 44:6. “Thus said the Lord, the King of Israel, their Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God but Me.” The Gaon provides a detailed interpretation of the Biblical passage: “‘I am the first’ for I have no father; ‘and I am the last’ for I have no son. The meaning of the words ‘I am the first’ is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is the father of Gerei ha-Tzedek, who have no father among Israel. ‘And I am the last’―that the Holy One, Blessed be He is the posterity of those who leave behind no children.”15

If Natan Mark and Selig Schachnowitz are correct in asserting that, in his youth, Valentin Potocki was a Roman Catholic seminary student, then surely as Avraham ben Avraham he recognized the Gaon’s interpretation and its resonance in Christian Scripture, the Book of Revelation. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless…and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”16

The Revelation to John not only resolves the Ger Tzedek’s concerns regarding the quality of his parentage, but goes on more explicitly to address the issue emphasized by Meltzer: the fullness of

Meltzer, 72. Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Revelation 21:5-8. 13 14

PORTRAITS OF PIETY

165

the heavenly reward awaiting Avraham. “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”17 This “Revelation” homily by the Gaon is nowhere attested in Yoshor. Both Yoshor and Meltzer, however, do report the Inquisitors’ taunt regarding the Ger Tzedek seeking vengeance on them from the Hereafter. In both accounts, the martyr responds with the illustrative story of the mud soldiers destroyed by Valentin’s childhood friends, as in Mark and, in passing, in Schachnowitz. Meltzer, however, prefaces the story with a formal parable of a king’s son who has a falling out with a young playmate. The young prince vows that, upon succeeding to the throne, he will seek vengeance. Decades later, he becomes king and his now grown former playmate fears he will act on his childhood threat. The king, of course, is too preoccupied with the glory and responsibilities of his office to redress such a minor, past offense. The Ger Tzedek explains the significance of the parable: “So, too, it will be in the Hereafter. The kindness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, will be so great to Israel, and their condition will be so exalted and lofty, that all that the nations of the world have done to them throughout the generations, will seem an insignificant matter compared to the honor and goodness that Israel will then enjoy. The same is true of my present situation. In the World-to-Come, to which I am about to pass, is absolute Truth. Would I concern myself there with revenge against those who, in their ignorance, burned my flesh, which is but mud and dust?”18

Both Meltzer and Yoshor report that the Ger Tzedek is even more forgiving of the informant who betrayed him to the authorities. He vows to intercede on his behalf, assuring his place in the Hereafter! “For it is he who has brought me the privilege and the great good fortune of being burnt in sanctification of the Lord!”19

Revelation 22:12-13. Meltzer, 73-74. 19 Ibid., 74. 17 18

166

NOBLE SOUL

In a footnote approaching scholarly dispassion, Meltzer concedes that the populace of Iliya included “a family whose descendants suffered various disabilities and disfigurements. It is traditionally believed that the progenitor of the family was the informant who betrayed the Ger Tzedek. Apparently, the informant was cursed that his descendants would suffer disabilities.”20

It should be noted that this “alternate,” in fact dominant tradition regarding the attitude of the martyr toward his traducer is presented entirely in the passive voice. Meltzer does not indicate that it was the Ger Tzedek himself who is said to have uttered the curse. In fairness to Meltzer, the bitter words of malediction attributed to the Ger Tzedek in this situation are hardly his defining statement, and are, perhaps, properly not overemphasized. Meltzer demonstrates that a much more fitting and worthy legacy is to be found in the teaching, attributed to Avraham ben Avraham by the Chofetz Chayim, in regard to the souls of Gerei Tzedek. He is reputed to have taught that, among the various nations of the world who were offered God’s Covenant before Israel, “there were individuals who indeed wished to accept the Torah, and these individuals provide the source from which the souls of converts are supplied.”21 In is not entirely clear whether this theory suggests that Gerei Tzedek are descended from these spiritually gifted individuals… or are their reincarnation! The Ger Tzedek is furthermore said to have offered the considerably more controversial corollary that individuals among Israel were unwilling to accept the Torah, and that it is from these isolated recalcitrants that Jewish apostates are descended.22 Meltzer adds to his description of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom a detail unattested elsewhere in the martyr’s hagiography. He states that, as the flames engulf him, Avraham ben Avraham joyfully sings a line from the daily liturgy: “Yet we are Your covenanted people, the children of Abraham who loved You, to whom You gave Your Oath on Mount Moriah. We are the seed of his

Ibid. Ibid., 76. 22 Ibid. 20 21

PORTRAITS OF PIETY

167

only son, Isaac, who was bound atop the altar.”23 In the morning liturgy, this verse precedes recitation of the Shema, more commonly associated with the Ger Tzedek’s dying words. Meltzer states that his scholarly grandfather transmitted to him not only the tradition of the Ger Tzedek’s recitation of these prayerful words, but even the melody to which he sang them. Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer would, on occasion―and in particular on the night following Yom Kippur―sing the same melody. In his voice, the author writes with obvious filial love and devotion, “it seemed as if we could hear an echo of the voice of Rabbi Avraham ben Avraham, on his way up to the stake.”24 Lady Potocki, Valentin’s mother, arrives at the site of the execution with a pardon, commuting the sentence of death to imprisonment. Alas, as is well attested in many accounts, she arrives too late to save her son from the auto-da-fe. The source of the pardon is not mentioned. The martyr’s few remains are secured for proper burial by Eliezer Ziskes, who, disguised in the attire of the non-Jewish peasantry, bribes the executioners for the Ger Tzedek’s ashes. The Vilna Gaon praises Ziskes for his brave and pious act, invoking in his behalf the divine blessing of long years. The blessing proves effective, according to Vilna tradition; it is reported that the monument memorializing Ziskes in the Vilna cemetery recorded his passing at the age at 112 years!25 Although Meltzer mentions the proximity of the Vilna Gaon’s grave to that of the Ger Tzedek, he does not specifically attest that this was done in tribute to the latter, or at the behest of the former, as Mark, for example, states explicitly. The storied and wondrous tree which grew near the Ger Tzedek’s grave is described―as elsewhere― as resembling a human form: “head, body, arms, and legs.” 26 Anashim Me’Artsot ha-Chayim is the most recent thorough rendition of the Ger Tzedek tradition. It updates the martyr’s biography with two twentieth century developments. Following the first

Ibid., 74. Ibid. 25 Ibid., 75. 26 Ibid. 23 24

168

NOBLE SOUL

World War, the Jewish community of Vilna erected an iron rail around the martyr’s grave and its celebrated tree. The railing was secured with large stone blocks. Within this barrier was placed an “Ohel” -- a memorial structure housing the Ger Tzedek’s grave and bearing an identifying inscription. Although not discussed by Meltzer, both the tree and the Ohel were repeatedly vandalized, as Israel Cohen puts it, “by some malicious hand.”27 The more recent, posthumous abuse suffered by the Ger Tzedek was perpetrated by the Soviets, who entirely dismantled Vilna’s Old Cemetery in 19491950. As Meltzer notes, the Communist regime built a large athletic facility and indoor swimming pool on the sacred site. Alas, the grave to which his ashes were furtively committed, and from which a “miraculous,” pilgrimage-inspiring tree sprouted, was not to be the Ger Tzedek’s final resting place. His remains, together with those of the Vilna Gaon and his family, were temporarily transferred to Vilna’s newer Jewish cemetery, and finally reburied in a shared vault at the cemetery in Seskiniai.28 One is forced to wonder what physical remains of the Ger Tzedek were actually available for exhumation and transfer fully two hundred years after a few ashes and, according to some, a single bone were interred in Vilna’s Old Cemetery! Presumably, the earth was reverently removed from the area of the grave-site, together with whatever mortal remains it still contained. Such skepticism, however, belies the significance of this most recent memorial tribute. The Vilna Ger Tzedek’s free and passionate adoption of Judaism through conversion fires the contemporary Jewish imagination no less than the unrivalled scholarship of the Vilna Gaon. Historical events in our own generation have thus conspired to join not merely their immortal memories, but their mortal remains, in a single, inexorable bond. Their shared final destiny calls to mind the Biblical verse written in reference to two other fallen heroes of Israel: “Cherished in life, in death they would not be parted.”29

27

74.

Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1943),

Meltzer, 75-76. See also N. N. Shneidmann, Jerusalem of Lithuania (Buffalo: Mosaic Press, 1998), 160-161. 29 II Samuel 1:23. 28

CHAPTER 13 PARDONS AND POTENTATES: BENEDICT XIV & AUGUSTUS III The alleged issuance of a pardon, commuting his sentence from death to imprisonment, is a particularly tragic element of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom. The document staying the execution was, according to a variety of accounts, not delivered in time to spare the young nobleman’s life. Typical is the dramatic description provided by Henry Gersoni, who reports that “the old Lady Potozky arrived at the scaffold in the greatest haste, waving a paper in her hand. It was an autograph from the king, pardoning the offense of her son and suspending his sentence. But she had brought it just too late.” 1 In his historical novel, Saul Saphire alone suggests that several days elapsed between the martyred Ger Tzedek’s execution and delivery of the pardon. Saphire, as documented in the preceding chapter devoted to his work, attributes the delay to neither ill fortune nor uncontrollable circumstances, but to political intrigue and conspiracy. In his uniquely subversive and most popular treatment of the Ger Tzedek tradition, Alter Kacyzne writes that the pardon in fact did arrive in time to spare the condemned man from his fiery death. The elder Count Potocki, traveling to Rome to plead his son’s case, succeeds in securing a Papal pardon. It is the Ger Tzedek’s father who then decides to withhold, and finally to destroy the document, so as to spare his noble son the ignoble fate of compromise, as well as the perceived indignities of life as a Jew. “By myself in a dark room in Rome, with no one to see, I fell to my knees, bowed my grey head, kissed the

1 Henry Gersoni, “The Converted Noblemen” in Sketches of Jewish Life and History (New York: Hebrew Orphan Asylum Printing Establishment, 1873), 224.

169

170

NOBLE SOUL holy slipper, and begged for mercy for my son. A father is permitted. But he? Recant? Retreat before the judges? Before the mob? Go against his own will? His own beliefs? … A father, yes. But my son’s dignity! The honor of the young Count!”2

How and why the pardon which would have spared the Ger Tzedek from death at the stake was delayed is the subject of considerable speculation and literary license. Who was responsible? What motivated the delay? Just how late was the reprieve delivered? Numerous theories have been proposed in response to such questions. As for who actually granted the commutation of the Ger Tzedek’s sentence, the range of possibilities is considerably more limited. There appears to be a consensus that a stay of execution or pardon could have been secured from either of only two possible sources: Augustus III, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony… or Benedict XIV, who reigned as Pope at the time of the Ger Tzedek’s execution. If not conclusive in determining the source of the pardon rendered moot by mysterious circumstances, a brief examination of these two colorful contemporaries will provide valuable insights into the period in which these tragic events transpired. King Augustus III holds an unenviable place in royal history as “the most lumpish of Polish monarchs.”3 He has been described variously as “obese, indolent, and virtually incapable of thought.”4 Poland’s “most ineffective monarch”5 was “porcine.”6 Even the staid Cambridge History of Poland, observes in reference to Augustus’ ascension to the throne, that “his mental development had stopped short many years before; after his coming of age it seemed rather to

Alter Kacyzne, “Der Dukus” in Gesammelte Schriften [Yiddish] (Verlang Y. L. Peretz, 1967), 112. 3 Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way (New York: Hippocrene, 1987), 218. 4 Ibid., 211. 5 Norman Davies, Heart of Europe (Oxford University Press, 1984), 299. 6 Zamoyski, Ibid. 2

PARDONS AND POTENTATES

171

go back than forward. His interests never went beyond sensual pleasures.”7 While enjoying the perquisites of royalty, Augustus III paid precious little attention to his realm. Although reigning for thirty years, he actually spent a total of only twenty-four months in Poland! It is thus not surprising that during his unremarkable three decades on the Polish throne, “only one session of the Diet succeeded in passing any legislation at all.”8 Students of history could hardly mistake Augustus’ characterization as “a worthy successor”9 to his father as a statement of approbation. Augustus II the Strong’s final words before dying of alcohol poisoning are reported to have been, “My whole life has been one uninterrupted sin. God have mercy on me.”10 The extent of divine mercy accorded this royal transgressor is an eternal mystery…but no doubt exceeded the mercy rendered him by mortal historians. One writes that Augustus II “wasted his extraordinary talents through a lack of moral strength. His egoism consumed his latent powers; in the blaze of fleeting passions…the energy of the politician and the ability of the ruler flickered away.”11 The nature of Augustus’ “fleeting passions” is well documented. He “could fornicate on a scale which would be hardly believable if he had not left regiments of bastards to prove it.”12 In a memorably malignant estimation of Augustus II’s moral stature and historical legacy, Norman Davies describes his prolific adultery. “He left no stern unturned… Augustus would have been a great king if only his political ventures had been half as well-aimed as his spermatozoa.”13 When the profligate Augustus the Strong died, considerable conflict and political intrigue attended succession to his vacant

W. F. Reddaway et al., The Cambridge History of Poland (New York: Octagon, 1971), 29. 8 Davies, 303. 9 Zamoyski, 211. 10 Ibid. See also Reddaway, 24. 11 Reddaway, 24. 12 Zamoyski, 208. 13 Norman Davies, Europe: A History (Oxford University Press, 1996), 396. 7

172

NOBLE SOUL

throne. The Potocki clan, led by Teodor Potocki, Archbishop of Gniezno and Roman Catholic Primate of Poland, bitterly opposed the election of the late king’s son to succeed him as Augustus III. The significant influence wielded by the noble clan found expression in the Potockis’ support for Stanislas Leszczynski. The political motivation of the Archbishop, who, as Primate, assumed national leadership during the interregnum, was transparent. He intended, together with his powerful family, to rule Poland during the reign of the weak Leszczynski.14 Leszczynski was legally elected to the throne, owing his crown to the shrewd machinations of the Cardinal, and igniting the acrimonious War of Succession. The political stock of the noble Potocki family had, if only temporarily, reached its pinnacle. The king, however, was driven out by the Russians, and replaced with their submissive, tractable client, August III. Obviously, the powerful Potockis were out of favor with the new monarch. If, indeed, it was August III to whom the Potockis were compelled to appeal for a royal pardon, their efforts were complicated by their self-serving record of opposition to his succession and reign. Teodor Potocki had died eleven years earlier, in 1738. The king whom the Cardinal had all but singlehandedly denied his father’s throne must have relished the irony: the fate of an heir to the Potockis’ noble house was now solely in his hands. Further ironic were the circumstances of the appeal for clemency. The late Archbishop’s family had been scandalized by apostasy! A young scion of the Potocki clan, who might have been expected to aspire to succeed the Primate, had become a Jew! Augustus’ victory over Teodor Potocki could not have been more complete… unless, of course, the “apostate” were allowed to live out his days as enduring testimony of the Cardinal’s fall from grace! Augustus had every reason to grant a pardon…thereby placing his noble detractors profoundly in his debt. It is tempting to attribute the delay in delivering the pardon to the “lumpish” monarch’s storied inefficiency and absence from his realm. It seems safe to assume that a family with the political clout of the Potockis would have used every available resource to avoid

14

See Reddaway, 21.

PARDONS AND POTENTATES

173

the public spectacle of a family member being burnt at the stake as an apostate, even if it meant placing themselves in an enemy’s debt. If their efforts effected a royal pardon from Augustus III, it was with collective chagrin and abject abasement that they made application for his mercy. To the moral and political, bankruptcy of the Polish sovereign, Pope Benedict XIV, who reigned from 1740 to 1758, provides a dramatic and refreshing contrast. Benedict has been dubbed “the best of the eighteenth-century Popes.”15 A somewhat less restrained analysis estimates him to have been “the best and wisest of the two hundred and fifty successors of the apostles.”16 Horace Walpole eulogizes him in superlative terms, as well: “He was loved by Papists, esteemed by Protestants; a priest without insolence or interest, a prince without favourites, a Pope without nephews, a writer without vanity, the best of the Bishops of Rome.”17 The former Prospero Cardinal Lambertini was “witty and affable, humane and accessible… Unostentatiously pious, he lived simply and cultivated the informal touch, frequently walking about the city by himself and chatting with all sorts of persons. His subtle brilliance was hidden under a mask of bonhomie.”18

In describing the emergent Ger Tzedek’s experience in Rome, where he had traveled for a renewed consideration of Catholicism, Abraham Karpinowitz writes that “Valentin’s eyes were sated, but not his soul.”19 Indeed, Papal Rome under Benedict XIV offered its residents and visitors beautiful art and architecture, cultural activity and scholarly enterprise. The Pope had “enriched the Capitoline Museum with classical sculpture and founded a new academy and gallery for the encouragement of contemporary art.”20 Bene-

John Jay Hughes, Pontiffs: Popes Who Changed History (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994), 163. 16 See Nicholas Cheetham, Keepers of the Keys (New York: Scribners, 1982), 235. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid., 236. 19 Abraham Karpinowitz, Die Geschichte fun Vilner Ger Tzedek, Graf Valentin Potocki [Yiddish] (Tel Aviv: Vilner Pinkas, 1990), 63. 20 Cheetham, 237. 15

174

NOBLE SOUL

dict’s Rome rivaled Paris as “the intellectual capital of Catholic Europe.”21 Young Potocki’s journey from the French capital to Rome represents not merely a religious pilgrimage to the Mother Church of the Roman Catholic Faith…but a rarefied and worldly encounter with the very best of eighteenth century culture and scholarship. The universities in Rome and in Benedict’s native Bologna flourished during his Papacy. Benedict appointed two women as professors of mathematics and philosophy. He also expanded the study of anatomy and surgery, chemistry and physics. The Ger Tzedek must have availed himself of the recently expanded Vatican library, where the vast archives and manuscript collection was, at the Pope’s direction, newly arranged and catalogued by “a company of distinguished scholars.”22 As a kinsman of the late Primate of Poland, with whom Benedict had served in the College of Cardinals and the conclave that elected his predecessor, Clement XII, the inquisitive spiritual searcher was presumably received with a measure of deference and academic support at Papal Rome’s finest academic institutions. Benedict XIV’s enlightened progressive approach to higher education and the arts was not complemented by a liberal attitude toward Jews. It was Benedict who in 1751, two years after the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, would issue the anti-Semitic encyclical A Quo Primum. Significantly, in 1753, Benedict approved a liturgy for commemoration of Blessed Andrew of Rinn, a purported victim of Jewish ritual murder. In 1754 Benedict granted a plenary indulgence for pilgrims visiting Andrew’s shrine on his feast day. Benedict, furthermore, reaffirmed in his work, On the Canonization of Saints, the declaration by his predecessor, Sixtus V, granting similar status to Saint Simon of Trent, and the pilgrims drawn to his cultus. Blessed Andrew of Rinn and Saint Simon of Trent are the only two “victims” of Jewish ritual murder ever officially to be recognized by the Papacy. Technically, the two “martyrs” are said to have been killed in odium fidei, out of hatred for the Christian Faith. Benedict, despite his reputation as a “great, harmonious Christian

21 22

Ibid. Ibid.

PARDONS AND POTENTATES

175

personality,”23 must thus be considered a major force in the history of blood libel allegations. The broader impact of Andrew and Simon on the development of the traditions surrounding the Ger Tzedek of Vilna and his own hagiography will be examined at length in a subsequent chapter: “Redeemers and Relics in Christian Europe.” How Benedict XIV would have responded to a Potocki family appeal for clemency in the case of the Ger Tzedek―or, from the perspective of the Church, their apostate son―is impossible to determine with confidence. Certainly, this Pope’s record offers little to suggest that he harbored particular sympathy for Jews and Judaism! Perhaps the merit of the late Primate of Poland would have sufficed to secure Papal mercy. It is possible, however, that Teodor Potocki, who had brazenly manipulated royal elections so as to arrogate unrivaled temporal power, would have proved a liability in the Potocki clan’s dealings with Benedict, “a priest without insolence and interest.”24 A Polish Cardinal would not be elected Pope until 1979. Nevertheless, Teodor Potocki was a man of unbridled ambition. How this trait had impacted on his relationship to Prospero Lambertini in the college of cardinals and in the conclave which elected him Pope might well have been a determinative factor in sealing the Ger Tzedek’s fate. If, indeed, the Ger Tzedek spent a critical period of his religious journey in Rome, it is entirely plausible that he had direct contact with the Pope. Benedict, after all, is remembered as accessible to the public at large, and surely was so to noble visitors to his prized universities. Such personal acquaintance might have worked in the condemned man’s favor. On the other hand, it is unlikely that Benedict was inclined to intercede on behalf of a wealthy young nobleman who was so uninspired by his religious leadership that he abandoned his sacred studies in Rome in order to adopt Judaism! The fatefully delayed pardon has been used by dramatists to heighten suspense, and to magnify the tragedy of the Ger Tzedek’s death in the flames of the Inquisition. The tradition of the pardon has served the needs of speculative students of history, explaining

23 24

Ibid. Ibid., 235.

176

NOBLE SOUL

why a noble clan of the political stature enjoyed by the Potockis was unable to save a family member from such a horrific demise. Whether the lethal delay is to be attributed to the ineptitude of King Augustus III or the anti-Semitism of Pope Benedict XIV, to political intrigue and conspiracy, or merely to ill fortune and uncontrollable circumstance, is a debate not yet at its resolution. Despite the uncertainty of these details, the tradition of the Ger Tzedek’s pardon bespeaks the astounding power and all but boundless influence of the noble family he left behind. The life to which he was born was a class of privilege, in which a young nobleman could extricate himself from the most scandalous transgressions, the most unseemly youthful indiscretions, by means of his family’s wealth and position. It is a principled rejection of this very brand of moral relativism that the Ger Tzedek’s perilous conversion to Judaism thus represents.

CHAPTER 14 LITERARY LENS: THE BOOK OF ESTHER It is entirely understandable that a vast and vital Diaspora community such as Poland, subjugated by a generally hostile regime, perceived in the Biblical Book of Esther reflections of its own collective experience. The Biblical book, the source and liturgical centerpiece of the festival of Purim, deals with the threatened annihilation of Jews throughout the extensive Persian Empire ruled by King Ahashuerus, to whom the book’s Jewish heroine, Esther, is married. Through the intervention of the Queen and her cousin, Mordecai, the genocidal plot initiated by the King’s nefarious Prime Minister, Haman, is averted, and Persian Jewry enjoys unprecedented ascendancy. Popularized by its liturgical role, the Book of Esther’s dramatic themes of threatened destruction, political intrigue, and miraculous salvation have provided diverse Jewish communities the literary building blocks of a collective autobiography. Despite its rampant poverty, political subjugation, and legal disabilities, Polish Jewry represented a vibrant civilization. This civilization, until decimated in the Holocaust, flourished for a millenium. Rabbi Moses Isserles (the “Rema”) suggested in an oft cited quip that Poland took its name from two Hebrew words: “po lin”―“Here (Israel) shall rest.”1 It is a bitter historical irony that the term Poland actually derives from that nation’s flat terrain, reminiscent of a battlefield. Such a field, providing visibility conducive to pre-modern warfare, is designated by the Polish term “pole.” In twentieth century retrospect, such an etymology is considerably more descriptive of the Polish Jewish experience than that suggested by the Rema: a field of bloody battle, not a place of rest and respite.

1 See Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) Vol. XIII, 711; citing Isserles Responsum #73.

177

178

NOBLE SOUL

Nevertheless, Polish Jewry came to explain its perceived collective good fortune and relative well-being by means of a legend closely linked to the Book of Esther. The legend told of Esterke,2 the Jewish mistress of the fourteenth century King Casimir the Great. She was said to have borne him four children, and to have played a decisive role in his pro-Jewish policies. Esterke, who was killed in a pogrom following the King’s death, was first mentioned by the fifteenth century Polish historian Dlugosz. This legend suggests that Polish Jewry saw itself as involved in a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, yet one not entirely analogous to a loving or licit marriage. The Rema, whose sixteenth century Cracow synagogue survived the Holocaust and still stands, also seized on language associated with Purim and Esther to adjure the religious community in his charge to lead lives of devotion and piety. “For truly, whosoever follows the counsel of the Torah, experiences thereby feasting and merrymaking. For whosoever eats good-naturedly and is satisfied with the bare necessities, contents himself with his portion, enjoys serenity and confident faith, and trusts that his God will provide his daily bread and remove anxiety from his heart, and all this comes to man through adherence to the Torah, in so doing will find always feasting and merrymaking and a holiday (mishteh v ‘simchah v’yom tov).”3

Isserles, Poland’s halachic luminary takes his wording directly from the injunction in Esther 9:19 to establish Purim as a festival commemorating the salvation of Persian Jewry: “Make it a day of merrymaking and feasting and a holiday (simchah u-mishteh v’yom tov).” The Esterke legend framed the flourishing Jewish condition in Poland in terms of the ascendant Jews depicted in the Biblical Book of Esther. Complementing this antecedent “founding myth,” the Rema’s paean to piety describes Jewish religious life in terms of the joy and satiety associated with Purim, us-

2 See Geoffrey Wigoder, ed., The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 640. 3 See Asher Ziv, Ha-Rema: Rabbi Moshe Isserles [Hebrew] Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1957), 139-140.

LITERARY LENS: THE BOOK OF ESTHER

179

ing language from the Biblical book prescribing that celebratory festival. Following his esteemed predecessor’s example, Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman (1843-1941), the leading halachic authority in turnof-the-century Germany, also made frequent and carefully crafted references to the Book of Esther in Melamed Le-ho’il, his highly respected collection of responsa. In a ruling from the closing years of the nineteenth century, affirming the Jew’s obligation to serve in the German army, Hoffman depicts anti-Semitic elements in German society as a relevant datum to be considered. “For those who hate Israel say that Jews do not obey the laws of the kingdom (einam osim et datei ha-malchut).”4 Hoffman here clearly alludes to Esther 3:8, in which Haman, determined to annihilate Persian Jewry, tells Ahashuerus: “There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people, and who do not obey the king’s laws (et datei ha-melech einam osim).” It should be noted that a contemporary author, Charles E. Silberman, made allusion to this very verse in the self-conscious title of his prize-winning 1985 analysis of Jewish ascendancy (despite “a residue of anti-Semitism”)5 in America: A Certain People. “One of the glories of American society is its everincreasing ability to regard group differences as sources of vitality and strength rather than of weakness. There is a striking parallel, therefore, between the Book of Esther’s legend of salvation…and the post-World War II experience of American Jews, who have moved from the periphery of American society into its mainstream.”6

4 David Tzvi Hoffman, Melamed Le-ho’il, 1:42. I am indebted for this analysis of Hoffman to Rabbi Daniel Gordis, who lectured on “The Book of Esther in the Responsa Literature” at the 1995 convention of the Rabbinical Assembly. 5 Charles E. Silberman, A Certain People (New York: Summit, 1985), 366. 6 Ibid., 9-10.

180

NOBLE SOUL

Concerning the case of a Jew’s employment by a firm with business practices seemingly in clear violation of Sabbath laws, Hoffman also sees just such a “striking parallel,” sympathizing with his spiritual constituent in the following terms. “His very life is at stake in his question (nafsho b’sh’eilato).”7 Again, the Rabbinic decisor draws upon the language of Esther. When she finally reveals her plight to Ahashuerus, Esther says, “It is for my very life that I must ask (nafshi b’sh’eilati), and for my people that I plead.”8 Hoffman understood that the individual existence of his interrogator was no less at risk than the future of the Jewish community depicted in the Biblical book he quoted. The same literary technique is employed in a responsum written in reference to the marital status of a poor Jewish woman exploited and abandoned by her common-law husband. Hoffman builds a halachic case allowing her to “re”-marry. He repeatedly describes the depth of her desperation with language borrowed directly from the Book of Esther: “a terrible fate had befallen her (kaltah eileha ha-ra’ah).”9 Ironically, this expression is applied by the Biblical book to the downfall of Haman: “He saw that a terrible fate had befallen him (kaltah eilav ha-ra’ah) in the king’s determination.”10 Rabbi Daniel Gordis documents that these allusions are by no means isolated phenomena in Hoffman’s responsa. “The Biblical book he most often quotes is the Book of Esther.”11 Hoffman led a German Jewish community which, for the first time in history, had the options of radical assimilation through the process of emancipation…as well as alternative religious opportunities in the camp of Reform Judaism. Less than fifty years before Hitler’s rise, Hoffman was forced to consider these social factors, as well as the constant threat of financial ruin and the specter of anti-Semitism, in prescribing religious policy for Germany’s traditional Jews. If only somewhat less dramatically, Hoffman’s concern was very much the

Hoffman, 1:40. Esther 7:3. 9 Hoffman, 111:4. 10 Esther 7:7. 11 Rabbi Daniel Gordis, “The Book of Esther in the Responsa Literature.” Lecture presented at 1995 convention of the Rabbinical Assembly. 7 8

LITERARY LENS: THE BOOK OF ESTHER

181

concern of Esther: the survival of the Jewish community. If that survival was not yet in grievous physical peril, the communal distinctiveness and religious integrity of German Jewry, the survival of Jewish religious life, did indeed hang in the balance. Hoffman well understood the nature of his religious community. “A people desperately struggling to survive… Here’s a community on the precipice…and there’s no way to make that question more poignant than by quoting the Book of Esther relatively briefly… The analogy to his own situation in Germany is overwhelming.”12

The poignancy of literary allusion to the Book of Esther in conjuring the drama of the Jewish condition and its tenuity has been recognized by writers of fiction, as well as Rabbis and sociologists. In The Gun Runner’s Daughter, published in 1998, novelist Neil Gordon spins a tale of political intrigue involving illegal arms trading under the rubric of a covert Israeli foreign policy and principled Zionist activity by Jews of the Diaspora. Gordon introduces his title character as “Allison Rosenthal, née Esther, that is, the courtesan who during the Babylonian exile sacrificed herself to save the Jews.”13 The novelist would have demonstrated greater precision and familiarity with the Biblical text by saying that Esther “risked sacrificing herself.” With improved accuracy, if a marked lack of subtlety, Gordon introduces each section of his novel with verses quoted from the Book of Esther. This technique is, presumably, intended to dramatize the threats faced by the modern Jewish State, as well as the sophisticated political machinations and personal manipulations at which Allison Rosenthal and her Biblical namesake were both so very adept. The memory of the martyred Ger Tzedek, faithfully and reverently transmitted by the Jews of Vilna, readily lent itself to comparisons with the Book of Esther. As only slightly overstated by Neil Gordon, one of the primary similarities between the Ger Tzedek and Queen Esther is their shared sense of sacrificial devo-

Ibid. Neil Gordon, The Gunrunner’s Daughter (New York: Random House, 1998), 7. 12 13

182

NOBLE SOUL

tion. Esther chose a perilous course: she would, in violation of the law, approach the king uninvited in order to plead the case of the Jewish People. In so doing, she was willing to abandon the comforts and privilege of the royal station to which she had attained. She fully recognized the mortal danger inherent in her decision: “If I am to perish, I shall perish!” 14 The young nobleman venerated as the Ger Tzedek of Vilna followed a very similar course. He abandoned the comforts and privilege of the (all but royal) noble station to which he was born, together with its prospects and power, to approach the Divine King, and to cast his “lot” with the Jewish People. As Jewish proselytism was forbidden in the Ger Tzedek’s homeland, and voluntary conversion to Judaism a capital offense, he surely did so uninvited, and in violation of the law. This most basic connection between the Lithuanian nobleman and the Biblical Queen finds expression in Natan Mark’s Ben haRozen. Having legally converted to Judaism in liberal Amsterdam, the Ger Tzedek determined, at great peril, to return to his native Vilna. He did so “knowing that should his presence within the borders of his homeland become known to the Church, there would be but one law for him (achat dato).”15 As explained in the previous chapter on Mark’s book, achat dato l’hamit― “There would be but one law for him: to be put to death”16 is the verse from Esther in reference to the fatal consequences, even for the Queen, of intruding uninvited on the royal court. The critical conclusion of the verse―“to be put to death”―is left implied in Mark’s book, on the assumption that the reader, recognizing the Biblical reference, will understand that execution is intended. Clearly, it is not merely the perilous nature of his religious journey which has inspired a consistent pattern of reference to Esther among chroniclers of the Ger Tzedek’s life… it is the very fact of his conversion. The widespread conversion to Judaism reported in the Biblical book is the subject of the first explicit literary

14 Esther 4:16. As to the continuing literary use of this verse, see Evelyn Monahan, And If I Perish (New York: Knopf, 2003), documenting the wartime experiences of U.S. Army nurses. 15 Natan Mark, Ben Ha-Rozen [Hebrew] (Haifa: Renaissance, 1968). 48. 16 Esther 4:11.

LITERARY LENS: THE BOOK OF ESTHER

183

allusion to Esther to be found in the body of literature devoted to the Ger Tzedek’s life story. In Chazon la-Moed, published in 1877 in Vienna, Benjamin Mandelstamm relates the conversion of the Ger Tzedek with language uniquely resonant of the Book of Esther: hityahed echad me’ha-partemim―“One of the noblemen converted to Judaism.”17 The term here rendered “noblemen” (partemim) is found, as previously discussed, twice in the Book of Esther18 and once in the Book of Daniel19 (also a “Diaspora” book), to designate a member of the aristocracy. The use of this unusual term in conjunction with the verb “converted to Judaism” (hityahed), identifies the Biblical text intended by the reference unmistakably as Esther. In the entire Biblical Canon, this unconventional expression for conversion appears only in Esther 8:17. “And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews (mityahadim); for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.” The role of the Book of Esther as a literary resource for the emerging biography of the Ger Tzedek finds its most extensive expression in the third act of Kacyzne’s “Der Dukus,” as detailed above. Purim songs are sung and cited, liturgical practices of the Purim service are reflected, intemperate drinking, a hallmark of the festival based on the Book of Esther, is in clear evidence in the wine cellar in which the act is set. Accordingly, the town Rabbi is irreverently dubbed a “Purim Rabbi.”20 The tragic “leading lady” of the drama, Nechamala, is first described as the “town whore.”21 Once her power to intercede with the “Dukus” in behalf of the Jewish population under his domain is identified, however, she is described as “a queen! Truly a queen!”22 Like Esther, she declines to be dressed in jewels. A leading member of the Rabbi’s circle declares, “Not just once have

17 Benjamin Mandelstamm, Chazon la-Moed (Vienna: Brog & Smolensky, 1877). 15. 18 Esther 1:3 and 6:9. 19 Daniel 1:3. 20 Alter Kacyzne, “Der Dukus” in Gesammelte Schriften [Yiddish] Verlag Y. L. Petetz, 1967). p. 81. 21 Ibid., 80ff. 22 Ibid., 94.

184

NOBLE SOUL

Jews escaped danger and fatal decrees through the efforts of women.”23 The reference to Esther could hardly be clearer. If Kacyzne’s Nechamala provides a somewhat tortured recreation of the Biblical Esther, a more wholesome and endearing portrayal is to be found in Schachnowitz’s Abraham Sohn Abrahams. The heroine of this rendition of the Ger Tzedek saga is the young nobleman’s Jewish inspiration and, in his perception, the context of his religious conversion and personal transformation. The inspiring young Jewess bears the name of her royal, Biblical forbear: Esther. The character of Esther is reprised by Natan Mark in his book on the Ger Tzedek, based extensively on Schachnowitz, and written for a youthful Israeli readership. Mark further develops the tradition of allusion to Esther by repeatedly incorporating phrases familiar from that Biblical Book into his own narrative, particularly at decisive junctures in his plot. “On that night, sleep eluded Valentin,”24 just as it did King Ahashuerus in Esther 6:1. The young Count acknowledges the perilous nature of his religious journey in language borrowed from Esther 4:11, and the “bewilderment”25 of the Jews of Ilye in response to the Ger Tzedek’s imprisonment echoes the description of the Jewish population in Shushan upon learning of the royal decree signaling their destruction (Esther 3:15) ―“ha-ir…navochah.” The resonance of Ahasuerus’ lethal decree is also to be detected in Mark’s description of young Potocki’s single-minded persistence. In reference to his decisions, first to travel to Paris to study, and then to convert to Judaism, the aspiring Ger Tzedek repeats, “I shall not recant (lo ashuv)!”26 The same verb is employed in Esther to signify the irrevocable nature of the decree against Persian Jewry: “ein l’hashiv” (see 8:8). Similarly, in Ben-David’s 1938 drama, the Ger Tzedek confronts the elder Count Potocki with the very words with which Ahashuerus indicted Haman, upon learning of his threat to Esther and her people: “Who is it?! Where is the man who molests

Ibid. Mark, 35. 25 Ibid., 58. 26 Ibid., 8, 36. 23 24

LITERARY LENS: THE BOOK OF ESTHER

185

women?!”27 (See Esther 7:5.) To alert his audience to the Biblical context of this allusion, Ben-David on the preceding page(!) includes the reassuring words of a popular Purim song: “ki imanu el” ―“For God is with us!”28 The elder Potocki’s power and subjugation of the Jewish community, his near royal status, may readily invite comparisons to the Biblical Haman. In most accounts of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, however, the role of villain is more accurately assigned to the Jew, generally identified as a tailor, who betrays the former nobleman to the authorities, knowing he would be killed as an apostate to Judaism. This betrayal is occasioned by the Ger Tzedek’s minor altercation with the tailor’s ill-mannered son. Yedael Meltzer, writing in 1996, continues the tradition of his literary forbears, by poetically weaving the language of Esther into his prose. Conveying the depth of the traducer’s resentment toward the Ger Tzedek, Meltzer writes, Chamato ba’arah vo―“His anger burned within him”29…as it did within Esther’s king, in the opening chapter of that Biblical Book.30 Just as the Book of Esther spoke with poignant clarity to the leader of Germany’s Jewish religious community on the eve of the twentieth century, it effectively evoked the reality of eighteenth century Jewish life in despotic Poland, and the task of those who memorialized the martyred Ger Tzedek. “If we attend to Esther’s recurrent motifs and its patterns of arrangement and style, we see that they conduce to this one theme: to mitigate the real anxieties of Jews living as a minority in a largely non-Jewish society, Jews fantasize that it is they who dominate, not they who are victimized.”31

27

58.

Israel H. Ben-David, Graf Pototski [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Shnir, 1940),

Based on Isaiah 8:10. Yedael Meltzer, Anashim me’Artsot ha-Chayim [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Arzei ha-Hen, 1996), 69. 30 Esther 1:12. 31 Edward L. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther” in Jacob Neusner et. al., ed., Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 233. 28 29

186

NOBLE SOUL

Professor Edward L. Greenstein explains that this theme is developed through a sustained pattern of “reversals.” “Mordecai supplants Haman. Haman is actually impaled on the edifice he had built for Mordecai (7:10), and the king takes the royal signet-ring he had given to Haman and presents it to the Jew (8:2). Esther then places Haman’s household under Mordecai’s charge (8:2), and the story ends by telling us that Mordecai the Jew was made the king’s second-in-command in Haman’s place (10:3).” 32

The various reversals characterizing the individual relationship of Mordecai and Haman, are reflected on a collective level by the changing roles of the Jewish People and their persecutors among the hostile Persian community. Once in power, Mordecai decrees that his coreligionists may “destroy, kill, and annihilate”33 their attackers, co-opting the very language of Haman’s earlier decree aimed at annihilation of Persia’s Jews. “The transposition of the Jews and the dominant Persians in the narrative is consummated when many Gentiles within the Persian empire ‘become Jews’… This unexpected and perhaps even preposterous turn of events inverts the historically much more common situation in which Jews, being in the minority in the Diaspora, assimilated to the majority… On Purim, however, the Jew imagines a circumstance in which a Persian would want to act Jewish.”34

The Jews of Vilna, as well as their religious and literary heirs to this very day, have identified precisely such a circumstance in the conversion to Judaism of a young Polish aristocrat from the house of Potocki. The fact that the Ger Tzedek, unlike Esther’s Jews, did not escape his oppressors’ murderous designs, in no way diminished his legacy. Quite the contrary. As his chroniclers’ frequent recourse to the text of Esther suggests, the Ger Tzedek, like the “preposterous” conversions recorded in the Book of Esther,

Ibid., 235. Esther 3:13. 34 Greenstein, 237. 32 33

LITERARY LENS: THE BOOK OF ESTHER

187

served those who safeguarded his memory as compelling evidence of God’s Providence. The institution of conversion he so famously exemplifies, more than a welcome if “unexpected” dynamic, is to be esteemed as a step in the Redemptive process, to which Jews in every age have looked forward with such hope and anticipation.

CHAPTER 15 LITERARY LENS: REDEEMERS AND RELICS IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE Persistent reference to the Book of Esther was an effective stratagem in perpetuating the Ger Tzedek’s memory among his new coreligionists. Esther was a testament to Jewish hope and divine providence. Due to its liturgical role in the joyous observance of Purim, and because of its accessible style, Esther was a beloved Biblical text, with which every segment of the Jewish community was well acquainted. This literary trend, documented in the preceding chapter, no doubt elicited a very different response among those who viewed the Ger Tzedek saga from a Christian perspective. “Jews have tended to love Esther while Christians, particularly since Martin Luther, harshly rejected it… Taken as a historical narrative, Esther, in Hermann Gunkel’s words, ‘cannot be read by a Christian or a non-Jew without great distaste.’”1 The ascendant lot of the Jewish People in Esther is a central source of Christian “distaste.” As the Biblical source for the observance of Purim, a holiday entirely foreign to the Christian tradition, Esther was relegated to the periphery of the sacred canon. Indeed, numerous Christian authorities (as well as some among Jewish reformers) advocated Esther’s removal from the canon altogether. The revenge the Jews finally exact repels many commentators. As Bernhard W. Anderson has put it, the Jews’ “unblushing vindictiveness stand[sI in glaring contradiction to the Sermon on the Mount.” 2

1 Edward L. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther” in Jacob Neusner et. al., ed., Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress press., 1987), 225. 2 Ibid., 236.

189

190

NOBLE SOUL

Presentation of the Ger Tzedek’s biography in terms associated with the Book of Esther bespeaks the affection and esteem in which the martyr is held among Jews. The biblical motif suggests the redemptive quality generations of Jewish pilgrims perceived in his conversion. To those who viewed the martyred nobleman from a Christian perspective, however, repeated allusion to the Book of Esther represented an acrimonious indictment. It was, after all, the “unblushing vindictiveness” of the Church, which tortured and cruelly executed a young count for his principled conversion to Judaism, that “stands in glaring contrast to the Sermon on the Mount.” The execution of the Ger Tzedek was, furthermore, not an isolated instance of ecclesiastical execution of Jews. “Ritual murder and host desecration charges increased alarmingly in the eighteenth century to become almost an annual affair, with the usual executions in their wake.”3 “The course the accusation took was complicated and aggravated by popular veneration of some of its victims. Six became subjects of popular devotions, involving miracles and pilgrimages, which lasted in some cases for centuries. Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) issued a bull on Blessed Andrew of Rinn (Beatus Andreas) in 1755… This document evinces his belief in murder of Christians by some Jews, inspired by a ‘hatred of Christ.’”4

In 1752, three years after the Ger Tzedek’s execution, Benedict wrote directly to the bishops of the Polish Church, lamenting that the flourishing Jewish community in Poland was “undermining the existence of Christians.”5 In this hostile and precarious reli-

Edward Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 158. 4 Ibid. 5 Ronald Modras, The Catholic Church and Anti-Semitism: Poland 19331939 (Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994), 99. In his scathing indictment of Pope Pius XII, John Cornwell reports on a similar theological posture expressed in an unpublished Papal encyclical, c. 1950: “The text gives vent to the ‘spiritual dangers’ that attend ‘exposure to Jews, so long as their unbelief and enmity to Christianity continue.” Cornwell, Hitler’s 3

LITERARY LENS: REDEEMERS AND RELICS

191

gious milieu, the Jews of Vilna audaciously initiated their own martyr cult, replete with “popular veneration” and a centuries-long practice of pilgrimages. Like the Christian cults to which much of the Ger Tzedek’s cultus appears to have evolved in response, the martyr also came to be associated with miracles: specifically, the wondrous tree, resembling a human form, which sprouted from his grave. The tradition that a single bone of the Ger Tzedek was recovered from the pyre for burial is reminiscent of the common veneration of similar “relics” by Christian pilgrims. Relics of a single saint or martyr were often interred or displayed at a variety of locations for just that purpose. Eight Roman churches, for example, claim to contain all or part of the skeletal remains of Saint Valentine. Henry Gersoni, first to mention the Ger Tzedek’s previously unattested Christian name as “Valentine,” may well have had just this similarity in mind. Roman Catholic veneration of saintly relics continues unabated as the third Christian millennium commences. The remains of Saint Therese of Lisieux were brought to the United States on October 5, 1999 for a four-month tour (actually, “half her remains… the other half of her bones have remained in France”). The bones, encased in an elaborate reliquary, were “presented at Masses and vigils at more than 115 monasteries, shrines, and churches… The saint’s popularity has meant that even a fourmonth tour has not satisfied the demand among Catholics in the United States to see her remains.”6 The Jews of eighteenth century Vilna were in no position freely or explicitly to dispute the blood libels and ritual murder accusations to which they were subjected with such horrific regularity. Their devoted veneration of the Ger Tzedek was an ironic reframing of the ritual murder canard. The victim-martyr they commemorated was not secretly murdered, but publicly executed, with the full authority of the Church’s religious hierarchy and, indeed, at their behest. In short, by modeling their veneration of the Ger Tzedek on cults such as that of Blessed Andrew of Rinn, the Jews

Pope (New York: Viking, 1999), 191. 6 C. J. Chivers, “Saint’s Bones Land in New York to Start U.S. Tour” in The New York Times, October 6, 1999; p. B-3.

192

NOBLE SOUL

of Vilna subtly contended that it was not they, but the Roman Catholic Church that was guilty of “ritual murder.” The cult of Andrew of Rinn, whose murder was recognized by the Church as “in odium fidei” (out of hatred of the Christian Faith) soon after the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, has a long and remarkable history. Andrew, or “Anderl,” was allegedly murdered by Jews in 1462. His bones were buried in the parish church near Innsbruck, Austria, as relics for a local cult. The cult flourished through the 1950’s. Near the altar, the murder of the child was graphically depicted in statuary. In 1951, Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote of his visit to the church, and of “full cars and busloads of children making annual pilgrimages to Rinn under the tutelage of their religious instructors to see the ritual murder lie depicted as a historical event.”7 A 1952 visitor reported that “he purchased souvenir postcards in the shop located conveniently and immediately across from the church.”8 In 1961, Pope John XXIII ordered that the cult of Andrew be suppressed, having been based on a spurious legend. Despite the papal order to remove the statuary, the display remained intact and the cult continued. The local bishop, Reinhold Stecher, had greater success in suppressing the cult. In 1985, the relics were removed from the church for reburial in the churchyard, although some conservative Church members to this day continue to make annual pilgrimages to his grave. In 1994, the Rinn church’s depiction of the alleged ritual murder was replaced by a painting of Jesus surrounded by children. Plaques were placed nearby, reminding visitors of the long history of Christian anti-Semitism and the resultant Jewish suffering. It is precisely such a reversal that was first suggested by those who subverted the blood libel myth by venerating the Ger Tzedek in a manner so closely analogous to the cults surrounding supposed victims of ritual murder. An additional area of interplay between Christian piety and the details of the Ger Tzedek’s biography is the tradition that the nobleman was, prior to his conversion to Judaism, a student in a Roman Catholic seminary. According to some accounts, he was

7 Alan Dundes, “The Ritual Murder or Blood Libel Legend” in R. PoChia Hsia, ed., The Myth of Ritual Murder (Yale, 1988), 342. 8 Ibid.

LITERARY LENS: REDEEMERS AND RELICS

193

preparing for the priesthood. Saint John Collegium, a Jesuit Institution founded in 1570, is specifically identified by Schachnowitz and Mark. Schachnowitz, referring to young Potocki as a friar, reflects on the ecclesiastical prospects of a young seminarian from the family of Cardinal Teodor Potocki, Archbishop of Gniezno and Roman Catholic Primate of Poland. “The road to the Vatican was paved before him; the red mantle of the cardinals was already guaranteed… A Polish-born cardinal educated in Lithuanian Vilna who was also a scion of one of the noblest families was the ideal person to represent the interests of East Europe’s Catholics in the Vatican.”9

Even Schachnowitz, writing in the early twentieth century, could not guess that 230 years after the Ger Tzedek’s death a Polish-born cardinal would, indeed, ascend the throne of Saint Peter, and represent the interests of East Europe’s Catholic’s with unprecedented puissance. As Pope John Paul II, he would also normalize diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the sovereign State of Israel. The conversion to Judaism of a Roman Catholic seminarian is not a unique occurrence. In his chapter on “Apostates and Proselytes” in the Middle Ages and early modernity, Jacob Katz reflects on this phenomenon. “It was this kind of person who would have been inclined to ponder religious matters and conceivably to have come to the conclusion that the Jewish tradition was the true interpretation of the Old Testament, which served as a basis for both the Christian and the Jewish religions.”10

In his autobiographical memoir, Ordained to Be a Jew, John David Scalamonti, a former Roman Catholic priest, writes of his subsequent conversion to Judaism and life as an Orthodox Jew. “In retrospect, it seems to me that I did not truly begin to live my vows until, as a Jew, I became a husband and

9 Selig Schachnowitz, Avrohom ben Avrohom [English adaptation by Yehoshua Leiman] (Jerusalem: Feidheim, 1977), 21. 10 Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Oxford, 1961), 79.

194

NOBLE SOUL father. What could a vow of poverty mean to me when I never had to pay bills or provide for children… As for the vow of chastity, its full meaning can only be appreciated when one is a married man, bound to be faithful to his wife. And insofar as obedience is concerned, I had only one superior to obey and answer to under my vow. Today, I have five, my wife and four children whom I must obey. And I have had superiors at work to whom obedience was due, else I would be without employment.”11

Echoing Katz, Scalamonti describes Judaism as “a beautiful religion and, I believe, the true one.”12 The suggestion that the Ger Tzedek of Vilna found Judaism, at least in part, as a result of his preparation for the Roman Catholic priesthood is entirely plausible, and not without parallels in the historic record. The theme of the Ger Tzedek’s priestly status reinforces his redemptive character. Catholic doctrine teaches, “Sacerdos alter Christus”―“the priest is another Christ,” a principle to which Scalamonti repeatedly alludes. A classical guide, written “to help all priests to lead a life conformable to their sublime vocation,”13 explains “this ancient and venerable phrase”14 in explicit terms: “A holy priest is a saviour and another Christ, taking the Master’s place on earth, representing Him… He is consecrated to exercise the highest functions Christ ever performed on earth, to continue the work of salvation. In imitation of his Redeemer, he gives himself, mind, heart, affections, strength, time, all for God. He is ever ready to sacrifice his very blood and even life itself to procure the salvation of souls.”15

11 John David Scalamonti, Ordained to be a Jew (Hoboken: KTAV, 1992), 39. 12 Ibid., 145. 13 St. John Eudes, The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1.947), “Introduction.” 14 Welhelm Stockums, The Priesthood (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books, 1938), 20. 15 Eudes, 12.

LITERARY LENS: REDEEMERS AND RELICS

195

Thus, the Ger Tzedek’s status as a seminarian serves to strengthen the polemical nature of his cultus. The execution of the converted nobleman is not merely the act of “ritual-murderers,” but of “Christ-killers.” One may well question who among the Hebrew and Yiddish chroniclers of the Ger Tzedek’s life was sufficiently conversant with Catholic theology to make such calculated use of the principle “Sacerdos alter Christus.” Kraszewski’s original Polish account, however, makes it clear that young Potocki studied theology and, while in Rome, undertook studies at the “Papal Academy.” Later Jewish writers may simply and reasonably have assumed that the studies mentioned by Kraszewski were the formal training of a seminarian. Assertion of his priestly status is, however, hardly the only literary parallel between the Ger Tzedek of Vilna and the Christian Savior. Religious iconoclasts, both are betrayed to the authorities by a Jewish associate from whom loyalty should have been expected. Both are tortured and executed by an oppressive regime. The tradition that the family of the Ger Tzedek’s traducer suffered the effects of a curse for ten generations parallels the “bloodcurse” pronounced by the jeering Jewish mob described by Matthew in his account of the Crucifixion: “His blood be on us and on our children!”16 The literary development of the Ger Tzedek as a reflection of the Christian Savior finds its most elaborate expression in Selig Schachnowitz’s Abraham Sohn Abrahams. The treacherous Jewish informant’s similarity to Judas is emphasized by his hinted suicide. In Matthew, a remorseful Judas hangs himself. It should be noted that the Jewish traducer is also hanged in Saul Saphire’s historical novel of the Ger Tzedek. Schachnowitz opens his rendition of the Ger Tzedek’s religious journey with a similarly telling parallel to the life of Jesus of Nazareth. A young Count Potocki rescues a Jewish girl, Esther, from a hostile mob, which would have killed her because of a religious offense. Like Mary Magdalene, Esther becomes a loving devotee of her “savior.” Mary Magdalene was the first to approach

16

Matthew 27:25.

196

NOBLE SOUL

Jesus’ tomb; it was Esther, according to Schachnowitz, who conveyed the Ger Tzedek’s remains to the grave. The Ger Tzedek’s mother, Countess Potocki, like Mary, mother of Jesus, is―in Schachnowitz―present at her son’s execution. Appearing “like a saint carved in black marble,”17 the countess attempts in vain to halt the execution of her son. “The apparition that blocked the path before Avrohom and his executioners loomed like the ‘Holy Mother’ herself. It was as if she had stepped off her pedestal in the Ostra Brama church and now stood, arms spread apart, blessing, entreating, and commanding.”18

A further parallel between the Ger Tzedek and Jesus is unique to the work of Schachnowitz. The author provides a detailed chronology of the martyr’s life, beginning at age twenty with his rescue of Esther. At the time of his execution, the Ger Tzedek is thirtythree years of age, as was Jesus at the Crucifixion. With blue eyes, blonde beard, and a “fervid, thin body,”19 the martyr is described in terms commonly associated with popular depictions of the Christian Savior. Like Jesus, the Ger Tzedek lives out his thirty-three years in chastity: first as a Roman Catholic Seminarian and, as a Jew, condemned to die before managing to marry. Schachnowitz bestows a decidedly other-worldly character on the Ger Tzedek in describing his hopes of bringing peace and unity ―indeed, Redemption―to the Jewish People. This can be seen clearly in Leiman’s English rendition, generously sprinkled with Hebraisms. “Am Yisroel [‘the People Israel’], waiting for the voice that will come from Tziyon [‘Zion’]. Moshiach [‘Messiah’―the Hebrew form, Moshiach, is retained in the German original] on his way. I, Avrohom ben Avrohom, am called from a foreign world to announce this new era, in which a new light will appear over the world, and all who see it will recognize the truth.” 20

Schachnowitz [Leiman translation], 207. Ibid. 19 Ibid., 118. 20 Ibid., 129. 17 18

LITERARY LENS: REDEEMERS AND RELICS

197

While “foreign world” appears simply to refer to the Ger Tzedek’s former life as a Gentile, it is difficult to ignore the supernatural resonance of such a formulation, particularly in the context of Messianic speculation and recurrent Christian imagery. In describing his own sense of “mission,” the Ger Tzedek reinforces this supernatural mystique: “I will chase the Soton [‘Satan’] away. The fog will dissipate, and the sun will shine in all its glory.”21 To summarize: the Ger Tzedek has come from a “foreign world” to defeat Satan, and to inaugurate a new era of peace and truth. His earthly mission is cut short, however, by the betrayal of a treacherous fellow Jew. His mother, explicitly compared to the Virgin Mary― indeed, mistaken for her― grieves at the public execution of her thirty-three year old son. He is borne to his grave by a loving devotee, a woman he had saved from a murderous mob, incited by her religious offense. His memory and remarkable life are venerated by generations of pious pilgrims who bear witness to a miraculous tree, with unmistakable human features, rising from his grave. The Ger Tzedek, before embracing Judaism, undertook a course of seminary studies, it appears, in preparation for the Roman Catholic priesthood. The young seminarian, however, would renounce his Church before attaining the status of “another Christ.” It is possible that the Christian imagery, artfully woven into the literary record of the Ger Tzedek’s selfless religious journey, is intended to betoken his priestly origins. It seems considerably more likely that this striking religious motif conveys a simpler assertion. In words first applied to certain American Jews in 1737 by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, the Ger Tzedek of Vilna was “nearer the mind that was in Christ than many of those who called Him Lord.”22

Ibid., 160. See Rufus Learsi, The Jews in America: A History (New York: KTAV, 1972), 34. 21 22

CHAPTER 16 CONCLUSIONS Avraham ben Avraham, by some accounts Rabbi Avraham ben Avraham, the Ger Tzedek of Vilna and scion of the noble house of Potocki, embraced Judaism out of sincere conviction. The price for his choice, for his conversion, was dear. Renouncing wealth and power beyond royalty, and inestimable worldly prospects, he joined a besieged religious community his noble class was raised to disdain. He found his personal identity and spiritual home in a religious tradition which was anathema to the lofty station to which he was born. As is well documented, however, the Ger Tzedek did not merely forgo an enviable lifestyle: he paid with his life itself for his new religious faith. He was traduced and betrayed by a fellow Jew, a member of the covenanted community he had eagerly and passionately chosen as his own. This treachery, by one from whom the Ger Tzedek was entitled to protection and love, threw him into the loneliness and deprivation of prison, the pain and indignities of torture, and, finally, the horror of a brutal, medieval execution. The martyr was publicly burnt at the stake by the Church his noble family had supported and served at the highest ecclesiastical levels… the Church, it is widely asserted, which the young nobleman himself had once intended to serve as a priest. Like Rabbi Akiba, to whom he has frequently been compared, the Ger Tzedek of Vilna died with the Shema, the traditional affirmation of Jewish faith, on his lips. In so doing, he embodied the words of the Mishna in reference to this central prayer of Jewish life. “One is obligated to bless God when suffering evil, just as one blesses God when experiencing good. As it is written, ‘You shall love the Lord your God… ‘with all your soul’ ― that is, even if he

199

200

NOBLE SOUL

takes your life.”1 The Mishna itself reprises the steadfast faith of the Biblical sufferer Job: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.”2 For generations following his death, the Ger Tzedek of Vilna enjoyed loving veneration by devoted and pious pilgrims, at least in part precisely because he embodied the deprivation, oppression, and suffering so central to the personal experience of European Jewry. Inquisitions and blood libels, pogroms and executions were painfully familiar to those who transmitted the Ger Tzedek tradition, from the night of his furtive funerary rites through the generation decimated by the European Holocaust. The emergence of a pilgrimage tradition associated with the Ger Tzedek’s grave may, indeed, have been a reaction to similar cultic practices by European Christians. Christian veneration of “victims” of Jewish ritual murder―specifically, pilgrimage cults―seem to have had a direct impact on the literary traditions surrounding the Ger Tzedek and on the religious response of the Jewish community to those sacred memories. The Ger Tzedek’s personal origins in the Polish nobility served, by way of contrast, to magnify his subsequent suffering as a Jew, making him all the more suitable as a role model of the contemporary Jewish experience. Job’s prosperous status at the opening of the Biblical book that bears his name serves the very same function. “That man was wealthier than anyone in the East.”3 The Ger Tzedek’s aristocratic pedigree also serves as a powerful symbol of the “nobility” asserted by the religious community with which he chose to cast his lot. Clearly, it is the relationship of the Ger Tzedek to the history of Jewish suffering which accounts for his repeated literary resurrection in the period roughly equivalent to the Holocaust. In the space of two decades, the Ger Tzedek emerged as a compelling subject for playwrights and novelists alike, in three languages. Alter Kacyzne found in the Ger Tzedek a medium for biting social commentary on the Jewish condition in 1925 Poland. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Yiddish theater goers em-

Mishna Berachot 9:5. Job 13:15. 3 Job 1:3. 1 2

CONCLUSIONS

201

braced his dark drama as an authentic representation of the historical martyr. Selig Schachnowitz’s elaborate, if anachronistic, novelized rendition of the Ger Tzedek’s life gave new expression to the stature of Vilna’s martyred proselyte as folk hero. Corroborating evidence of this trend is found in the translation of the Schachnowitz’s 1930 German fantasy into Hebrew and English, as well as in its influence on less substantial works intended for Israeli youth. When Ben-David’s 1938 “Graf Potocki” premiered in preState Tel Aviv, it spoke, in Hebrew, to the two major realities of the contemporary Jewish experience: the gathering storm of the Nazi Holocaust, and the coming battle for a sovereign Jewish state, then only a decade from fruition. Saul Saffire’s Yiddish “historical” novel was aimed at an American Jewish audience when it was published in 1942. Also a reflection of its time and place, Saffire’s “Ger Tzedek” was less graphic and less pre-occupied with Jewish suffering. It did, however, amply document the economic and religious subjugation of Jews and the insidious corruption of Eastern Bloc societies!! It is hardly surprising that his perspective on the Ger Tzedek was also well received. For two centuries, the Ger Tzedek’s dramatic suffering made him an eloquent symbol of the Jewish experience, an accessible role model for generations of Jews, who perceived in him a reflection of their own personal struggles. Two hundred fifty years after his martyrdom, the Ger Tzedek continues eloquently to embody the contemporary Jewish experience, perhaps with unprecedented clarity. It is, however, no longer his personal suffering in which Jews see a reflection of their own experience. The Ger Tzedek embodies the experience of today’s Jew not because he suffered and died for his faith, but because he freely chose that faith, despite seemingly more attractive alternatives. “In the wide-open marketplace of ideas in which we live, where choices of lifestyle, identification, and affiliation abound, every Jew who embraces Judaism is a

202

NOBLE SOUL Jew by choice: For the first time in Jewish history, Jews have the freedom not to identify as Jews.”4

The Vilna Ger Tzedek continues to serve as a role model and hero to today’s Jews, ironically, because we live under conditions that he could hardly have imagined. Ours is a society in which “Jewish identity is entirely voluntary.”5 The convert to Judaism, the “Jew by choice” is, indeed, an apt metaphor for the contemporary Jewish experience, but not simply because Judaism has become “a matter of choice for everyone.” 6 Jews owe a very real debt of gratitude to the institution of conversion and to converts themselves; to consider the phenomenon of conversion and its religious regulations is to reflect upon the very essence of Judaism. The rigorous period of study typically required of aspiring converts serves as a reminder to all Jews that a fulfilling Jewish experience is dependent on knowledge and study. All Jews must strive further to know and to understand their religious heritage if they are to achieve meaningfulness. The traditional requirement that converts formally acknowledge and accept the entire corpus of Jewish Law as binding is an effective reminder to all Jews of the covenant to which they are party: the religious duties and obligations to which they are born and bound. The permanence of a convert’s Jewish status is an essential aspect of what he shares―what he (or she) has in common with all Jews. As with any member of the Jewish community, no Jew by choice can ever be denied the heritage he has chosen. Nor can he dispossess himself of its obligations. Rabbis who prepare and accept converts are therefore obligated to guide their religious charges to as high a level of knowledge, commitment and observance as is reasonably possible before conversion. So, too, all Jews ― whether by birth or choice ― have a

4 Lena Romanoff, Your People, My People (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), xv. 5 Neil Gilman, Sacred Fragments (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), xxii. 6 David Beilin, Choosing Judaism: An Opportunity for Everyone (New York: Jewish Outreach Institute), 1.

CONCLUSIONS

203

Jewish spiritual potential. While admittedly somewhat less than perfection, each Jew has a religious potential lofty and demanding, as well as attainable through a lifetime of personal progress. It is the illustration of this principle for which we are perhaps most indebted to those who, though born to other religious traditions, embrace Judaism out of personal conviction. Thus, whether or not Avraham ben Avraham, the Ger Tzedek of Vilna was ever ordained a Rabbi, he was a master teacher, as that title suggests. He chose Judaism during a period when Jews were oppressed and converts were murdered, He made his choice knowing that his personal options were many and enticing, a life of privilege to which few of his countrymen could aspire, and which, as a Jew, he would never know. Jews today may be taught the meaning of choosing Judaism through the Ger Tzedek’s example; few have ever equaled the dramatic nature of his choice. Not only did the Ger Tzedek study Judaism, in his age a process requiring the utmost secrecy, he devoted himself to a quiet life of Jewish scholarship. Original insights into our tradition and, specifically the significance of conversion, are still quoted in his name. Like all converts, the Ger Tzedek formally pledged himself to Jewish piety before a Bet Din, a Rabbinic Court. His appearance before such a tribunal was itself a remarkable demonstration of his devotion, for few were the Jewish communities and Rabbis who conducted such proceedings during the Ger Tzedek’s lifetime. The young nobleman from Vilna, educated in Paris, was constrained to travel to Amsterdam to apply for admission to the Jewish faith and people. The Ger Tzedek publicly demonstrated the immutability of Jewish status by refusing to renounce his chosen faith, or even to feign apostasy, on pain of death. Thankfully, few Jews today face such a choice. It is not the courage with which we face death, but the wisdom with which we confront the reality of our personal human mortality, which defines the quality of our religious choices. We are left to marvel at the Ger Tzedek’s example. It is thus with valiant distinction that the Ger Tzedek of Vilna exemplified the principles of choice and study, piety and permanence which define the process of conversion. In so doing, the martyr inspired generations of admirers and pilgrims to endure oppression and hardship, legal disabilities and mortal peril, in order faithfully to live the religious tradition for which he died. In an age

204

NOBLE SOUL

of unprecedented freedom, replete with manifold moral and religious choices, the Ger Tzedek continues to elucidate the compelling meaning of Judaism for all its modern adherents. Could anyone be dearer to God?

APPENDIX CONVERSION TO JUDAISM: THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY & BEYOND The phenomenon of conversion to Judaism has persisted for millennia, despite often bitter opposition, legal disabilities, and mortal peril. The hostility suffered on this account by the Jewish community, and by those who would join its ranks, is elevated to canonical status in the Gospel According to Matthew. “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you scour sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he is converted you make him a son of hell twice as bad as yourselves.”1 Commenting on Matthew’s invective, Rabbi Albert S. Goldstein observes that “hidden in this haystack of hyperbole was one slim needle of truth. Converts were always welcome in Israel.”2 Opposition to Jewish proselytizing, however, pre-dates the founding of Christianity. Jewish conversionary activity was punished in the Roman Republic as early as 139 B.C.E. In the first century C.E., following in this tradition of state, “the expulsions [of Jews] from Rome recorded by Tacitus and Suetonius in the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius were probably connected with their missionary activity.”3 Reigning from 81-96 C.E., the Emperor Domitian conducted a particularly ruthless campaign against converts to Judaism. “Proselytism could only be revealed by a system of spies, and the first emperor who made use of such was Domitian, who extracted large fines from poor persons

Matthew 23:15. Albert Goldstein, “Conversion to Judaism in Biblical Times” in David Max Eichorn, ed., Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis (KTAV, 1965), 11. 3 James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York: Atheneum, 1974), 63. 1 2

205

206

NOBLE SOUL convicted of becoming proselytes, and executed wealthy ones in order to confiscate their estates.”4

Conversion to Judaism continued to be legislated as a punishable offense under the reign of Hadrian. By 315 C.E., Constantine the Great codified this prohibition in his Laws Concerning Jews, Heaven-Worshipers, and Samaritans: “If any of the population should join their abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will bear with them the deserved penalties.”5

Upon succeeding his father Constantine in 337, Constantius expanded the scope of anticonversionary legislation, prohibiting Jews from taking Christian brides, “lest the Jews induce Christian women to share their shameful lives.”6 Constantius also imposed the most severe penalties on Jews who effected the conversion of their slaves. The prohibition of Jewish ownership of Christian slaves was intended to prevent such occurrences altogether. “The Jew shall not possess a Christian slave… If, indeed, he shall have circumcised the slave whom he has purchased, he will not only be fined for the damage done to that slave but he will also receive capital punishment.7

As for the proselyte himself, “any Christian who became a Jew was to forfeit the whole of his property.”8 As emperor from 367 to 383, Gratian continued to enforce the prohibition of Christians converting to Judaism: “The convert and the missionary responsible were both to be punished, the former with intestacy, the latter at the discretion of the court. A charge might even be proffered under certain limitations against one who was

Ibid., 62. Jacob Marcus, The Jews in the Medieval World (New York: Atheneum, 1972), 4. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 5. 8 Parkes, 180. 4

5

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

207

dead, and his descendants robbed of their inheritance.”9

Under Gratian, “Christian slaves, or slaves who had been converted from Christianity to Judaism, already in the possession of Jewish masters, are to be compulsorily sold to Christian masters.”10

Justinian reinforced Gratian’s posthumous disincentive to conversion, ruling that “if the alleged convert was dead his will could be set aside on his conversion being proved.”11 A fifth century pastoral letter of Gregory of Nyssa “confirms the fact that there were Christians passing to Judaism”12 in the Byzantine Empire, as well. So, too, in Visegothic Spain under King Sisebut (612-620), “the death sentence was enforced against proselytizing either a man or a woman.”13 These legal precedents originating in Rome were reprised throughout medieval Christendom, as is illustrated by Las siete partidas, a seven part Spanish law code promulgated under King Alfonso X the Wise of Castile around 1265. Law VII establishes that “where a Christian is so unfortunate as to become a Jew, we order that he shall be put to death…and we declare that his property shall be disposed of.”14

The prohibition against Jewish conversionary activity was not limited to proselytes from among the Christian faithful: “A Jew shall not purchase, or keep as a slave, a Christian man or woman… Moreover, we forbid any Jew to convert a captive to his religion, even though said captive may be a Moor, or belong to some other barbarous race. If anyone violates this law, we order that the said slave who has become a Jew shall be set at liberty, and

Ibid., 181. Ibid., 182. 11 Ibid., 248. 12 Ibid., 355. 13 Ibid., 268. 14 Marcus, 38. 9

10

208

NOBLE SOUL removed from the control of the party to whom he or she belonged.”15

By the middle of the sixteenth century, conversion to Judaism attained noteworthy proportions in Turkey, as well. The diary of Hans Dernschwam, a highly educated Bohemian banker and intellectual, discusses Turkish Jewish life as he witnessed it during his travels. “The Jews boast that many Christians come into the country every year and become Jews.”16 Martin Luther was a contemporary of Dernschwam. Luther’s well-known and bitter antagonism toward Jews, particularly late in life, may have reflected the disappointing fact that “Jews did not flock to his new Christianity; on the contrary, they even presumed, occasionally, to convert Christians.”17 While it may be asserted with a measure of accuracy that “converts were always welcome in Israel,” it is entirely understandable that the sustained pattern of hostility to conversion from without had a chilling effect on Jewish attitudes toward proselytism. The Talmud itself is inconsistent in its endorsement of Jewish conversionary efforts. Rabbi Helbo provides the Talmud’s most resolute discommendation of conversion, in his statement that “proselytes are as bad for Israel as a scab.”18 To this can be added the observation that “evil after evil comes upon those who accept proselytes.”19 The latter statement has been termed “a strong condemnation, almost amounting to an anathema,”20 of those who facilitate the admission of converts to Judaism. It can be understood more simply as an accurate description of the dark consequences of this controversial undertaking for a Jewry under foreign subjugation. It should be noted that even those Rabbinic figures seemingly most adverse to Jewish proselytism affirmed the propriety of accepting those aspiring to conversion who demonstrated their sincere devotion and themselves initiated the process.

Ibid., 39. Ibid., 414. 17 Ibid., 165. 18 Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 47-B. 19 Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 109-B. 20 Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Oxford, 1961), 78. 15 16

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

209

Later interpreters and commentators tended to distance themselves from the Talmud’s isolated, negative characterizations of conversion. A number even managed to reframe Helbo’s derogation as an endorsement of the superior piety typical of converts. These revisionists and apologists reflect the prevailing opinion of the Talmudic corpus in support of conversion. This majority view may be summarized with the Talmud’s effusive assertion that “Israel was dispersed among the peoples of the world solely for the purpose of attracting proselytes.”21 Maimonides’ famous correspondence with “the intelligent and enlightened Obadiah, Ger Tzedek”22 embraces a strong affirmation of the institution of conversion. “Do not belittle your lineage; if we trace our descent to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, your religious pedigree is from Him by Whose word the universe came into being.”23

Maimonides offers words of comfort to his correspondent, who had been maltreated and verbally abused by unscrupulous Jews. “Toward proselytes we are commanded to have love in our inmost hearts… God, in His glory, loves proselytes… A man who left his father and birthplace and the realm of his people at a time when they are powerful, who understood with his insight, and attached himself to this nation which today is a despised people, the slave of rulers, and recognized and knew that their religion was true and righteous… the Lord does not call you fool [Hebrew: kesil] but enlightened [Hebrew: maskil] and understanding… a pupil of Abraham our father.” 24

If this self-assured approach had currency during the early Rabbinic period, medieval Jewry in time came to view their dispersion as far less conducive to proselytism. To illustrate this ongoing

Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 87-B. See translation in Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) Vol. XIII, 1188; citing Maimonides’ Responsum #42. 23 Ibid., 1189. 24 Ibid., citing Maimonides’ Responsum #369. 21 22

210

NOBLE SOUL

decline in conversionary zeal, Jacob Katz draws a telling comparison between Sefer Chassidim and Joseph Hahn’s Yosef Ometz. “The former, reflecting conditions obtaining in the thirteenth century, contains many provisions for dealing with proselytes; the latter, a typical seventeenthcentury counterpart, ignores this subject entirely.”25

Katz further observes that Isaiah Horowitz’s celebrated early seventeenth century Shnei Luchot ha-Brit includes an alphabetical compendium in which he treats “Ger,” the Hebrew term for “proselyte” or “convert,” only in its Biblical sense of “stranger.” Abandoning any discussion of conversion, the term is used “symbolically, in the neo-platonic manner, to describe the soul in its temporary sojourn on earth.”26 This increasing constriction of the role of conversion in medieval Jewish experience is famously and strenuously articulated by Rabbi Solomon Luria in Yam shel Shlomo. “…When Israel was settled in its own country, even after the Destruction…although they had become enslaved to the Roman emperor…they possessed the authority to accept anyone who came to them in the land in order to become a proselyte. But now that we are in a country not our own, like slaves beneath the hands of their owners, should one of Israel accept [a proselyte], he is a rebel, and is responsible for his own death… Hence, I hereby give warning that anyone who is a participant in such acceptance today, when the Gentile kingdom is stringent in its attitude, let his blood be on his own head, whether he himself engages in proselytization, or whether he merely knows of such; so may there be survival and stability for the seed of Israel among the peoples all the days of our Exile, throughout our exalted communities, without aliens joining us. And this is a matter demanding the greatest possible caution.”

Luria explicitly identifies non-Jewish opposition to proselytism and the resulting legal disabilities and peril as among the forces motivating his stern admonition. Following his lead,

25 26

Katz, 143. Ibid., 144.

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

211

“the Jewish councils of Lithuania and Moravia even threatened to impose severe penalties on anyone who began to proselytize or gave protection to converts.”27

By 1763, barely a decade after the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, a similar mood seems to have prevailed even in colonial America. “Shearith Israel Congregation, the only synagogue in New York, adopted a rule that barred its members ‘from making proselytes, or performing the marriage of any Jew to a proselyte.’ When Benjamin Jacobs petitioned the congregation to allow him to wed a Christian woman who wished to convert and ‘be married according to the manners and customs of the Jews, as it is her desire to live in strict observance of the Laws and customs’ of Judaism, the congregation rejected his request.”28

In 1928, the local Orthodox Rabbinate, in consultation with East European Rabbinic authorities, imposed a ban against conducting conversions to Judaism in Argentina. The ban has only recently been reconsidered. Luria’s regrettably well-founded concerns contrast distinctly with those suggested by the letters of Maimonides. Luria, to be fair, lived centuries later, under Christian domination, and in a considerably more withdrawn, culturally isolated Jewish environment. His opposition to conversionary activity is suggestive of the prevailing mood during the era of Vilna’s Ger Tzedek. Indeed, it is precisely the perils identified by Luria which rendered the Ger Tzedek’s religious journey so remarkable, his path so hazardous, and his elusive need for secrecy so pressing. In reference to religious liberty, Poland’s King Zygmunt Augustus, around 1550, had declared, “I am not King of your consciences.”29 Nevertheless, “in 1668 the Seym ruled that nobody could convert from Catholicism to any other Church on pain of exile.”30

Encyclopedia Judaica, Ibid., 1190. “Ties that Bound in Colonial New York” (from Chapters in American Jewish History, American Jewish Historical Society series), in Connecticut Jewish Ledger, August 27, 1999, p.34. 29 Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way (New York: Hippocrene, 1987), 86. 30 Ibid., 145. 27 28

212

NOBLE SOUL

The Ger Tzedek of Vilna, though celebrated and venerated by pilgrims, was unique neither in his daring conversion, nor in the dire consequences he suffered. The case of Alexander Artemyevich Voznitsyn provides a striking parallel. Voznitsyn was a Russian naval officer, tortured in prison, and burnt at the stake in 1738 for having converted to Judaism. Also executed was Baruch ben Lev Dubrovno, who had already been suspected of proselytizing, and who was alleged to have influenced Voznitsyn. Czarina Anna insisted on execution of the accused, despite lack of conclusive evidence. Today, historians can only speculate whether the Vilna Ger Tzedek was aware of his Russian counterpart’s experience. Whether Potocki’s conversion preceded Voznitsyn’s martyrdom or followed it is also impossible to determine. As a Polish nobleman, it is not unlikely that the Ger Tzedek was familiar, as well, with the storied martyrdom of Catherine Weigel, the widow of a Jewish member of the Warsaw municipal council. In 1539, at the age of 79, she, too, was burnt at the stake as a convert, and for having taught Judaism to non-Jews. What is indisputable is that Vilna’s Ger Tzedek knew that he was courting danger in his principled adoption of Judaism. In the century following the Ger Tzedek’s execution, his countrymen witnessed remarkable events in the history of conversion to Judaism. Following his decisive victories over Napoleon, Alexander I became “obsessed by a spirit of Christian mysticism.”31 He established a missionary effort, aimed at the conversion of Jews to Christianity. In 1817, he established the “Society of Israelitish Christians”32 to achieve this end. The Society would confer free land and other benefits on Jews adopting the Christian Faith. The organization continued to exist until 1833, when it was disbanded by Alexander’s successor, Nicholas I. Alexander’s missionary efforts were “a complete fiasco.”33 In its fifteen years of operation, it failed to recruit any Jewish apostates. Furthermore, Alexander’s failed efforts coincided with a seemingly spontaneous movement of

31

264. 32 33

Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1943), Ibid. Ibid., 265.

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

213

conversion to Judaism among Christian peasants throughout central Russia. The converts were severely punished; many were exiled to Siberia. The Jewish community also suffered harsh treatment in reprisal for this conversionary trend… although there were few if any Jews in those areas where the peasant conversions began! The nineteenth century also saw an extraordinary example of conversion to Judaism in the United States. Warder Cresson, rejecting the Quaker tradition in which he was raised, unsuccessfully sought his religious identity in various Protestant denominations. His interest in Judaism grew, under the influence of Rabbi Isaac Leeser, a major figure in the growth of American Judaism. In 1844, Cresson was appointed American Consul in Jerusalem, although his appointment was soon retracted under pressure from Samuel Ingham, a former Secretary of the Treasury who considered Cresson to be afflicted with a “mania…of the religious species.”34 Cresson converted to Judaism in 1848, joining Jerusalem’s Sephardi community, which came to view him as a miracle worker. Cresson, who took the name Michael Boaz Israel, returned the next year to Philadelphia, in order to put his business affairs in order in preparation for his return to Palestine. The convert was rejected by his wife and children (with the exception of one loyal son). His family obtained “a commission in lunacy”35 remanding Cresson to a mental institution. Cresson successfully appealed the judgment and, following a highly publicized trial, had the lower court’s insanity ruling reversed. Returning to the Land of Israel, he married a Sephardi woman and lived a traditional Jewish life. Upon his death in 1860, he was buried on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives. In his honor, all of Jerusalem’s Jewish businesses closed on the day of Cresson’s funeral. Cresson, thankfully, did not pay for his conversion with his life. Nevertheless, the “American Ger Tzedek,”36 like Potocki and Voznitsyn the preceding century, was shunned by family and the highest levels of society and government. He, too, renounced elite social status and political prospects in order to secure religious ful-

Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) Vol. V, 1087. Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1905) Vol. IV, 354. 36 Abraham Shusterman, “The Last Two Centuries” in Einhorn, p. 140. 34 35

214

NOBLE SOUL

fillment through the principled adoption of Judaism. Free of the Inquisition as an American, he was nevertheless prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Rabbi Israel Meir ha-Kohen, better known as the Chaftez Chayim, after the title of his first book, was born in 1838, not long after the conversionary outbreak under Alexander. From about age ten, that is, beginning in the centennial year of the Ger Tzedek’s martyrdom, coinciding with Cresson’s conversion, the Chafetz Chayim lived and studied in Vilna. Late in life, he published his Sefer ha-Mitzvot ha-Katzar, a concise explanatory listing of those religious Commandments still practicable in the twentieth century (The Chafetz Chayim died in 1933). This diminutive book contains a truly extraordinary, if thinly veiled, milestone endorsement of Jewish proselytism. The Chafetz Chayim lists as the third Positive Commandment, “to love the blessed God with all one’s heart, spirit, and might.”37 This Commandment follows only the obligations to believe in God’s existence, and to acknowledge God’s unity: the first and second Positive Commandments, respectively. In explaining the Jew’s obligation to love God, the author writes: “Included in this Commandment is the obligation to bring human beings closer to God’s service… as Abraham our father did…as Scripture states: ‘And the souls they had acquired in Haran’ (Genesis 12:5).” 38

While the mandate to “bring human beings closer to God’s service” can be interpreted in a number of ways, it is clear that this unspecified form of outreach extends to non-Jews. The verse cited from Genesis, however, has a very strong association with conversion. Rashi comments on the verse: “The souls they had acquired: They brought them under the wings of the Divine Presence. Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women.”39

37 Israel Mayer ha-Kohen, The Concise Book of Mitzvoth (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1990), 15; citing Deuteronomy 6:5. 38 Ibid. 39 Genesis 12:5, Rashi ad. loc.

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

215

The Chafetz Chayim, a revered and distinguished son of Vilna, bridging the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, thus appears to suggest that proselytization is among the most urgent of Jewish religious obligations practicable in modernity. This obligation he presents as a direct corollary of the Jewish belief in God, and, remarkably, links this conversionary spirit to the very core of the Jewish liturgy, the Shema’s mandate to love God “with all one’s heart, spirit, and might.” The Chafetz Chayim’s bold approach to the issue of Jewish proselytism is neither widely known, nor reflective of the majority opinion in the Jewish community of the twenty-first century. “The whole question of the appropriateness of seeking converts remains an issue. There is an emerging question of whether it is a mitzva to seek converts actively or whether such efforts lie outside Jewish tradition…. While it is clear that the public approaches have not been part of Jewish life for many centuries, advocates of such a public approach claim that Israel is a comparable example, since Jewish national efforts, like Jewish conversionary efforts, were dormant in Judaism for almost two millennia.” 40

The debate over the appropriate view of Jewish conversion and proselytism has produced a variety of reasoned positions. Rabbi Harold Schulweiss of Los Angeles explains his groundbreaking outreach to prospective converts in modest terms. “We’re simply advertising the fact that if you would like to learn, come and we will teach. That seems to me a profoundly Jewish notion.”41 Gary Tobin, director of Brandeis University’s Center for Modern Jewish Studies, is more insistent in his endorsement of conversionary efforts. “Jews cannot continue to hoard their heritage as a birthright only and inhibit others from swelling and reinvigorating their ranks.”42

40 Lawrence Epstein, Conversion to Judaism: A Teaching Guide (New York: CAJE, 1993), 13. 41 Gustav Niebuhr, “Judaism Reaches Out to Converts” in The New York Times, May 27, 1998. 42 Ibid. See also Tobin’s Opening the Gates: How Proactive Conversion Can Revitalize the Jewish Community (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999).

216

NOBLE SOUL

Tobin’s interlocutor in a published debate, Professor Jonathan Sarna, expresses grave reservations about the phenomenon of conversion, warning that Judaism “not become a denomination in the Protestant sense, with a great many people coming in and a great many people going out.”43 The frequency of religious conversion in America has been attacked by some as “spiritual narcissism.”44 Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, has urged that proactive conversionary efforts be limited to the non-Jewish spouses of intermarried Jews. He seems to dismiss more assertive proselytism: “It turns religion into a kind of supermarket, where you go shopping for the most interesting religion.”45 The debate continues with little hope of imminent resolution. The Jewish community’s current skepticism concerning conversion, although perhaps inherited, is no longer related to the fear of legal consequences or physical peril which motivated earlier generations. Indeed, it may be the very accessibility of conversion, the absence of dire consequences and social ostracism, which fuels detractors’ suspicions that today’s converts to Judaism lack true conviction. This new trend, particularly in the United States, extends beyond the Jewish community. “Defecting from one church to another once carried the emotional baggage of abandoning home; now, such loyalty carries far less weight.”46 As a consequence, “less weight” is often, if unfairly, attributed to the decision to embrace a new religious tradition. Those who disparage today’s proselytes because of the alleged ease of their religious transition, ignore the facts. For many, adoption of Judaism has meant not only an arduous process of study and, to varying degrees, rejection by family, but genuine peril, as well. Conversions to Judaism took place even in the darkest moments of the twentieth century. Lore Perl secretly converted from Roman Catholicism to Judaism in 1938 Vienna. Perl was impris-

Ibid. Mary Rourke, “Religious Conversion Gains New Meaning” in Hartford Courant (reprinted from the Los Angeles Times) June 27, 1998. 45 Niebuhr, Ibid. 46 Rourke, Ibid. 43 44

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

217

oned in a concentration camp from 1942 to 1944. Her husband, William Perl, is remembered for conducting “a water-borne rescue operation that carried thousands of Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine.”47 It is, however, hardly necessary to invoke the Nazi era to illustrate the heroism that has attended conversion to Judaism in our time. Students of “A Course in Basic Judaism,” a conversion institute serving greater Hartford, Connecticut throughout the 1990’s, provide representative examples. Male and female students raised as Moslems have reported receiving death threats prior to completing the conversion process, as well as thereafter. Students with Christian backgrounds have reported no threats beyond that of eternal damnation. Even such theological triumphalism, however, indicates the adverse reaction of family and friends which today’s converts must at times endure, and the price in personal relationships they must bear. The experience of one such student dramatically evokes the memory of the principled Ger Tzedek of Vilna. She was born in the capital of an Islamic country, where her father was a respected government official. In addition to her traditional Islamic education, she had also been exposed to Christianity by her late mother, a Roman Catholic. Encountering Judaism in the American university she attended, she subsequently converted, explaining to the rabbis of the Bet Din impanelled to effect her conversion that, having been immersed in three major world religions, she was wellequipped to make an informed decision regarding her religious identity. Not long after her conversion, this former student, now an observant Jew, learned that her father was terminally ill. She planned to travel to the country of her birth to see him. Relatives, however, knowing she was now “Yehudi,” threatened to stone her upon her return. To his great credit, her ailing father continued lovingly to support his daughter, even traveling to the United States for a reunion. The violence threatened in reprisal for this woman’s adoption of Judaism is entirely believable. Not only is it analogous to condi-

47

Obituary, The New York Times, December 29, 1998; C-19.

218

NOBLE SOUL

tions in Christian Europe well into modernity, but is a pattern well documented in the Moslem world today. In 1998, Iran executed Ruhollah Rowhani, a Baha’i man, on charges of having converted a Moslem.48 Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has executed some 200 Baha’is for their faith, frequently charging them with “Zionist” activity. Similar charges have recently led to the imprisonment of numerous Iranian Jews, in a renewed pattern of religious repression. Like the Ger Tzedek, born to a family of social stature and influence, in a country hostile to Judaism, this woman made an informed and principled decision to part with her birthright and to seek religious fulfillment in the Jewish tradition. Like so many of her contemporaries a “Ger Tzedek” in her own right, she shares one further link to her eighteenth century counterpart. The Hebrew name she chose upon conversion was Serafine, from the Hebrew, meaning “to burn.” The name is derived from the Biblical “Serafim,” the fiery angels that attend the throne of God. Serafine bat Avraham Avinu. In our century, the debate concerning the appropriate attitude toward Jewish proselytism continues, frequently in a highly politicized form. As in generations past, insightful religious seekers continue to embrace the Jewish tradition as their own. Like Judaism itself, the phenomenon of conversion has endured despite centuries of violence and perennial attempts at its suppression. The path of the Ger Tzedek, in the eighteenth century or our own, is defined by sincere conviction and personal piety. Subjection of proselytes to perilous ordeal, a well attested historical evil, has never been a desideratum prescribed by the Jewish community for those who would join its ranks. Still by no means “easy” or lacking in “weight,” conversion to Judaism is now an increasingly accessible religious option, generally free of mortal danger. Approximately 200,000 Americans have exercised this option, and identify themselves as converts to Judaism. Conversions to Judaism continue at an annual rate of about 10,000. This group represents three percent of the total Jewish population, or one of every thirty-seven Jews. If, indeed, active conversionary

48 “Iran Hangs Bahai in Religion Case” in The New York Times, July 24, 1998, A-4.

APPENDIX ON CONVERSION

219

efforts are today a “dormant” force in Jewish life, they may well represent a sleeping giant, about to wake.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Cindy & Crimp, Susan. Iron Rose. Dove Books/Beverly Hills, 1995. Agnon, S.J. & Eliasberg, Ahron. Das Buch von den polnischen Juden (German). Judischer Verlag/Berlin, 1916. Andrieux, Maurice. Daily Life in Papal Rome in the Eighteenth Century. Macmillan/New York, 1980. Baron, Salo Wittmayer. The Jewish Community: Its History and Structure to the American Revolution. Greenwood Press/Westport, CT, 1942. ―― . A Social and Religious History of the Jews. Columbia University, 1937. Belin, David. Choosing Judaism: An Opportunity for Everyone. Jewish Outreach Institute/New York. Ben-David, Israel H. Graf Pototski (Hebrew). Shnir/Tel Aviv, 1940. Ben-Sasson, H. H. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University, 1976. ―― . Trial and Achievement: Currents in Jewish History. Keter/Jerusalem, 1974. Berkowitz, Allan & Moskovitz, Patti. Embracing the Covenant. Jewish Lights/Woodstock, Vermont, 1996. Brennan, Thomas Edward. Public Drinking and Popular Culture in Eighteenth Century Paris. Princeton University, 1988. Cahill, Thomas. The Gifts of the Jews. Doubleday/New York, 1998. Cerutis, Albertas. Lithuania: 700 Years. Manyland Books/New York, 1984. Cheetham, Nicholas. Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II. Scribners/New York, 1982 Cohen, Israel. Travels in Jewry. E.P. Dutton/New York, 1953. ―― .Vilna. Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1943. Cornwell, John. Hitler’s Pope. Viking/San Francisco, 1999. Crocker, Lester. An Age of Crisis: Man and World in the Eighteenth Century. Johns Hopkins, 1950. Davies, Norman. Europe: A History. Oxford, 1996. ―― . Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland. Oxford University, 1984. 221

222

NOBLE SOUL

Dawidowicz, Lucy. From That Place and Time. Norton/New York, 1989. Dick, Isaac Meir. “Mayse Ger Tzedek” (Yiddish), in Di Yiddishe Velt, No. 6. Vilner Farlang/June, 1913. Dillenscheider, Clement. Christ the One Priest and We His Priests. B. Harder/St. Louis, 1964. Dubnow, S. M. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1920. Dundes. Alan. The Blood Libel Legend. University of Wisconsin, 1991. Dyboski, Roman. Outlines of Polish History. George Allen & Unwin/London, 1925. Einhorn, David Max, editor. Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis. KTAV/Hoboken, 1965. Epstein, Lawrence. Conversion to Judaism: A Teacher’s Guide. CAJE/New York, 1993. ―― . Readings on Conversion to Judaism. Aronson/London, 1995. Eudes, St. John. The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations. P.J. Kennedy & Sons/New York, 1947. Federowicz, J.K. A Republic of Nobles: Studies in Polish History to 1864. Cambridge, l982. Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-three Centuries of Anti-Semitism. Macmillan/New York, 1964 Frost, Robert. After the Deluge: Poland-Lithuania and the Second Northern War, 1655-1660. Cambridge, 1993. Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich/New York, 1981. Fuenn, Shmuel Yosef. Kiryah Ne’emanah (Hebrew). Romm/Vilna, 1860. Gersoni, Henry. Sketches of Jewish Life and History. Hebrew Orphan Asylum Printing Establishment/ New York, 1873. Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston/New York, 1985. Gilman, Neil. Sacred Fragments. Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1990. Goldberg, Jacob. “The Changes in the Attitude of Polish Society Toward the Jews in the 18th Century,” in Polin, Vol. 1. Oxford, 1986. Goodman, Philip. The Shavuot Anthology (“The Martyrdom of a Righteous Proselyte”). Jewish Publication Society, 1974.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Gordon, Neil. The Gun Runner’s Daughter. Random House/New York, 1998. Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1895. Greenbaum, Masha. The Jews of Lithuania. Gefen/Jerusalem, 1995. Greenstein, Edward L. “A Jewish Reading of the Book of Esther,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. Fortress Press/Philadelphia, 1987. Gregorovius, Ferdinand. The Ghetto and the Jews of Rome [1853]. Schocken/New York, 1948. Herzog, Marvin, et al. The Field of Yiddish [IV]. Institute for the Study of Human Issues/Philadelphia, 1975. Hsia, R. Po-Chia, The Myth of Ritual Murder. Yale, 1988. Hughes, John Jay. Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History. Our Sunday Visitor/Huntington, Indiana, 1994. Hurwitz, Yehuda. Ammudei Beit Yehuda (Hebrew). Amsterdam, 1766. Israel, Jonathan Irvine. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall. Oxford University, 1995. Jakstas, Juozas. “Potocki, Ignacy,” in Encyclopedia Lituanica. Boston, 1875. Jalbrzykowska, Anna & Zathey, Jerzy. Inwentarz Rekopisów Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej (Polish). Nakladem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego/Cracow, 1962. Jeshurin, Ephim (Ed.). Wilno (Yiddish). Wilner Branch 367 Workmen’s Circle/New York, 1935. Kacyzne, Alter. “Der Dukus,” in Gesammelte Schriften (Yiddish). Verlang Y.L. Peretz, 1967. ―― . “Ha-Dukas” (Hebrew translation by Eliyahu Hazan). Masach/Tel Aviv, 1955. Karpinowitz, Abraham. Die Geschichte fun Vilner Ger Tzedek, Graf Valentin Potocki (Yiddish). Vilner Pinkas/Tel Aviv, 1990. Katz, Jacob. Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times. Oxford, 1961. Kelly, Sean & Rogers, Rosemary. Saints Preserve Us! Random House/New York, 1993. Kirsch, Felix & Brendan, M. Catholic Faith Explained. Catholic University Press/Washington, 1939. Kling, Simcha. Embracing Judaism. Rabbinical Assembly/New York, 1987.

224

NOBLE SOUL

Kraszewski, Józef Ignacy. The Jew (Translated by Linda da Kowalewska. Dodd, Mead & Co./New York, 1890. ―― . Wilno (Polish). 1841. Learsi, Rufus. Israel: A History of the Jewish People. Behrman House, 1949 ―― . The Jews in America: A History. KTAV/Hoboken, 1972 Levine, Baruch. J.P.S. Torah Commentary: Leviticus. Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1989. Lindenthal, Haskel. Pages of My Life. Legacy Books/New York, 1997. Litvin, A. Yiddishe Neshomes (Yiddish). S. Hurwitz/ New York, 1916. Lough, John. An Introduction to Eighteenth Century France. McKay/New York, 1980. Lukowski, Jerzy. Liberty’s Folly: The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Eighteenth Century. Routledge/New York, 1991. Maccoby, Hyam. Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil. Free Press/New York, 1992. Mandelstamm, Binyamin. Chazon la-Moed (Hebrew). Brog & Smolensky/Vienna, 1877. Marcus, Jacob. The Jew in the Medieval World. Atheneum/New York, 1972. Mark, Natan. Ben ha-Rozen (Hebrew). Renaissance/Haifa, 1968. Meltzer, Yeda’el. Anashim me’Artsot ha-Hayyim (Hebrew). Arzei haHen/Israel, 1996 Minczeles, Henri. Vilna, Wilno, Vilnius: la Jérusalem de Lituanie (French). La Découverte/Paris, 1993. Modras, Ronald. The Catholic Church and Anti-Semitism. Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994. Motley, John Lothrop. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. Harper/New York, 1955. Palmer, Robert. Catholics and Unbelievers in Eighteenth Century France. Princeton University, 1930. Parkes, James. The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue. Atheneum/New York, 1974. Ran, Lazer. Ash fun Yerusholayim d’Lite (Yiddish) Vilner Farlang/New York, 1959. Reddaway, W.F., et al. The Cambridge History of Poland. Octagon Books/New York, 1971.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Reitlinger, Gerald. The Final Solution. Thomas Yoseloff/New York, 1968. Romanoff, Lena. Your People, My People. Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1990. Roskies, David. Against the Apocalypse. Harvard, 1984. Rosenstein, Neil. The Unbroken Chain: Biographical Sketches and the Geneaology of Illustrious Jewish Families from the Fifteenth Through the Twentith Centuries. Shenvold/New York, 1976. Rosman, M.J. “Jewish Perceptions of Insecurity and Powerlessness in l6th-l8th Century Poland,” in Polin, Volume 1. Oxford, 1986. ―― . The Lords’ Jews: Magnate-Jewish Relations in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth During the Eighteenth Century. Harvard, 1990. Roth, Cecil (Ed.). The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew: The Report of Cardinal Lorenzo Ganganelli (Pope Clement XIV). Woburn Press/London, 1995. Sandoval, Annette. The Directory of Saints. Dutton/New York, 1996. Saphire, Saul. Der Ger Tzedek fun Vilna (Yiddish). 1942. Sarna, Nahum. J.P.S. Torah Commentary: Exodus. Philadelphia/Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Scalamonti, John David. Ordained to be a Jew. KTAV/Hoboken, 1992. Schachnowitz, Selig. Abraham Sohn Abrahams (German). Verlag des Israelit und Hermon G.m.b.H./Franfurt am Main, 1930. ―― . Avraham ben Avraham (Hebrew). Netzach/Tel Aviv, 1952. ―― . Avrohom ben Avrohom (English adaptation by Yehoshua Leiman). Feldheim/Jerusalem, 1977. Schechter, Solomon. Studies in Judaism (I), Philadelphia/Jewish Publication Society, 1945. Shneidman, N.N. Jerusalem of Lithuania. Mosaic Press/Buffalo, 1998. Shtainberg, Moshe ha-Levi. Al Gerei ha-Tzedek ha-Muzkarim baTalmud uva-Midrash (Hebrew). 1965. ―― . Hukat ha-Ger/Kuntres ha-Teshuvot be’Inyenei Giyur (Hebrew). R. Mas/Jerusalem, 1971. Silberman, Charles. A Certain People. Summit Books/New York, 1985. Silverman, Morris. Heaven on Your Head. Hartmore House/Hartford, 1964.

226

NOBLE SOUL

Silverstein, Alan. Are You Considering Conversion to Judaism? Rabbinical Assembly/New York, 1992. Smith, Elsdon. New Dictionary of American Family Names. Harper & Row/New York, 1973. Stockums, Welhelm. The Priesthood. Tan Books/Rockford, Illinois, 1938. Stryienski., Casimir (Ed.). Memoirs of the Countess Potocka. Grant Richards/London, 1901. Sudarsky, Mendel & Katzenelenbogen, Uriah. Lite (Yiddish). Jewish-Lithuanian Cultural Society/New York, 1951. Telushkin, Joseph. Jewish Literacy. Morrow/New York, 1991. Weinryb, Bernard. The Jews of Poland. Jewish Publication Society/Philadelphia, 1973. Yoshor, Moshe Mayer. Ha-Chafetz Chayim u-Fo’olo (Hebrew). Netzach/Tel Aviv, 1958. Zalkin, Mordechai. “Bein Gaon l’Agalon: Morashata ha-Tarbutit shel Yahadut Lite” (Hebrew), in Gesher, Vol. 136, Winter 1997. Zamoyski, Adam. The Last Polish King. Hippocrene/New York, 1997. ―― . The Polish Way. Hippocrene/New York, 1987. Ziv, Asher. Ha-Rema: Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Hebrew). Mossad ha-Rav Kook/Jerusalem, 1957.