Much has been written about the ʿeirev rav, or “mixed multitude,” that accompanied Israel in its exodus from Egypt. For the eighteenth-century Hasidic leader Jacob Joseph of Pollonoye, however, this is not solely a story of the past but a lesson of significant pertinence for the present. The tale of the ʿeirev rav, as presented in his seminal work, Sefer toledot Yaʿaqov Yoseif ʿal haTorah, (henceforth Toledot) is a call to his contemporaries, as to all would-be authentic Jewish communities, to engage in a process of self-reckoning and self-rectifying.
Jacob Joseph begins one of his primary discussions of the golden calf incident with a nod to the prevailing notion regarding the principal transgressors: “For it is known that the principal perpetrator of the calf transgression is the ʿeirev rav (iqar ḥet zeh shel ʿeigel yatsah meiʿeirev rav). As is noted in the Zohar, as well.”1 He then adds:
However, a small portion of Israel became psychological partners with the ʿeirev rav (shenishtatfu qetsat Yisraʾel bemaḥshavah)… And that which he (Simeon son of Yochai) said: “Israel could not have conceivably committed such a transgression (lo hayu Yisraʾel reʾuyin leʾoto ḥet),2 he means to say that they (the Israelites) of themselves could not have conceivably committed this transgression… For it was the ʿeirev rav who were the actual transgressors (befoʿal) and the fault (or blemish, pegam) adhered to Israel by virtue of their being interconnected and of one source (or root, shoresh ʿeḥad) with the ʿeirev rav; for Moses was their source (or root), as the Ari had written…and, thus, he (had) wanted to convert them.3
But it was not that the Israelites of themselves could have conceivably committed this transgression (causing one) to say this transgression extended from them to the ʿeirev rav, as I have written regarding the verse “The pious (ḥasid) are no more, the faithful (emunim) of humankind have vanished” (Psalm 12:2)—that one can interpret (this verse) from its beginning clause to its ending clause or from its ending clause to its beginning clause…4 But here it is not (the case that the verse can be interpreted in “either direction”).
For the Israelites could not have conceivably committed this transgression except to instruct with regard to repentance. I mean to say, in order that they don the garment (yilbeshu levush) of the ʿeirev rav, and then, when these few individuals, who in seeking the welfare of the faithful of Israel (shelomei emunei Yisraʾel) were (thereby) caught somewhat in this transgression along with those realms, repent, all the realms are raised with them… This is only that they should learn to include themselves with all the realms (levels, madreigot, of community) as Samuel the prophet did…
And this is the essential purpose of the human being, and from this may future generations, as well, learn the great way in the service of the Lord (ʿavodat Adonai). This is what I remembered and received from my master (the Baal Shem Tov), mouth to mouth, and it is not possible to explain in a book, but consider this and understand (Toledot, 476 [Naso]).5
Jacob Joseph’s remark regarding the interconnection and common root of Israel and the ʿeirev rav, which lies at the center of this passage, serves both a descriptive and prescriptive purpose. It is of descriptive import insofar as it indicates that the Israelites have the “blemish” of the ʿeirev rav’s transgression adhering to them. In prescriptive terms, this common bond, as he proceeds to explain, calls upon Israel to rectify the transgressing ʿeirev rav. However, what is deemed the fuller significance of this prescription is only suggested here by Jacob Joseph in his calling these few individuals, who elect to take upon themselves this required action, the “seekers of the welfare of the faithful.”
The expression “seekers of the welfare of the faithful” is applied in 2 Samuel 20:19 to a “wise woman” who intervenes to avoid the division and/or destruction of the Israelite nation upon the heels of a rebellion against David and his kingdom. If there are “seekers of the welfare of the faithful,” as there were among the few Israelites who took upon themselves rectification of the golden calf transgressors, then the people might be preserved.
In addition, by reminding us of the rightful action of the “wise woman,” this same expression, “seekers of the welfare of the faithful” (shelomei emunei Yisraʾel) echoes and further clarifies Jacob Joseph’s intent in citing the verse “The pious (ḥasid) are no more, the faithful (emunim) of humankind have vanished,” with his attendant observation that this verse can be interpreted from its beginning clause to its ending clause or in reverse fashion. Indeed, as Jacob Joseph’s following words indicate, while one may generally believe that the pious perish because there are no faithful to support them, in truth, the opposite might be the case:
I have heard from the deceased Rabbi Judah Leib Pistener, an explanation of the verse…“The pious are no more, the faithful of humankind have vanished” that (this means that) the pious are no more inasmuch as the faithful of humankind have vanished. For one has impact upon the other due to their (common) unity. However, it was told to him in a dream that perhaps the interpretation of the verse is the reverse: “Since the pious are no more, the faithful of humankind have vanished” (Toledot, 133 [Shemot]).
Thus, while the ʿeirev rav is initially presented as being “known” to be responsible for effecting Israel with its transgression, a closer examination that takes into account Jacob Joseph’s observations suggests that Israel might be responsible for the ʿeirev rav’s transgression and, thereby, their own implication in this transgression as well.6
While Jacob Joseph contends that one cannot read the verse both ways in the sense that it was the Israelites themselves who transgressed with the golden calf, and their transgression “extended” to the ʿeirev rav, this does not exclude our entertaining a dual reading of this verse in holding Israel accountable for the transgression of the ʿeirev rav. As he makes clear, Israel can and should be held responsible for not seeking the welfare of the ʿeirev rav. Thus, in considering Tosafot’s commentary to Rabbi Ami’s statement that “the red heifer (parah ʿadumah) effects atonement” (b. Moʿed Qatan 28a), Jacob Joseph writes:
And if you were to say, as Tosafot had written, that it (the red heifer) was to atone for the incident (ma‘aseh) of the calf, this is difficult (qasheh)—for (is it not the case that) whoever transgressed in the presence of witnesses and having received prior warning (hatraʾah) were killed by the Levites, and (those who transgressed) without prior warning were smitten by the plague, and (those who transgressed) without the presence of witnesses were examined (with the guilty being punished), as were the suspected adulteresses.7 And those who remained, of what need were they of atonement for the calf by means of the (red) heifer? …And it appears to me that (in essence) this question was asked by (Rabbi Moses) Alshekh: “Why is Israel in need of sheqalim as an atonement (ransom) of the soul (kofer nefesh) for the calf?” …And he responds “(it is necessary) for they did not protest (miḥu) (their making of the calf)…(which they should have done) inasmuch as they are fellows (ki ʿareivim zeh bazeh, responsible for each other).”8 So, too, here, with regard to the (red) heifer, it comes to atone for the calf incident, for they did not protest (or seek) to prevent it by virtue of (or as required by) fellowship (mitsad ha‘areivut) (Toledot, 542 [Ḥuqqat]).9
Jacob Joseph’s remark regarding Moses desiring to convert the ʿeirev rav, which appears in the midst of his presenting Israel and the ʿeirev rav as being “interconnected” and “of one source,” is significant in that it simultaneously indicates that both the leader and the people are connected to the ʿeirev rav and calls our attention to the critical and well-known midrash underlying his opening statement that it is “known” that the ʿeirev rav is the “principal perpetrator” of the golden calf transgression. The biblical text clearly portrays Israel as transgressing with the golden calf and makes no mention in this regard of the ʿeirev rav. However, in alluding to this midrash by means of this particular reference to Moses, and thereby having the ʿeirev rav rather than Israel committing the calf transgression itself, Jacob Joseph, as we shall see, effectively further exposes the unmet responsibility of Israel and of Moses as well.
We now turn to the midrash explaining that it was the ʿeirev rav, whom Moses sought to convert, that perpetrated the calf transgression:
“Go (lekh), descend (reid), for your people (ʿamkha) (whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt) has corrupted (shiḥeit) itself” (Exodus 32:7). It is not written here “the people” but “your people.” Moses said: “Master of the Universe, whence are they my people (alone)?” The Holy One Blessed be He said to him: “Your people, they are, for, when they were still in Egypt, I said to you (Exodus 7:4): ‘I will bring out My hosts, My people’ (the next words being ‘the children of Israel’). I (thereby) told you not to mix (leʿareiv) with them a mixed multitude (ʿeirev rav). (But), you being humble and noble (or fitting, kasher), said to Me: ‘(One) always accepts the penitent (hashavim).’ But, I, knowing what they would do, said ‘No.’ But I did what you wanted, and it was these very ones, being idolaters, that created the calf. (Moreover), they, having created it, caused My people (ʿami) to transgress.” Note, it is not written here “This is our God (O Israel Who brought us up from the land of Egypt)” but “This is your God (O Israel Who brought you up from the land of Egypt).” For the “proselytes” (gerim) who came up with Moses, they were the ones who made it (the calf) and who said to Israel, “this is your God.” Therefore, the Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: “Go, descend, for your people has corrupted itself” (Exodus Rabbah 42:6).
The expression ʿeirev rav, which appears in the Bible on this one occasion—“and a mixed multitude (ʿeirev rav) went up with them” (Exodus 12:38)—hearkens back to the fourth plague, ʿarov (“mixture”). It is in this plague, denoting mixture, that separation between the Israelites and Egyptians, in terms of being plague victims, first occurs, thus implicitly encouraging the Egyptians to mix with the Israelites, or become converts.
Indeed, the words “your people” (ʿamkha) and “My people” (ʿami), which appear in the biblical verses cited by this midrash (“your people have corrupted themselves” and “I will bring out…My people”), are reminiscent of the verse constituting God’s warning prior to the onset of ʿarov: “For if you will not send My people (ʿami) then I will send the ʿarov against your people (ʿamkha)” (Exodus 8:17). In the very separation of “My people” and “your people,” as highlighted in the final words of the forewarning, “And I will make a distinction (pedut) between My people (ʿami) and your people (ʿamkha)” (Exodus 8:19), is an invitation to the Egyptians to mix with the Israelites, becoming converts in recognizing the Lord, as the immediately preceding verse suggests: “And I will set apart (hifleiti)… So you will come to know that I am the Lord” (Exodus 8:18).
While the biblical narrative suggests that the ʿeirev rav was a positive outcome of the Lord’s successful plan, this midrash (perhaps reflecting, to some degree, the people’s experience with converts at the time of its composition) presents the ʿeirev rav as a “project” gone awry undertaken by an accepting but short-sighted Moses. Not only did the Israelites (Moses) not successfully convert the ʿeirev rav, but the ʿeirev rav was capitalizing on this failure by converting the Israelites.
Still, considering Jacob Joseph’s comments regarding the Israelites failing to meet the requirements of ʿareivut (“fellowship”) in not protesting (or seeking to prevent) the transgression of the ʿeirev rav, we must ask: Is it the latter who was feigning fellowship with Israel? Or was the former engaging in a false fellowship with the ʿeirev rav? Moreover, unlike the midrash that presents the ʿeirev rav causing Israel to transgress with the golden calf, Jacob Joseph, as we have seen, does not present the Israelites as parties to the transgression itself. Indeed, those few individuals who did involve themselves in the calf incident in order to rectify the ʿeirev rav whose “welfare” they were seeking serve to implicate rather than exculpate the Israelites, most of whom, according to Jacob Joseph, did not assume the responsibility of ʿareivut. Thus, we are being asked to carefully consider in whom lies the fault of forsaking fellowship.
Even as a few Israelites stepped into the breach, one must ask, as did the ʿeirev rav (per the midrashic reading, which Jacob Joseph here adopts), where Moses was at this critical juncture: “When the people saw that Moses was long in descending (laredet) from the mountain…they said (to Aaron)…‘Come make for us a God who will lead us, for that man Moses, who brought us up (heʿelanu) (from the land of Egypt), we do not know what has become of him’” (Exodus 32:1).
Moses’s responsibility for the ʿeirev rav, as indicated by the midrash and Jacob Joseph’s statement that he sought their conversion, is also expressed in the latter’s following observation:
“(Jethro heard) all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people” (Exodus 18:1). It (the text) means to say “his people”—belonging to Moses, that is, the ʿeirev rav, as it says “(Go, descend,) for your people (whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt) has corrupted itself” (Exodus 32:7) (Toledot, 179–80 [Yitro]).10
Accordingly, it is not without suggestion that Jacob Joseph uses the verse “The pious are no more, the faithful of humankind have vanished,” which he explains can be interpreted to mean either that the people cause the leader to fall or the reverse, when he expounds upon the verse “Go Descend!, for your people (whom you have brought up from the land of Egypt), has corrupted itself” (Toledot, 474 [Naso]). Indeed, the midrash presents a distraught Joshua, contemplating what will become of the people in the absence of Moses, crying and saying: “The pious are no more, the faithful of humankind have vanished” (Deuteronomy Rabbah 11:10).
As the rabbinic tradition contends that the leader of the community (or generation) who does not protest (or seek to prevent) the wrongdoings of its members is “seized” for its transgression (nitpas be‘avon hador), so Jacob Joseph recognizes the responsibility Moses needed to assume for the ʿeirev rav and its actions.11 The intervention of those few Israelites who “donned the garb of the ʿeirev rav” to “raise” them up, therefore, is generally ascribed to God’s chosen, mediating representative, as can be seen in the following parable Jacob Joseph was fond of citing:
The parable which I heard from my teachers that a minister (sar) went out (from the presence of the king) to return the prince (ben hamelekh) to the king after he had distanced himself from him. And he had to don the clothes of the people of the village (lehalbish bigdei anshei hakefar), where the prince now was, so he would have some connection (hitḥabrut) with the prince whereby he could enter into a conversation with him and raise him up (ʿalta lo) (Toledot, 397 [Emor]).
In assuming, if only for the sake of appearances, the corrupted character (roaʿ hamiddot) of the estranged prince, the loyal minister becomes what he is not in order to rescue one who is not what he has become.12 “The purpose of this,” Jacob Joseph concludes, is “to return him to the palace. And, this going (halikhah) of the minister, whereby he goes and distances himself from the royal manner (laws or customs, nimusei malkhut) is, at the same time, a coming (biʾah), so that he can return the prince to the King, the King of the Universe” (Toledot, 397 [Emor]).13
The presentation of this parable and his accompanying comments regarding halikhah and biʾah further elucidates for us Jacob Joseph’s reading of the midrash regarding Moses’s people. As halikhah for Jacob Joseph denotes yeridah (“descending”), and biʾah signifies ʿaliyah (“ascending”), the minister’s halikhah (“going”) from the King (or God) in yeridah (“descending”) among the people in need of rectification culminates in the minister’s biʾah (“coming”) to the King/God in ʿaliyah (“ascending”) and raising himself and the rescued individual.14
When, then, God commands Moses to “Go (lekh), descend (reid), for your people whom you have brought up (heʿeleita) from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves,” He is reminding him of that great contingent in fellowship (ʿeirev rav) with Israel which he succeeded in bringing up but for which he must now descend yet again in order to raise up once more. God’s words to Moses can thus be seen to reflect what the ʿeirev rav already sensed, as presented in the biblical narrative: “When the people saw that Moses was long in descending (laredet)…they said…‘Come make us a God…for that man Moses who brought us up (heʿelanu)…we do not know what has become of him” (Exodus 32:1).
Jacob Joseph’s concluding remarks, that the purpose of the individuals “donning the garment of the ʿeirev rav” is “to include themselves with all the levels, as Samuel the prophet did, and [that] this is the essential purpose of the human being…and the great way in the service of the Lord,” recall the intervention of Samuel on behalf of the people, as explained by the rabbis: “And Samuel said: ‘We have transgressed.’ Rabbi Samuel the son of Rabbi Isaac said: ‘Samuel donned the cloak (ḥalukah) of all Israel’” (y. Taʿanit 2:7). While the biblical text says, “And they came together at Mizpah and they said: ‘We have transgressed’” (1 Samuel 7:6), inasmuch as the previous verse cites Samuel as saying “And I will pray on your behalf,” Rabbi Samuel presents this prophet as taking upon and including himself in the transgression of Israel.15 Jacob Joseph’s reference to Samuel now serves to further our understanding of his presentation of Moses’s response to God.
And through this, the plea (taʿanat) and phraseology (melitsat) of Moses on behalf of (ʿavur) Israel can be understood: “Ana (generally denoting beseeching or bewailing), this people have committed a great transgression” (Exodus 32:31)…And “I” is inclusive of all of them. For Moses is the root of all of them. “(Thus), when I say the people have committed a great transgression it is fitting (ra’uy) to immediately forgive inasmuch as I confess (mitvadeh) in the name of all of them, as did Samuel” (Toledot, 477 [Naso]).16
As Samuel had admonished Israel for transgressing (1 Samuel 7:3) and then said “I will pray on your behalf” (1 Samuel 7:5), thus leading the rabbis to put the words “We have transgressed” into the mouth of Samuel in order to indicate that he was assuming (responsibility for) their transgression, so Moses, having said to the people “You have committed a great transgression and now I will ascend (eʿeleh) to the Lord, perhaps I can make atonement (akaprah) for your transgressions” (Exodus 32:30), is now, in Jacob Joseph’s reading of the word ana, in the (Aramaic) sense of “I,” intervening and assuming the transgression of Israel. Having thus descended in fellowship with the people, it is only fitting that we now find God saying to Moses: “Go (lekh), ascend (ʿaleh) from here, you and the people you have brought up from the land of Egypt” (Exodus 33:1).17
For Jacob Joseph, a student of the Baal Shem Tov and a pioneer of the Hasidic movement, the ʿeirev rav was a critical subject, as his above-cited comments reflect. Indeed, the ʿeirev rav held personal import both for him, as a Hasidic leader, and in terms of his contemporary community.
And we will seek to explain the calf episode, as written in the Torah, as being eternal. For, it is difficult to say “what was, was”…. For, indeed, it is recurring, as we see with our own eyes…because Israel was divided (nivdalin) and separated (mufrashin) from the ʿeirev rav in two ways: in eating, for they did not eat the same food (Israel alone eating the manna) and they did not mix but secluded themselves (with God, in prayer and study), without the ʿeirev rav, in the clouds of Israel (the “clouds of glory” that went before Israel). The calf was an outcome of this, with the claim “let us be fully included with you”…. And my own eyes, not those of a stranger, have seen this battle waged constantly against one who seeks to sanctify himself and to be separate, to pray in a minyan of his own, inasmuch as it is impossible to pray in a public community wherein the people perform the commandments in a rote manner (betsibbur sheʿosin mitsvot anashim melumdah) and for several other similar reasons. And, with regard to eating, I will not declare my generation ritually fit (lo akhshir dori),18 for everyone slaughters, even those who are not expert in the laws of slaughtering and are not God-fearing (Toledot, 459–60 [Naso]).
As Moses and Israel separated themselves from the ʿeirev rav, so did Jacob Joseph and his community. However, like Moses, Jacob Joseph did not see himself as abandoning the ʿeirev rav. The interpretation based upon Rabbi Pistener’s dream, in which it is the leaders who are responsible for the vanishing of the faithful, as explained in the following passage, reflects the reality of his time as seen by Jacob Joseph:
And as Moses was the leader for his entire generation…so in each and every generation the head, those who are (truly) fit (hakesherim), are from the sparks (are the reincarnated souls) of Moses our master, as it is written: “What was is what will be” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).19 …And as it was in the generation of Moses, so it is in every generation, for there is an ʿeirev rav in each and every generation…20 And, when the people (ʿeirev rav) saw that Moses, who is the fitting (kasher) rabbi in their city, “was long” in coming to attend to their needs…they rose up with cunning (betaʿaromet) and said: “Make for us a god who will go before us” (Exodus 32:1).
As in our time, there was an informing (or denouncing, mesirah) to the government saying: “We need a leader.” And they explained their words in saying “‘for this man (zeh haʾish) Moses we do not know what has become of him’ (Exodus 32:1)…for we need a leader with whom we can be included as one, in eating and in prayer.”
And, thus, (does the golden calf episode) serve as an intimation (remez) for generations that because a group of individuals creates its own minyan and does not at all eat with them, that this is reason for the ʿeirev rav to create a golden calf…the golden calf, which refers to the “gods of gold” (elohei zahav, Exodus 32:31) who were appointed by the government for gold. And because of this, now many are the rabbis in the city. And that which is written “[make for us a god (of gold)] who will go (yelkhu, plural) before us” is because they desired many gods (of gold) (Toledot, 461 [Naso]).
Accordingly, Jacob Joseph’s discussion of the ʿeirev rav is, at least in part, a message regarding the contemporary corrupt leaders and their rabbis, the “gods of gold.” Jacob Joseph’s personal involvement in the events described, which until this point is only intimated, is soon made explicit: “The above recorded events, from beginning to end, happened to me, the writer, and it is thereby indicated (merumaz) why precisely ‘this man’ (zeh haʾish) ordered the making of a house of study/prayer (beit hamidrash) in Szarogrod” (Toledot, 461 [Naso]).
Thus Jacob Joseph, seeing himself as the Tsaddik, the fitting (kasher) leader of the generation, and following in the footsteps of Moses (of whom he is the reincarnation, as indicated by the self-appellation zeh haʾish, Exodus 32:1), separates himself and his Hasidim from the ʿeirev rav in prayer, study, and eating, as did Moses. As the biblical ʿeirev rav, because of the separation, asked for a new leader and created the calf to replace Moses, so the contemporary ʿeirev rav, because of the separation of Jacob Joseph and his followers, proceed, together with their leaders, to reject and expel this Tsaddik and his Hasidim (this separatist beit hamidrash perhaps serving as the first such institution of its kind within the nascent Hasidic movement) in favor of their golden calf rabbis. In the words of Jacob Joseph: “to chase them (he and his adherents) from the city and to dissolve his minyan” (Toledot, 471 [Naso]).
Jacob Joseph had been progressively demonstrating his sympathies toward these “new Hasidim.” Thus it is related that, having been impressed by Rabbi Aryeh Leib (the Rebuker/Mokhiaḥ of Pollonoye), one of the Besht’s disciples, whom he allowed to assemble a Shabbat minyan in his house, Jacob Joseph proceeded to invite the Szarogrod community to a seʿudah shelishit of these visiting Hasidim. “(This action) was startling to them (the Szarogrod authorities) for they believed him not to be a Hasid, but when his intentions became apparent, the city members began to fight with him.”21 When, soon thereafter, he “ordered the making of a house of study/prayer” and maintained his own minyan, Jacob Joseph made clear his allegiance. Having entertained and engaged in what were deemed dangerous practices of the emerging devotees of the Baal Shem Tov, with whom he was evidently aligning himself, Jacob Joseph was rejected and ousted by the established authorities of Szarogrod.22
While more securely practicing Hasidism in Nemirov and then more actively propagating it in Pollonoye, where he was appointed the “Rebuker of Pollonoye” upon the death of Aryeh Leib, it was the appearance of his Toledot in 1780, the first printed Hasidic work, that served to further formulate and give voice to this movement’s teachings. Its publication heightened the polemic, placing Jacob Joseph at its center, and precipitated the ensuing Vilna ban of 1781 calling for separation from these “Ḥashidim” (“suspected ones”) and “their new book.”23 In the words of one “defender of the faith”:
And regarding the matter of the book, that has reached your land in the month of Menachem (Av), 1781, which was authored by the rabbi of the community of Pollonoye, Jacob Joseph. Its quality and character is one of moral instruction/admonition (musarim) and novel expositions (ḥidushim), which are expounded based upon his particular path in understanding the Torah, at the seʿudah shelishit. And it is a new way that he learned and received from their teacher, who is called Israel Baal Shem Tov. And, its (or his) aim is to entice and seduce all of Israel to walk in their path and to no longer walk in the path of the holy Torah and in the path of our predecessors, may their memory be blessed.24
Particularly inciteful, then, for these established authorities and their rabbis, was the Toledot’s dubbing them as corrupting leaders of the ʿeirev rav. Indeed, they believed, Jacob Joseph and his followers were not only seeking to subvert the traditional ways but also presenting the true champions of the faith, and not its dangerous detractors, as the ones seeking to mislead the people.25 Not surprisingly, the Toledot was reportedly (repeatedly) burned.26
For Jacob Joseph, it was their preoccupation with Torah study that separated these ʿeirev rav rabbis from, and caused the dissolution of Torah among, the people. Thus, he explains:
When he said “that he (the rabbinic scholar) should not habituate himself to this,” (he meant that) he should not be diligently engaged in his study (of Torah) all the time. Rather, he should intermingle (or enter into fellowship, yitʿarev) with the general populace, as well…. By this, he will understand that the Holy One Blessed be He is to be found among all levels (madreigot) of people, and he can intermingle (or enter into fellowship, lehitʾarev) with all human beings. Then he (the rabbinic scholar) will not become arrogant (yagis daʿato) but, on the contrary, he will judge them (the general populace) meritoriously (Toledot, 88 [Vayyeitsei]).27
Seen neither as caring for the people nor as moral exemplars, these rabbinic “leaders” were variously depicted by Toledot as “wise for wicked purposes” (ḥakhamim lehara), “Jewish demons” (shidin yehudaʾin), or “foxes destroying the vineyards” (shuʿalim meḥablim keramim).28 Yet Toledot’s author argued that he was seeking not to forsake these wayward leaders, and the ʿeirev rav, but to rectify them. Thus, for Jacob Joseph, the Toledot was not a polemic to further a schism but a vehicle for returning the community to wholeness. Indeed, it was not despite but by means of this harsh criticism that the Toledot sought to achieve this end.29
As Moses, the fitting (kasher) leader of his generation, did not abandon the biblical ʿeirev rav but, descending, “raised them up” once again, so the Tsaddik Jacob Joseph, the reincarnated Moses of his time, was that fitting individual who would not forsake but, likewise descending, restore the ʿeirev rav of his day.30 Jacob Joseph’s title, the “Rebuker of Pollonoye” reflects how, according to his Toledot, this “fitting individual” can best accomplish the task of restoring the fallen ʿeirev rav. “There are,” Toledot explains, “two types of fitting individuals (kesheirim)”: “One who isolates/focuses only upon himself (mitboded bifnei ‘atsmo) and one who seeks to benefit (lizkhot) others” (Toledot, 288 [Tsav]).31 Identifying these individuals as the “Torah scholar (talmid ḥakham) who rectifies (meiyasher) only himself” and the “Torah scholar who rectifies (himself and) others, as well, by means of rebuke (tokhaḥat musar),” respectively, Jacob Joseph, making reference to the counsel “Better open rebuke than concealed love” (Proverbs 27:5), indicates which of these two “fitting individuals” is to be preferred.
“Better open rebuke (tovah tokhaḥah megulah),” these are (the individuals of) the second category mentioned above, who openly rebuke (megaleh tokhaḥat musar) to rectify them (the transgressors). They are better (tovim yoteir) than (the individuals of) the other category, who (referring to the second part of the verse: “than hidden love,” mei’ahavah musteret) are beloved (’ahuvim) inasmuch as they are hidden (mustarim) and do not openly rebuke (Toledot, 288 [Tsav]).
Indeed, in proceeding to offer a more felicitous reading of this verse, Jacob Joseph suggests that his very criticism of the contemporary ʿeirev rav and its enablers constitutes an expression of his love for them. The biblical verse is best understood as not presenting us with a disjunction of rebuke and love, for silence (as maintained by the present-day rabbinic scholars) betrays a lack of love, while rebuke (such as that offered by Toledot) is a sign of its very presence. Thus, Jacob Joseph adds: “Furthermore, one can interpret the verse as ‘good is open rebuke when it flows (nimshakh) from hidden love.’” Reading the prefix letter mem as a preposition (“from”) instead of a conjunction (“than”), the ʿeirev rav and those who sanction them are to understand that the rebuke of the Toledot emanates from the love of its “fitting” author.
Pertinent to the point this “Rebuker of Pollonoye” is making when he cites these words from Proverbs is his comment on the subsequent verse, which appears elsewhere in Toledot.
And by means of this will be understood the talmudic (passage in which) “Rabbi Samuel son of Nahmani said: ‘What is the meaning of the verse “faithful (neʾemanim) are the wounds of a friend (oheiev), but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27:6)? Better the curse with which Ahiyah the Shilonite cursed Israel than the blessing with which Balaam (the evil one) blessed them.’” For Ahiyah the Shilonite was of the category of the “faithful” rebukers, but Balaam the evil one was of the (category of the) dissemblers (hatsevuʿim) (Toledot, 576 [Balaq].32
Further insight as to the significance of this comment is afforded the reader when he finds mentioned, in the same context, that Ahiyah is the “source” (shoresh) of the “faithful rebukers,” who “received” his way (or teachings) from Moses, served as a judge in King David’s court, and was the teacher of Elijah the prophet as well as the teacher of “my teacher” (the Baal Shem Tov).
Like Ahiyah, who brooked no association with idolatrous worship, dealing harshly with Jeraboam when he, as did the ʿeirev rav at Sinai, set up golden calves and proclaimed, as did they, “Behold your God, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28), so Jacob Joseph, the (intimated) inheritor of this fearless rebuker’s teachings, would not constrain himself from criticizing the ʿeirev rav and golden calf rabbis of his own day. Yet, as the curse of Ahiyah, the prophet whose harsh words inaugurated the division of the Israelite kingdom (1 Kings 11:30–36), would ultimately serve as a blessing, so Jacob Joseph’s admonishments, which widened the schism between his emerging movement and the established Jewish community, in the end, would bring healing and unification.
Jacob Joseph’s opponents understood well the import of this “Rebuker of Pollonoye” claiming legitimacy by presenting himself as heir to, and maverick in the mold of, Ahiyah the prophet. Particularly telling, however, was the insinuating message in the Toledot’s explanation of how Ahiyah’s curse was, in truth, a blessing. Commenting upon this curse, (“And the Lord will strike Israel as a reed is shaken in water,” 1 Kings 4:5) in light of the talmudic exposition, Jacob Joseph explains that this onslaught will result in a new stock replacing the old (gizʿo maḥalif) and lead to a further strengthening of the roots (shorashav merubin) and attaining of new heights (madreigot yoteir elyonot).33 Thus, there will be a future restoration and unification of the people, but under the new leadership of the present-day “fitting” representatives of the Mosaic tradition.34
Jacob Joseph’s message was clear. The words he uttered regarding his expulsion from Szarogrod, lo akhshir dori, indeed, are to be understood as “I will not declare my (corrupt) generation fit”! However, they also mean “Will I not render my (corrupt) generation fit?” Like his biblical namesakes, Jacob and Joseph, the hated younger brothers who were estranged from the family only to return as rectifying forces in the lives of their older brothers, the beleaguered Jacob Joseph, who was ousted from the community because the authorities deemed him usurpacious, was now being called upon to restore the true outsiders to the fold of the faithful. As the Moses of his generation, however, Jacob Joseph might have seen himself playing a unique role beyond that of the leader engaged in the recurring pattern of descending to help the ʿeirev rav of his time ascend.
While noting that the verse “what was will be” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) indicates “as it was in the generation of Moses, so it is in every generation, for there is an ʿeirev rav in each and every generation,”35 Jacob Joseph might have seen his leadership as part of the final redemptive stage in which dor holekh vedor ba would cease to mean “the generation that goes will be the one that comes again” and no longer signify the recurring generational cycle of needing to rectify the ʿeirev rav and its enabling leadership. The golden calf episode, observes Jacob Joseph, “occurs throughout time, until the coming of our Messiah (meshiḥeinu).”36 Not long thereafter, referring to his generation’s ʿeirev rav and corrupting forces that had forced him out of Szarogrod, Jacob Joseph writes: “‘They banded together against the Lord and His messiah (or, anointed one, meshiḥo) (Psalm 2:2),’ immediately devising counsel against the Lord regarding prohibited foods, removing good butchers and appointing bad ones…as my eyes have seen and (devising counsel) against His messiah (or, anointed one)…how to expel them from the city and to dissolve his minyan” (Toledot, 471 [Naso]).37 Thus dor holekh vedor ba (or hador sheholekh hu sheba) may now come to mark the end of the cycle, the messianic period in which the generation that descended (holekh) will now permanently ascend (ba).38
For Jacob Joseph, as for Moses, the task with regard to the ʿeirev rav was, therefore, a formidable and critical one. The early separation from the ʿeirev rav by Moses and Jacob Joseph, together with their communities, was only temporary, necessitated by the formative period of the nation (or movement).39 As the “fitting” leaders of their generations, however, they could not abandon the ʿeirev rav. Indeed, the rebuke being offered by Toledot, by means of which he sought to raise the ʿeirev rav of his day, was aimed, like that of Moses, at reconciliation rather than rejection. Thus, in the passage wherein he equates his Szarogrod experience with that of Moses, Jacob Joseph writes: “The tablets (of the ten utterances) were broken…(and later) God returned and sent Moses who ground the calf into sand…and they returned and accepted him as the Rabbi (larav)” (Toledot, 471 [Naso]). Jacob Joseph’s hope lay, then, in ultimately fostering rather than forsaking fellowship, so that after “descending” with the new tablets (Exodus 34:29), the ʿeirev rav would join the new way of this Tsaddik and his Hasidim and it could again (and, perhaps, for the last time) be said: “and the ʿeirev rav too ascended with them” (Exodus 12:38).
Rabbi Daniel Z. Siegel has served as head of Jewish studies and Jewish life programs in Australia, Canada, and the United States. He is a lifelong educator, teacher, and student of our Jewish textual tradition. His recently published book is Jewish Journeying: A Textual Trek.
1 Zohar II, 191a (Ki Tissa).
2 The talmudic text reads velo Yisraʾel reʾuyin leʾoto maʿaseh (b. Avodah Zarah, 4b).
3 Cf. “For the ʿeirev rav (which Moses sought to convert) are of the sparks of Moses, in the secret (sod) of ‘Go, descend, for your people has corrupted itself’ (Exodus 32:7).” Ḥayyim Vital, Sefer eits ḥayyim (Unterhandler, 1890), part 2, gate 32, chapter 2, 36a (page 71).
4 The assumed textual basis for this reading is the introductory “because” (ki) appearing in both segments of this verse. Instead of viewing ḥasid and ’emunim as equivalents within a parallel construct, the midrashic reading treats them as separate parties—thus, “because the pious are no more, the faithful of humankind have vanished” or “because the faithful of humankind have vanished, the pious are no more.”
5 Jacob Joseph, Sefer toledot Yaʿaqov Yoseif ʿal haTorah (Moznayim, 1973).
6 Perhaps, then, the beginning clause and ending clause that flank Jacob Joseph’s central statement regarding Israel and the ʿeirev rav being of one source (common unity) can also be understood in employing the “beginning to end” and “end to beginning” interpretive principle. Because the ʿeirev rav has transgressed, as described in the beginning portion of this passage, Israel, which is interconnected with them, is to assume the prescribed responsibility as presented in the ending portion of this passage—namely, for rectifying its transgression. Or, inasmuch as Israel did not assume its responsibility of concerning itself with the ʿeirev rav as prescribed in the ending portion of this passage, it, being of one source with them, transgressed as described in the beginning part of this passage.
7 Cf. b. Yoma 66b; b. Avodah Zarah 44a; and Pesiqta Rabbati 10. This tripartite division, in punishing the guilty parties, is based upon the three instances of punishment for the golden calf transgression recorded in the biblical text: Exodus 32:27–28; 32:35; and 32:20 (cf. Numbers 5:12–31).
8 Cf. “Behold, it is written ‘They shall stumble upon one another’ (Leviticus 26:37), one upon the iniquity (ʿavon) of the other, teaching us that all Israel are fellows/responsible for one another” (b. Shevuʾot, 39a).
9 The rabbis consider the words “Each (Israelite) shall give a ransom for himself…a half-sheqel” (Exodus 30:12–13) to indicate that the sheqel was to serve as atonement for the golden calf (y. Sheqalim 2:3; cf. Tanhuma, Ki Tissa 10). Earlier, commenting on Ki Tissa itself, Jacob Joseph writes:
Why half a coin and not a full one (shaleim)? Rabbi Shlomo Alkabets, as cited by the Alshekh, explains the reason, and these are his words: “To teach Israel its relationship to unity; so that it should not occur to anyone (bal yaʿaleh ʿal halev) that he is separate from his companion (ḥaveiro)—for it is as if each individual is a half and in his interconnecting (behitḥabro) with each member of Israel he becomes complete (shaleim) (Toledot, 242).
After noting that the Alshekh proceeds to “flesh out” the “words” of Alkabets by adding that the sheqel atones for the golden calf, inasmuch as Israel did not protest or seek to prevent this transgression, Jacob Joseph concludes: “And, perhaps they would say ‘who renders us fellows (ʿareivim)’? Thus, the Blessed One indicates (rimeiz) to us, by means of the half-sheqel, that each individual, when together with his companion (ḥaveiro) is one.”
10 Jacob Joseph identifies Yisraʾel ʿamo (“Israel, his people”) in the first part of Exodus 18:1, with “your people whom you have brought up” (Exodus 32:7), thus rendering them the ʿeirev rav (whom Moses brought up). The second part of Exodus 18:1, “(And) that the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt” he presents as referring to Israel proper, which the Lord had taken out. Consider, as well, his explication (in Toledot, 179–80) regarding the term Elohim, which appears in the first part of Exodus 18:1, and its association with ʿeirev rav and the designation Adonai, which appears in the second part of Exodus 18:1, and its connection with Israel.
11 Kallah rabbati, chapter 6; cf. b. Shabbat 54b: “Whoever is able to protest/seek to prevent wrongdoings (limḥot)…and does not protest/prevent (miḥah)…is seized (nitpas).”
12 Because the word middot signifies character traits and, at times, clothes in terms of the physical “measure of the man,” Jacob Joseph explains “What is the donning of the village clothes in which the prince is ensconced? It appears to me it is the corrupted character which the minister assumes” (Toledot, 397 [Emor]). Thus, the minister here is like the few intervening individuals whom Jacob Joseph described as “psychological partners” with the ʿeirev rav.
13 Cf. Toledot, 380–81 (Emor). Consider, as well, the parable of the prince residing in the village (kefar), and needing to return to the palace/king in the Zohar I, 245b (Vayyeḥi). The rabbis had earlier distinguished between the villager (ben kefar), distant from the king, and the townsman (ben kerakh) in the presence of the palace/king (b. Ḥagigah, 13b).
14 Cf. “‘Go (lekh) to the people (and sanctify them)’ (Exodus 19:12) and it (the text) did not say ‘come (bo) to the people’. . . .for it is for a higher purpose, to raise up (haʿalot) the lower level to the higher one. As is the secret meaning of ‘Through this (by first engaging in halikhah) can Aaron (then) come (yavo) into the sanctified realm (haqodesh) (Leviticus 16:3). And in order for him to be able to raise up (lehaʿalot) he must first go down to that same (lower) level so that he can raise it up (lehaʿalotah) as we have mentioned in the parable of the minister who changed his clothes. . . .to raise the prince to the king. (Toledot, 317 [Metsorah]; cf. Toldot, 87 [Vayyeitsei] and 200 [Yitro]). Sometimes, Jacob Joseph employs ratso vashov for halikhah/yeridah and ʿaliyah/biʾah, respectively (Toledot, 81 [Vayyeitsei]).
15 This exegesis thus serves to address the formulation “He who answered Samuel at Mizpah, may He answer you,” which appears in the fast day service discussed here in the talmudic text (cf. b. Taʿanit,15a).
16 The word ʿavur (“on behalf of”) here reflects the ʿareivut (“fellowship”) that derives from or demands one’s being an ʿareivon (“surety”) or meʾareiv (“assuming a pledge”) on behalf of another.
17 While the “invitation” lekh, ʿaleih, which appears after Moses’s “atonement” for the people and thus serves to counterbalance the command lekh, reid, which is issued before Moses addresses the transgressors, agrees in spirit with Jacob Joseph’s description of ascension born of descension, it is not fully consonant with his coupling of halikhah and biaʾah with yeridah and ʿaliyah, respectively.
18 An allusion to Rabbi Naḥman’s comment (akhshur dari) regarding the mishnaic statement “butchers are not trustworthy” (b. Hullin, 93b).
19 Rejecting, as he had, “what was, was,” Jacob Jospeh, in citing the observation of Ecclesiastes (“what was, will be”) regarding the leader of each generation being of the sparks of Moses, is alluding to Zohar, Eqev, 273a, which comments that “in each and every generation, Moses will be reincarnated” (cf. the Tsulam commentary on this passage and Isaac Luria, Shaʿar hagilgulim (Lipschitz, 1911), introduction 20 (20a).
20 Jacob Joseph again echoes the Zohar (Eqev 273a), which reads “one generation goes another comes” (Ecclesiastes 1:4) as “the generation which goes will be that which comes, again” (hador sheholekh husheba).
21 Avraham Rubenstein, ed. Shivḥei haBesht (Rubin Mass, 2003), 100–101.
22 Celebrating seʿudah shelishit in the particular manner they did, maintaining their own minyanim (with new and differing elements), and insisting on meticulously and correctly honed slaughtering knives were but a few of the derided practices for which this “sect,” of which Jacob Joseph was now considered a member, was being attacked. For further discussion of this subject, see Mordecai Wilensky, “Hasidic-Mitnaggedic Polemics in the Jewish Communities of Eastern Europe,” in Essential Papers on Hasidism, ed. Gershon Hundert (New York University Press, 1991), 248–66 as well as the source literature in Mordecai Wilensky, Ḥasidim umitnaggedim, 2 vols. (Mossad Bialik, 1990), 1:28-69 and 2:77, 165–66, 249–50.
23 By exchanging the letter shin for sin, their opponents rendered these self-proclaimed “pious ones” (Ḥasidim) as being of disrepute or suspect (ḥashidim) instead; see “The 1781 Vilna Ban,” reproduced in Wilensky, Ḥasidim umitnaggedim, 1:102–5 and cf. Wilensky’s foreword [101]). Although Jacob Joseph was the Besht’s chief disciple, it was Dov Baer of Miedzyrzecz, their head from 1760 (upon the death of the Besht) until 1772, who transformed the Hasidim from a small group to a movement. Relocating its center from Podolia to Volhynia, which was more central to the Polish kingdom, and dispatching emissaries to White Russia, central Poland, and Lithuania, the expanding movement incurred the ban of the Vilna community, headed by Rab Elijah ben Solomon (the Vilna Gaon) in 1772. Following the ban, and after the Hasidim had assumed a more defensive posture, tensions subsided until the publication of Jacob Joseph’s Toledot. See Wilensky, “Hasidic-Minaggedic Polemics,” 244–245. Simon Dubnow, “The Maggid of Miedzyrzecz,” in Essential Papers on Hasidism, ed. Gershon Hundert (New York University Press, 1991), 68–69 asserts that, indeed, it was this ban of 1772 that motivated Jacob Joseph to begin “compiling” his Toledot in Polonnoye. Dubnow also provides here a more detailed discussion of Jacob Joseph’s life after he left Szarogrod (ca. 1748) and until he arrived in Pollonoye (1770).
24 David of Makow, “Shever poshʿim,” in Wilensky, Ḥasidim umitnaggedim, 2:145.
25 Cf. “They are the Hasidim who separate from the community of Israel…(and) rebel against the Mosaic teaching (torat Mosheh)…and have a deleterious effect on the society of Israel yet, in unison, they slanderously claim that it is we [italics mine] who are to be classified as the ʿeirev rav” (Quntros Rabbi Aaron Auerbach, excerpted in Wilensky, Ḥasidim umitnaggedim, 2:102.
26 Dan Ben-Amos and Jerome R. Mintz, trans. and ed., In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov (Shivḥei haBesht) (Indiana University Press, 1970), 260 and 343 n.
27 Jacob Joseph’s words here are all the more scathing when considered in the context of the talmudic narrative to which they are alluding:
When Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Simeon, in returning from the house of his teacher, feeling arrogant (daʿato gasa ʿalav) because he had learned much Torah, said to a passer-by, who had greeted him “useless one (reiqah), how ugly you are, are all your fellow citizens as ugly as you?,” the latter, upon arriving in his city, and hearing his fellow citizens greet Rabbi Elazar with the appellation Rabi, commented: “If this is a Rabbi/scholar, may there not be any more like him in Israel.” When they prevailed upon him to forgive one so “great in Torah,” he responded: “As long as he not habituate himself to this” (b. Taʿanit 20a-b).
While the intent of these final words is that this scholar not again treat others in this manner (cf. Derekh erets rabbah, chapter 4), Jacob Joseph is interpreting these words as a warning not to continue in the isolationist preoccupation with Torah study, as it leads to assuming an elitist attitude in relationship to others. Significantly, these comments are found in Toledot’s exposition of the word, or biblical portion of Vayyeitsei (“and he went out”), wherein Jacob Joseph discusses Jacob’s emergence from being “buried” (nitman) for fourteen years in the Torah academy of Shem and Ever (Genesis Rabbah 68:5) as well as the talmudic story (b. Shabbat 36b) of Simeon bar Yoḥai and his son who, for twelve years, studied Torah buried in the sand of a secluded cave. In these instances, too, explains Jacob Joseph, being removed from the general populace dedicated exclusively to Torah study proved injurious of the community, as both Jacob and Simeon bar Yoḥai (and his son) subsequently learned. For further discussion of the Hasidic challenge to the “religious supremacy” of Torah study/scholarship and the mitnaggedic response, see Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture (John Hopkins University Press, 1997), 50–61.
28 Cf. Toledot, 542–43 (Ḥuqqat), 673 (Shoftim), and 163 (Bo). For a presentation of these rabbis as an extension of an “oligarchical” and corrupt “kahal regime,” against which Jacob Joseph was serving as a social critic, see Ben Zion Dinur, “The Origins of Hasidism and its Social and Messianic Foundations,” in Essential Papers on Hasidism, ed. Gershon Hundert (New York University Press, 1991), 95, 106–13, 128–29, 144–51.
29 Cf. “All Yaaqov Yosef ’s texts and comments were directed toward the goal of unity and harmony between the people and the rabbis. All of his criticism against the rabbis revolved around one point: that they had brought about an internal rupture in the Jewish people by neglecting the common folk and by isolating themselves” (Dinur, “Origins,” 147–48).
30 Employing the concept of “descent for the purpose of ascent” (yeridah letsorekh ʿaliyah), as reflected in the previously presented parable of the king and his estranged son, wherein the Tsaddik must descend into the sinful/evil realm to raise up those who are “entrapped” within—an idea which, for some, smacked of antinomian overtones—Jacob Joseph was sometimes labeled a Sabbatian (and a Frankist) by his opponents. The notion that Jacob Joseph needed to descend in order to rescue them certainly did not ingratiate him in the eyes of these ʿeirev rav rabbis. On the assertion that Jacob Joseph himself was a Sabbatian, see the “plea” of Avigdor ben Hayyim to the tsar in Wilensky, Ḥasidim umitnaggedim, 2:241; cf. Wilensky, “Hasidic-Mitnaggedic Polemics,” 259–61. For an expanded discussion on the Tsaddik and the “idea of descent” in the Toledot, see Mendel Piekarz, Beyemai tsmiḥat haHasidut (Mossad Bialik, 1998), chapter 7. Piekarz agrees with Scholem’s conclusion that Jacob Joseph and the Maggid (Dov Baer) of Miedzyrzecz “used these (Sabbatian) ideas” only in “giving them a constructive and positive twist” and “by no stretch of the imagination can (they) be viewed as Sabbatians”; see Gershom Scholem, “Tsaddik: The Righteous One,” in On The Mystical Shape of The Godhead, ed. J. Chipman (Schocken, 1991 [repr.]), 126.
31 Cf. Toledot, 511 (Shelaḥ).
32 The talmudic passage cited here immediately precedes the narrative, discussed earlier, of the arrogant Torah scholar who removed himself from the people.
33 Toledot, 576 (Balaq).
34 By means of a word play regarding his name, Jacob Joseph indicates in this context that it is individuals such as himself, rather than the arrogant ʿeirev rav rabbis, who will endure and lead the people into the future. Commenting upon the rabbinic dictum “One should be supple as a reed and not unyielding as a cedar,” which serves as the concluding statement to the passage regarding Ahiyah and the adjoining story concerning the arrogant rabbi, Jacob Joseph notes that one who is humble as a reed (alluding to Ahiyah’s “curse”) and is thus open to rebuke or moral instruction (musar) from the “healers of souls” (ḥakhamim rofʾei nefashot) will flourish, while one who is arrogant (gasut ruaḥ) as a cedar (used in Balaam’s blessing in Numbers 24:6) and is thus closed off to growth will wither and die. Accordingly, the words “toldot Yaʿaqov Yoseif ” (Genesis 37:2) tell us, says Jacob Joseph, that “one who is humble and lowly knows of himself that he has not achieved perfection of the Torah and always strives to become more complete (lehosif sheleimut). Thus, Yaʿaqov Yoseif (is one) who must increase (sheyosif) in perfection every day.” Being like the reed, the “descendants” (followers) of Jacob Joseph will continue to grow (toledot Yaʿaqov Yoseif, albeit a grammatically wanting reading), while the cedar-like rabbinic scholars, if not rectified, will vanish. Bearing in mind another biblical verse, the reader will understand that despite his “brothers’” persistent “hatred” for him “because of his dreams and his words” (vayyosifu seno oto ʿal ḥalomotov ve‘al devarav, Genesis 37:8), Jacob Joseph will prevail (Toledot, 576 [Balaq] and 370 [Qedoshim]).
35 Toledot, 461 (Naso).
36 Toledot, 460 (Naso).
37 Jacob Joseph is sufficiently vague here, presenting mashiaḥ as a collective noun (“they are the teachers who occupy themselves with Torah study and worship”), while at the same time, perhaps, using this term in reference to himself. Similarly, while mashiaḥ properly means “anointed one,” the context and the reference to ending the recurring cycle with the coming of the mashiaḥ might be of more than passing significance.
38 As the advent of Elijah, Ahiyah’s former student, signalled the coming of the end of days, expressed by the words “and he will reconcile parents with children and children with parents” (Malachi 3:23–24), so Jacob Joseph, who approvingly cites the words of Rabbi Haninah (“the (messiah) son of David will not come until the arrogant (gasei haruaḥ) will cease from Israel”), was seeking to effect this messianic promise of reconciling the parents (which he interprets to mean Torah scholars) and children (which he interprets to mean the people Israel) in rebuking these arrogant rabbinic “leaders” (Toledot, 370, 489 [Qedoshim]).
39 Accordingly, Toledot presents three stages for the Torah scholar (talmid ḥakham), which appear to parallel his own life story. First, at the start of forging the “correct” path, he breaks away/isolates himself from the transgressing community. Having established himself in this “correct” path, he may “walk among” the members of the larger community, although “not on their level.” Finally, in his later years (which is when Toledot was brought forth), he is to offer rebuke. See Toledot, 278–88 (Tsav).