Religinio žmogaus atsakomybė : Lietuvos žydų rabiniška mintis tarp racionalizmo ir chasidiško misticizmo

LTLietuviškojo judaizmo ypatumai - oponavimas chasidizmui (misnagdiškumas), racionalumas, aiškinant Torą ir halakhinius potvarkius, autoritetingi halakhiniai sprendimai, remiantis racionalia tekstų analize, ir rabiniškas autoritetas, paremtas rašytinės ir sakytinės Torų išmanymu, modernios ješivos, galiausiai "musaro" judėjimas, - yra tai, kas plačiausiai žinoma ir pripažįstama kaip bruožai, neatsiejami nuo šiuolaikinio nechasidiško ortodoksinio judaizmo. Tačiau ar pats šiuolaikinis lietuviškasis ortodoksinis judaizmas nebus įgijęs ir kai kurių bruožų, būdingų chasidiškai ortodoksijai, ir atvirkščiai - chašidizmas, perėmęs eilę misnagdiškų elementų? Kodėl, nepaisant to, jog dažnai tiek tyrėjai, tiek ir stebėtojai akcentuoja, kad konfliktas (ar bent jau konfliktą sukėlusios priežastys) tarp vienos ir kitos stovyklos jau nugrimzdo istorijoje ir laikas pradėti kitokių santykių istoriją, kai kur, ir Lietuvoje, tie konfliktai vis iš naujo įsiliepsnoja ir išlieka? Monografijoje į šiuos ir daugelį kitų klausimų siekiama atsakyti iš naujo keliant klausimus apie žydų bendruomenės (vadintos "šventąja bendrija", kehila kdoša) skaldymosi į įvairių grupinių tapatybių pradžią, vykusią Vilniaus Gaono gyvenimo paskutiniais dešimtmečiais, kai tradiciniai ginčai šioje bendrijoje, spręsti remiantis šventaisiais tekstais, transformavosi į ideologinius konfliktus, atsirėmusius į asmenybių charizmą ir išpažįstamas idėjas.Turint omenyje naujausius tyrimus apie chasidizmo kaip būtent modernaus judėjimo pradžią, kilusią iš konflikto, o ne sukėlusią konfliktą, knygoje analizuojama rabiniškos konfliktologijos samprata šiandieninės situacijos Lietuvoje kontekste bei pateikiami keli pokalbiai su paskutinį dešimtmetį Sovietų Sąjungoje veikusio disidentinio žydų sugrįžimo prie religijos judėjimo dalyviais, kuriuose fiksuojami probleminiai šiandieniams, posovietinės erdvės žydams vienos ar kitos ortodoksijos pasirinkimo niuansai. Galiausiai knygoje koncentruojamasi ir į kai kurių su litvakišku judaizmu siejamų aspektų - rabiniško autoriteto ir atsakomybės, "musaro", halakhos ir etikos (ne)sąsajos, atsižvelgiant į ankstesnius tyrimus ir įsitvirtinusius požiūrius į "musaro" judėjimo humanistinį pobūdį, - analizę. Monografijoje pateikiami ir keli Lietuvos rabiniškos minties paveldo - Vilniaus Gaono, r. Izraelio Salanterio ir r. Elijahu Desslerio - tekstai ir pristatomi rašytojo Chaimo Grades apsakyme "Ginčas" pateikiami poholokaustiniai argumentai už ir prieš lietuviškojo "musaro" idėjas. [From the publication]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvos žydai; Judaizmas; Litvakų judaizmas; Sionistinė veikla; Tora; Rabiniška mintis; Chasidizmas; Misnagdiškas judaizmas; Sakytinė tradicija; Jews of Lithuania; Judaism; Litvak Judaism; Zionist activities; Torah; Rabbinical thought; Chasidism; Misogynistic Judaism; Spoken tradition.

ENLithuanian Judaism, self-identity of which is inseparable from the opposing Chassidism and maintaining the old traditions and teachings of Judaism, was nevertheless a result of the same processes of modernity that led to the formation of Chassidism at the end of 18th century and Haskala in the 19th century. As recent researches into the history of Chassidism reveal, Chassidism itself, as a distinct variant of Judaism, has emerged in modern times not without opposition to the teachings and practices of the pioneers of this movement by Vilna community and the Vilna Gaon. This study drew attention to what was hitherto unobserved in the researches - the very fact of the possibility of the Jewish community to break up. It became possible, as the study reveals, precisely in modern times, with the general shift in the concept of socium and religion. Researches have consistently kept emphasizing that one of the differences between Litvaks and Chassidim is the cult of a charisma-based Zaddik’s personality. However, the paradox is that the Litvaks’ opposition to Chassidism primarily was and is still based on the authority of the Vilna Gaon as a person, not on the ideas to be discussed, based on the texts. The Vilna Gaon himself refused to discuss ideas with a Chassidic leader, and that event marked the new era of a „dispute management“. Therefore, in modern times we witness the process of shifting grounding arguments of responsibility from text to sociality: from supporting his cause with reference to the texts toward reference to the social authority of a person. And although the exclusive social, community-supported status of the leader institutionalized in the strains of Chassidic Judaism since the final decade of the 18th century, one can already observe the unequivocal rise of rabbinic authority in Litvak Judaism based on the Daat Torah ideology.Among the similarities, the entire “pantheon” of the so-called Gedolei Lita can be seen - the leading rabbinic figures of the Lithuanian Orthodox Judaism; a position of an educator, a spiritual guide in Lithuanian as well as in Chassidic yeshivas (adopted by them according to a Lithuanian model). Musar in the Lithuanian yeshivas performed the same function as books of Zaddikim in the Chassidic ones. Despite the today’s commonly held beliefs that the conflict between Chassidism and Mithnaggedism has been resolved, and that the differences are not substantial, focused interviews with non-Lithuanian interviewees, though historically related to the Jewish heritage of Lithuania, have revealed that the distinction tends to become more pronounced in cases when a person today considers the necessity of joining an institutionalized Jewish religious community. On the other hand, if for non-Lithuanian Jews this choice is more common in terms of style and personal preferences, a field study in a Mitnagedic Lithuanian Jewish community shows that a choice here is a matter of principle and although the “dispute management” model still remains modern, i.e. without going deeper into a textual debate. Among the comments attributed to the Vilna Gaon is an approach towards leadership responsibility that emphasizes the need for the leader (Torah teacher and judge) to weigh each of his commitments for another person, and is therefore most appropriate in an individualized and personal relationship. Quite different, and even opposing approach can be found in R. Schneur Zalmans book “Tanya” - the author of the book, by the very fact of writing the book itself, assumes virtually unlimited responsibility for all who read it.Individualistic ethics of personal perfection developed in the 19th century by Lithuanian Musar movement seeks to realize the gaonic ideal of Torah Lishmah by forming the perfect Torah personality. Unlike certain folk myths, according to which the Musar movement or at least its founder R. Israel Salanter sought to revive the traditional ritualistic Judaism through promotion of social sensitivity, the study concluded that in the Musar movement, including the famous Salanter’s text, “The Letter o f Musar,” social sensitivity or humanism was not in a focus. And in the face of Holocaust trauma, we observe a collision between Musarist and humanistic ethics in a narrative of a Vilna born Yiddish writer Chaim Grades, in his “The Quarrel”. In his story, we find a clash between a position claiming a rectitude of the Musarist path, which was only confirmed by the Holocaust that revealed the fragility of the peoples’ global ethics, and another attitude attempting to prove the futility of the ego-centric Musarist path, in the face of the Tragedy, to which the humanistic ethics of non-Jews, even atheists or communists, who saved Jews by putting their own lives at risk, can be opposed. [From the publication]

• Teologija / Theology
• Istorija / History