R. Yosef Yoizle Hurwitz "the Alter of Novardok"

Rabbi Yosef Yoizel Hurwitz Mezake Harabim

"Where there are no kids, there are no goats." Yosef Yoizel Hurwitz delivered Mezake Harabim to provide direction for Jewish education, which felt to be rapidly deteriorated. Hurwitz feared that in the world of post WWI Europe, few were dedication themselves to the study of Torah, and that the "net of sin" had ensnared the majority of the young generation. He warns that if the abysmal education situation is to persists, there exists the danger the Torah will be forgotten from the house of Israel. Therefore, the responsibility falls to R. Hurwitz's students to combat, by every means available, the advance of secularism and neglect of Torah studies.

Yosef Yoizel Horowitz famously known as the Alter of the Novardok was the innovator of the most extreme branch of the Mussar Movement in nineteenth and early twentieth century Eastern Europe. Yosef Yoizel was born in the Lithuanian town of Plongian in 1848, where his father Shlomo Zalman served as the rabbi and dayan. Yosef Yoizel, still and adeolecent, was engaged to the daughter of Yaakov Stein or Shvedesna, who promised him a large dowry. However, Yosef Yoizel's father in law died shortly before the wedding, leaving a widow and eight children of whom the oldest was Yosef Yoizel's bride. Yosef Yoizel managed his deceased father in law's business , in order to support his wife's family.

On one of his business trips to Memel Yosef Yoizel first encountered Rabbi Yisrael Salanter in a beit midrash where Salanter delivered sermons. Under the influence of Yisrael Salanter, Yosef Yoizel decided to leave his family and travel to Kovno in order to pursuit his Torah studies. In Kovno, Yosef Yoizel studied in the mussar kollel under the tutelage of Yisrael Salanter's students. Yosef Yoizel brought his wife and family to Kovno, however during his studies his wife died in labor. Distraught by his wife's death, Yosef Yoizel divided his children among relatives and became a recluse, secluding him self in the room of the tin smith. The only contact Yosef Yoizel maintained with the outside world for a year and a half was through two small windows accessing the room. Yosef Yoizel was forced to abandon his seclusion in 1882 when the police raided his room, tipped off by maskilim that Yosef Yoizel was running a counterfeit money operation.

Shortly after emerging from seclusion Yosef Yoizel remarried on the condition that he may continue to seclude himself during the week and return to his wife for Shabbat. In 1894 Yosef Yoizel underwent another life altering change when Zimcha Zissel Ziv, one of Salanter preeminent students, convinced Yosef Yoizel to abandon his life of solitude, as the times demanded that Torah scholars be proactive in offsetting the advances of enlightenment. Yosef Yoizel established a series of small kollels throughout the Pale of Settlement; the kollels also operated yeshiva ketanas. It was also at this time that Yosef Yoizel opened the famed yeshiva gedola of Novardok for the graduates of these yeshiva ketanas. It was in his role as the rosh yeshiva and mashgiach of Novardok that Yosef Yozel would be most famously remembered until his death shortly after the conclusion of the First World War.

In Mezake Harabim R. Hurwitz initiates his plan for educational reform by contextualizing the crisis within the mussar approach of striving for self perfection. When an individual becomes aware of a personal deficiency he must use all the necessary tactics, unremittingly, to uproot this negative trait in order to return to a state of spiritual equilibrium. R. Hurwitz views society to be a macrocosm of the individual, when a crisis emerges within society it is the collective's responsibility to uproot the impediment for the spiritual wellbeing of the society. Although no part of their usual responsibilities, R. Hurwitz turns to his students and adherents to take it upon themselves to salvage Torah education. These scholars should not view the commitment to others as diverting time from their personal self-improvement, because the welfare of the community supersedes that of an individual.

Mezake Harabim is directed towards students, Torah scholars accustomed to living in a reclusive environment dedicated to spiritual self-perfection. Any interactions with outside world are viewed as perilous for one's spiritual health; thus the question arises how and if one should interact with spiritually dangerous elements in hope of positively influencing them and elevating their status. Hurwitz concludes his introduction by posing the ten questions to be answered throughout the sermon, as to how educators, the sermon's audience, are to involve themselves in the potentially spiritually dangerous education process.

Essential to R. Hurwitz's articulation of his program, are aggadic sources which serve as a foundation for illustrating his concepts. One of the most conspicuous examples in Mezake Harabim is the aggadic gemara involving R. Hiyya bar Abba. R. Hiyya was active during the time of the redaction of the mishna by Rabbi Judah the Prince, his years spanning from the tanaitic period in to the Amoritic period. Born in Palestine, he immigrated to Palestine at a young age become a disciple of R. Hanina and R. Joshua ben Levi. After the death of this last generation of Tanaim, R. Hiyya along with R. Ammi and Assi were recognized as the preeminent Halachik authorities in Palestine. R. Hiyya's major contribution to the Oral Law was compiling the braitas which would from the tosefta. R. Hiyya was the author of numerous aggadot, however, he denounced every attempt to commit them to writing to extent where he cursed an individual who had attempted to collect them. Due to his poverty, Hiyya traveled from town to town lecturing for his livelihood, but became agitated when his lecture on aggada drew larger audiences than his halachic discourses. R. Hurwitz uses an aggadic anecdote involving R. Hiyya as the basis for the first half of his sermon. In the aggada R. Chanina contends with R. Chiya: If Torah were forgotten in Israel, I would restore in through my reasoning? To Which R. Chiya responds:

Would you content with me, who kept Torah from being forgotten in Israel? How so? I went and sowed flax. From flax I made nets and trapped deer. The flesh I fed to orphans, and from the skins I make parchment scrolls on which to write the Five Books of Moses. I then went a town and taught the Five Books to five children and six orders of the mishna to six children , after which I in structure them "until my return teach each other what you have learned, so that Torah will not forgotten in Israel." It is to this that Rebbi alluded when he said: "How great are the works of Hiyya!".

R. Hurwitz sees R. Hiyya as the quintessential educator, who ought to be emulated even in twentieth century Europe. R. Hiyya was completely altruistic in his devotion to the teaching of others. R. Hiya even endures all the hardships involved in teaching from the sewing of flax to the production of the parchment. His greatest concern was for his efforts to be perpetuated by his students so they may sufficiently trained in order to influence other students in the future. R. Hiyya's also cultivates within his students the necessity of communal service by telling his students "teach each other". These students, in the future, will be capable of propagating Torah and fear of heaven among the Jewish people, and ensure continual commitment of the Jewish people to Torah.

R. Hurwitz sees R. Hiyya's actions not merely as an aggadic anecdote, but feels R. Hiyya's actions as an effective way to train communal servants with a common goal of perpetuating Torah learning and values for future generations. R. Hurwitz also mentions that R. Hiyya was determined to implement his plan, even though it was seen as unconventional at the time. So too the Novardok was of life is viewed as unconventional by other East European yeshivas, and yet the unconventional R. Hiyya prevented the Torah from being lost, so too the Novardok educators can ensure the Torah's survival in the interwar period. R. Hiyya demonstrated that teaching students to teach other is the ideal educational regiment for communal servants.

R. Hurwitz poses the question if one is permitted to perform mundane tasks that may be perceived as beneath one's station or dignity. Again R. Hurwitz looks to the actions of R. Hiyya, who took upon himself to perform all the mundane tasks necessary for teaching Torah to his students. He was unconcerned with his honor or his dignity, but acted out of necessity in order to aattain his goal. R. Hiyya's goal was to further the cause of Torah, by preventing its neglect when there was danger that the Torah might be forgotten. For R. Hiyya the end result and achievement is the focus, not the manner by which he arrived there, therefore he personally performed mundane tasks which were below his dignity. Therefore, R. Hurwitz explains, the Talmud praises R. Hiyya "how great are the works of Hiyya", because he took in upon himself to achieve his ends by every means necessary.

The upshot of R. Hiyya's efforts for the student audience of R. Hurwitz is that in order to accomplish a task and realize a goal one must be willing to do what ever is necessary to produce that result. Even actions which do not contain the outward appeal need to be performed if they are indispensable to the goal. This type of conduct, seen in R. Hiyya's actions, in certainly in keeping with Novardok's world view of shunning the constraints and expectations of the outside world, when trying to spread Torah to uncommitted Jews.

The choice of R. Hiyya's initiative to prevent Torah from being forgotten is very reconcilable with Novardok ideology; in the way that R. Hurwitz explains the aggada, R. Hiyya, in sense, emerges as a Novardoker as Novardok ideology is transposed onto his actions. This comparison emerges immediately when R. Hiyya takes it upon himself to perform the mundane tasks that are prerequisites to the teaching of Torah, including the sewing of flax, hunting of deer, and preparing the parchment for the writing of the Torah scroll. Novardok students were conditioned to be unconstrained by society, including religious society's notions of what was appropriate for scholars. Novardok students willingly humiliated themselves to demonstrate what society thought of them as irrelevant. In that sense R. Hiyya is portrayed as a Novardoker, by his ability to perform undignified actions to further his cause without fear of ridicule from his contemporaries. R. R. Hurwitz explains also implicit in Rebbi's world "how great are the works of R. Hiyya".

When the Torah scholar rises above all worldly influences and the pressures of day-to-day living, seeking only the truth, and aspiring to a unique world of spiritual perfection of his neighbor and objectively measures himself against the other to see where their respective strengths lie-there is no basis for propagation of Torah more solid than this.

Truthfulness to others and one's self attained obsessive proportions among Novardok students. They shunned society's constraints, viewing it as an impediment to the attainment of spiritual perfection. Individuals capable of achieving perfection as did R. Hiyya and his disciples are the idea vessels for the spread of Torah to wayward Jews.

Another aspect of the aggadic tale in which R. Hiyya becomes a Novardoker is his axiom of "teach each other". R. Hiyya did not enlist other scholars, or himself, teach the six order of mishna and five books of the Torah to his students, but opted to teach them individually one volume to each student and have them teach one another. R. Hurwitz asserts that students sharing their knowledge with one another, R. Hiyya intended to create mutual obligation. Students will achieve more when study together than when a scholar lectures to them; it is when individuals have an obligation to their fellow that the individual and the collective can maximize their potential. R. Hiyya's actions, as interpreted by R. Hurwitz, are in keeping with Novardok methods of study. The loftiest spiritual levels were attained by Novardok students during group study sessions in which they would critique one another's actions and behavior as a self improving endeavor. The expectation was that the reproof of fellow students would generate the greatest effort on the part of the individual to improve his self, as not to let down the other members of the study group. So too R. Hurwitz has R. Hiyya recognize that that the students will be most successful at disseminating their knowledge by teaching one another, generating indebtedness and dependency on each other as done by Novardok students.

R. Hiyya's actions answer the question as to whether a person should wait until they have the experience of forty years before they began to serve the community, and propagate torah values. R. Hiyya's education initiatives, instructing his students to teach each other emphasizes the importance of youthful energy and exuberance to the spreading Torah. If an individual fails to initiate his service to the community in his youth he likely will not begin in his old age, and will even digress in his personal spiritual labors. That is to say, the way to insure that a young Novardok student will perfect himself is by having him assist others early on. Scholars cannot single handedly save torah from disappearing; it requires a grassroots initiative of the youthful students like those of R. Hiyya and Novardok to spread torah to more students.

Lastly, the agadda of R. Hiyya teaches the audience that everyone is responsible for propagating Torah among Jews. The Torah giants of the generation fulfill their obligation by following the statement of R. Hannina, "Would you contend with me? If Torah were forgotten in Israel, I would restore it through my reasoning!" This axiom applies to people of great intelligence and learning who spread Torah using their intellectual faculties; but what of the average person? Are they exempt from spreading Torah? R. Hurwitz declares they are to follow R. Hiyya's statement of "teach each other." Each according to his abilities, must one spread Torah. Some will establish study groups or give Talmud lectures, proliferate the yeshivas, and others could involve with ensuring that the material needs of the students are taken care of. All are obligated in the propagation of Torah, utilizing which ever aptitude they have been endowed with.

The next source used by R. Hurwitz to espouse his educational program is from the Tanya Devei Eliyahu. This source highlights the extremeness of the Novardok ideology, and their commitment to spreading Torah observance.

If you would ask why the seventy thousand me of Givat
Binyamin were killed, it is because the Great Sanhedrin invested by Moses, Joshua and Pinchas should have tied iron thongs around their things, lifted their garments about their knees, and ventured forth into the cities of Israel … and so to all the Jewish settlements, and have taught the Jews proper conduct in the course of a year or two or three, so that the name of the Holy One Blessed be He would be exalted and sanctified. But they did not do this. Instead, each of them basked in the repose of his own vineyard, saying; 'Peace unto you, my soul'-so as not to overexert himself. Therefore, in Givat Binyamin, where the study of Torah and the cultivation of proper conduct were not pursued, seventy thousand men were killed. And who killed them all? The same Great Sanhedrin invested by Moses, Joshua and Pinchas.

R. Hurwitz uses this perplexing agadda to illustrate that one needs to be proactive about bringing Jews to Torah. A person cannot absolve himself from his obligation by saying that he was not present. Rather one must be active, traveling from place to place, years of journeying if necessary, in order to assist uncommitted Jews. The members of the Sanhedrin, esteemed individuals unaccustomed to manual labor were expected to "lift their garments above their knees" in order to reach destinations where their assistance was required. Furthermore the members of the Sanhedrin, who exerted effort cultivating Torah personalities and fear of heaven, should have been sensitive to the declining status of Torah among the nation, but because they did not exert the necessary effort they are accountable for the death of seventy thousand Jews.

This midrash is reflective of the Novardok worldview which made its adherents accountable to others. One cannot ensconce himself in a cocoon while others remain unexposed to Torah. Committing one's self to his own perfection, like the Sanhedrin, becomes accountable for the lapses of others. If one failed to exert themselves in assisting others, he bears their inequity, just as the Sanhedrin is responsible for the deaths of seventy thousand. Novardok students would travel from community to community cajoling towns to establish satellite beitei midrashim operated by a Novardok representative, so the town's youth would be able to study Torah.

R. Hurwitz poses the question of whether the young must be kept under constant surveillance, and have their needs taken care of. To answer this he differs to an agadda involving Rav in Tractate of Taanit. In the anecdote Rav prays in a town suffering from drought. When the shaliach tzibur repeated the world "He brings wind, and brings down rain" rain began to fall on the parched town. Rav asked the prayer leader what his occupation was, to which the man replied: "I teach the young, the sons of the poor as well as those of the rich, and I take nothing from those who are lacking in means. Also, I have some fish ponds and if a student in recalcitrant I bribe him with fish, and accommodate him, and conciliate him until he is won over to study".

R. Hurwitz examines the greatness of Rav's actions; not only did Rav teach the poor without demanding fees they were unable to pay, but his pedagogic genius lies is his fish ponds. It would have been sufficient if Rav focused his efforts on teaching those students who were interested and attentive to his lessons. However, Rav refused to abandon those stubborn students, uninterested in Torah studies. Rav pursues these students and reaches out to them of their level by bribing these students with fish from his ponds until they are prepared to being their studies. In Novardok philosophy, students need to encouragement and those students who require more attention until they can commit to learning are not to be overlooked, but reached out to on their unique level just as Rav gave fish to those not yet prepared to engage to Torah studies.

The last issue to be examined is the question if one's commitment to serve the community will come at the expense of one's self improvement. The improvement and attempt to perfect one's character is central to the Novardok worldview, and therefore neglect of this pursuit would appear contrary to the movement's ideals. R. Hurwitz demonstrates that there is no contradiction between self improvement and assisting the community by quoting the aggada of R. Predia, who repeated a lesson four hundred times to student struggling to comprehend the lesson. R. Predia's commitment to his pupil merited a bat kol which asked R. Predia "would you rather that four hundred year be added to your life or that you and your generation merit the world to come?"

R. Hurwitz states that the most difficult aspect of character development is responding appropriately in place and time. To perfect one's character in an artificial environment of encouragement without trials is no great achievement. However, demonstrating character perfection in a difficult situation is the fruition of such efforts, as demonstrated by R. Predia who exuded patients when repeating the same lesson to his pupil four hundred times without acquiescing to frustration and aggravation. Therefore there is no contradiction between communal service and self improvement.

Two more themes briefly worth mentioning are R. Hurwitz's use of parables and the influence of the Vilna Gaon. In the context of R. Hiyya aggada, highlighting the importance instructing students, R. Hurwitz quotes the verse in proverbs 22:6 "instruct (chinuch) the youth in his way, so that even when he grows old he will not depart from it". It, the GRA explains refers to the chinuch. Here the term chinuch implies "the cultivation of selflessness in one's deeds. The second time R. Hurwitz refers to the GRA, again in the context of the lessons drawn from R. Hiyya. R. Hurwitz offers a possibility as to why R. Hiyya provided his own parchment to write the Torah- possibility to remove any suspicion of theft. R. Hurwitz quotes the teaching of the GRA who asserted that any learning accomplished in a house whose roof contains one stolen nail will lack success. The mentioning of the GRA's teachings are only ancillary to R. Hurwitz's central thesis however it is interesting to note the GRA's influence on Novardok. It is not surprising that GRA's asceticism and extremism would have influenced Novardok's intensity. As well, Novardok certainly exists in the Lithuanian world, which views the GRA as it progenitor.

On two occasions R. Hurwitz utilizes parables to illustrate concepts. Usually R. Hurwitz's uses aggadic sources as background for concepts, so the parable expressed as stories with interpretations serve to concretize concepts espoused by R. Hurwitz, from the sources. The first parable is in the context of the aggada in which R. Hiyya is likened to the king's physician, who takes all the necessary precautions to prevent the king from contracting sickness, and instructs the king's court how to identify and prevent the disease. The more elaborate parable is brought in the context the Sanhedrin's failure to exert effort in convincing the Jews to act upright, for which the midrash holds them responsible for the deaths of seventy thousand people. Here the Sanhedrin is analogized to the captain of a ship whose passengers are oblivious to the fact the boring holes in the vessel will cause it to sink. Instead of warning the passengers against the dangers of damaging the ship's hull, the captain continues to pilot the sinking vessel; the captain bears the responsibility for the deaths of his passengers due to his inaction.

Mezake Harabim is the final major sermon delivered by R. Hurwitz prior to his death, and in a sense reflect the culminating perfection of Novardok ideology. Although R. Hurwitz never outlines the principles of Novardok mussar in Mezake Harabim, Novardok ideology is plainly visible in R. Hurwitz's ideas and assertions. R. Hurwitz has long ago shed his reclusiveness and yearning for self perfection in favor of influencing and perfecting Jewish society through his unique pedagogy. R. Hurwitz uses of aggadic sources is so seamless to extent it is similar to art imitating life, as the sources with R. Hurwitz's elucidations make Novardok's ideology appear timeless.

Bibliography

Hurwitz, Joseph Joizel, Sefer Madregat ha-adam : mi-mamare ... Hurvits she-diber beha-yeshivot de-Novhradoḳ / ba-ʻarikhah me-ḥadash bal yede Mosheh Yemini. Jerusalem : Keren mefitse torah u-musar, 730 [1970]

Hurwitz, Joseph trans. Shraga Silverstein, To Turn the Many to righteousness New York: Feldheim Publishers 1970

Sofer, D "Rav Yosef Yoizel Horowitz ZT"L The Alter of Novardok" Yated Neeman, Monsey NY. www.tzemachdovid.org/Murrsar.navordok1.html.

"Rabbi Hiyya" Jewish Encyclopedia, www.jewishencyclopedia.com