Levi Cooper is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah and teaches Jewish Studies at Machon Pardes and other university level programs in Jerusalem. He is Contributing Editor to Jewish Educational Leadership.

Our generation is not the first time technological advances have challenged the status and role of the teacher. The first half of the fifteenth century saw the invention of the moveable type printing press by Johannes Gutenberg and his associates. Soon thereafter, Jewish works were being printed and became widely available. Within a short time the Jewish book market had developed significantly, and access to knowledge was no longer dependant on the student-teacher relationship. This change had dire consequences for the educational institution of the Rav Muvhak, a term loosely translated as ‘prime teacher,’ referring to the teacher from whom most of the student’s knowledge was learned.[i] To understand the change and its significance, we must first outline the notion of the Rav Muvhak.

What is a Rav Muvhak?

In a bookless world, where manuscripts were at a premium and were regrettably subject to accidental (and occasionally intentional!) corruption, the most reliable conduit of information was the teacher-student relationship. The link between teacher and student served as the medium for passing knowledge from one generation to the next and was therefore irreplaceable. Both parties, the teacher and the student, treasured this relationship, and a unique bond between the two was formed. Each student would look to his[ii] Rav Muvhak as that student looked to no other: the ultimate repository of knowledge and the direct connection to the hallowed Tradition.

The social and normative implications for this bond were far reaching: The student would act with far greater deference to his Rav Muvhak than to other teachers.[iii] For instance, when accompanying someone as they leave the city a teacher should accompany a student to the city limits, peers should accompany each other a distance of 2000 cubits (approximately 1km) beyond the city limits, students should accompany teachers a distance of one parasang (approximately 4km), that is, unless the teacher is the student’s Rav Muvhak in which case the distance is tripled to three parasangs (approximately 12km).[iv]

The Rav Muvhak’s place was considered so central to an individual’s growth that Jewish law gave him the status of a parent. A student would mourn for the death of his Rav Muvhak as one mourns the demise of a parent, whereas mourning over the death other teachers would be similar to mourning for other members of one’s immediate family.[v]

In certain instances the Rav Muvhak’s status would even supersede the position of the parent – a person who perchanced upon two lost articles, one belonging to his father and one belonging to his Rav Muvhak, would be faced with the dilemma of whose lost article should be returned first. The finder is enjoined to return the Rav Muvhak’s lost article first (unless the father was of the same stature in wisdom as the Rav Muvhak). The Sages explained the logic for this hierarchy:[vi]

[Having perchanced upon] his father’s lost article and his teacher’s lost article – his teacher’s takes precedence, for his father brought him into this world, while his teacher who instructed him in wisdom brings him to life in the world to come.

The Rav Muvhak was thus not only seen as the repository of knowledge, he was also the key to the world to come. Moreover, the Rav Muvhak also served as the temporal locus for connection to the Divine; as an eighteenth century Hasidic Talmudist, Rabbi Pinḥas Halevi Horowitz (1731-1805), explained regarding teachers in general:[vii]

For one who cleaves to a scholar is considered to have cleaved to God himself, may He be blessed … For the scholars constantly delve in Torah which is the words of the living God, as it says in the Zohar that God and the Torah are one, thus the scholar joins his soul with his portion in Torah that is the root of his soul … similarly Israel – each person cleaves to a more righteous scholar by serving him and sticking together with him…

The disappearance of the Rav Muvhak

The printing press changed this – the availability of information was no longer dependent on the unique teacher-student relationship as the book became an alternative source of knowledge. The learning process underwent a measure of democratization – information was accessible far more freely than in the past. The Austrian scholar Rabbi Yaakov Reischer (1661-1733) gave voice to the changing reality in a responsum to a colleague who ruled on a matter concerning the kashrut of meat. Rabbi Reischer acknowledged that the ruling could be justified in law but he admonished his colleague for not rechecking the sources before issuing the ruling. What is fascinating about Rabbi Reischer’s responsum is the legal reasoning for his critique. Rabbi Reischer pointed out that it is forbidden to rule on halakhic matters as long as your teacher is within a radius of three parasangs;[viii] according to Rabbi Reischer, this rule should be applied nowadays to books:[ix]

For our teachers are truly the books that have been disseminated throughout Israel, therefore it is appropriate for anyone who has reached the status of giving halakhic instruction that he should not issue any halakhic ruling without delving first into books.[x]

Thus, books were replacing teachers, and as part of this momentous change, the hallowed education institution of the Rav Muvhak became less relevant. The teacher’s role was transformed from primary conduit of knowledge to expert guide in navigating published works. In the words of some – we no longer studied from teachers; we studied from books.

Normative halakhah followed this trend, as authorities recognized that there was no one teacher who should be designated as the Rav Muvhak and be treated with the attendant deference. This position was adopted by many authorities from a variety of places. The German authority Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger (1798-1871) explicitly connected the disappearance of the Rav Muvhak with the increased reliance on books[xi]; the Baghdadi authority Rabbi Yosef Ḥaim (1832-1909) in his popular work Ben Ish Ḥai also cited this very position.[xii] The Lithuanian scholar Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748-1820) in his halakhic work Ḥokhmat Adam merely glossed over the laws of the Rav Muvhak, explaining that nowadays the institution does not exist.[xiii] The spread of the book indeed altered the teacher-student roles and the task of learning.[xiv]

Alternative definitions of Rav Muvhak

As the classic Rav Muvhak became less relevant, certain authorities offered new definitions of the Rav Muvhak or focused on aspects of the Rav Muvhak that had heretofore been secondary to his primary role. The stretching of the term to include new categories reflected the disappearance of the original institution. The contention of these scholars was that while the original form of the Rav Muvhak as an irreplaceable educational institution was no longer, the position continued – and indeed continues – to exist. I will mention four of these alternative definitions,

1. The renowned scholar as Rav Muvhak

The designation of a person as Rav Muvhak was broadened to include scholars renowned for their wisdom or acknowledged by the public as supreme authorities, even if no personal teacher-student relationship ever really existed. The bond between student and teacher was thus statutory, rather than substantive. In the words of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575):[xv]

If he is exceedingly wise, even if he is not [the student’s] teacher, he has the law of a Rav Muvhak.

To which the Rema added:

One who is a great of his generation (Gadol Hador) and acknowledged in his generation as such, is considered to be “exceedingly wise”.

While this position was not detailed by the Sages, it is found in medieval sources and thus predates the advent of the printing press.[xvi] Nevertheless, the position gained popularity with the decline of the original Rav Muvhak. Alas, global designation as Rav Muvhak according to this criterion is often subject to partisan considerations.[xvii]

2. The Hasidic Master as Rav Muvhak

In the Hasidic tradition, the Rav Muvhak assumed a new position as the Tzaddik or Rebbe. The Rav Muvhak in his role as Hasidic master was recognized as the temporal link to the Divine. Books could provide information, but only through the Tzaddik could the individual cleave to God. Rav Muvhak was not so much a source of information, a status attained through years of diligent study and apprenticeship; rather, he was a source of inspiration. As a source of inspiration and with access to the Divine Will, the Tzaddik was then able to serve as a source of knowledge as well. This function, however, was not by virtue of study, but by dint of his spiritual pedigree. In the words of Reb Nosson Sternhartz of Nemirov (1780-1844), chief disciple and scribe of Rabbi Naḥman of Breslov (1772-1810):[xviii]

Even though all the commandments are explicit in the Torah, nevertheless we cannot know anything from the Torah alone. Rather, through the righteous (Tzaddikim) and the wise to whom the Oral Torah was passed, for they know the details of each and every matter, [namely,] how to act in each and every matter according to the need to clarify [the good from the bad] of that matter … And the clarification of each matter is only possible by the righteous (Tzaddikim) who are the wise of the generation, who have already rejected the evil entirely.

3. The current teacher as Rav Muvhak

Rabbi Malkiel Zvi Halevi Tennenbaum (1847-1910) of Łomża, Poland, also offered a different definition of Rav Muvhak. While acknowledging that he was offering a novel reading, Rabbi Tennenbaum suggested that a Rav Muvhak was the appropriate designation for the current teacher, irrespective of whether the bulk of the student’s knowledge could be credited to that particular teacher:[xix]

As long as he is still studying before his teacher, [the student] must act towards [the teacher] with deference, as if he was his Rav Muvhak.

Once the student has completed his studies, the final designation of Rav Muvhak should be bestowed on one teacher based on the original quantitative test. This position reflects a reality where as the student progresses in his studies he graduates from one teacher to the next.[xx]

4. The colloquial Rav Muvhak

Finally, the term Rav Muvhak never fell into total disuse as students continue to use the title to refer to the teacher or teachers with whom they have the closest relationship or greatest affinity. A parallel term that was unknown to the Sages but appeared in the writings of medieval scholars, also gained currency: Talmid (student) Muvhak – describing the relationship from the student’s perspective.[xxi] This usage of the title is seldom accompanied by the attendant halakhic implications. The Rav Muvhak has gone from an educational institution with legal standing, to a colloquial term that in the vernacular reflects a special relationship. Thus the use of the term is more literary than literal.

All the metamorphoses and redefinitions of the Rav Muvhak designation clearly indicate that the original educational institution no longer plays the central role it once occupied.

“Upgrading” the teacher

A further change akin to the invention of the printing press is upon us. Technological developments are changing the classroom structure, offering new paths to access and assimilate knowledge, and of course altering the role of the teacher. The blackboard and chalk are gone, and the days of the whiteboard are numbered as Smartboards capture the attention of our technologically wired students. Notes are no longer passed between mischievous students, instead text messages are surreptitiously sent. Research does not necessitate going to the library; proficiency in using a good search engine suffices. Anything the teacher suggests can be checked and challenged in real time by instant recourse to online data. Access to knowledge can be seen as a new level of democratization of the learning process as information is more retrievable than ever before.

History has shown that the printing press did not make teachers obsolete; with time, history will likely record that technological innovations will not make teachers obsolete, but their roles positions and functions will undoubtedly change. Our great challenge, as it was in the past, is to figure out how to “upgrade” the teacher’s “software.”

New versions as reflections of the Divine

Technological developments may make us wary, even nervous about our future in this rapidly changing world. The words of Chief Rabbi Avraham Yitzḥak HaKohen Kook (1865-1935) regarding evolution, progress and development, may provide a measure of encouragement:[xxii]

Evolution, which progresses in a path of elevation, is what lends the optimistic quality to the world, for how is it possible to despair when we see that everything evolves and is elevated. And when we penetrate the essence of the quality of evolution that is elevated, we find in it the Divine matter that is aglow with utter clarity; that it is indeed the Infinite Who brings to actuality that which is infinite in potential.

In Rabbi Kook’s eyes, evolution is a Divine act. Technological development is thus the Almighty’s hand bringing the unlimited potential into the realm of the actual.

Indeed, democratization as Divine process is the thrust of a passage in a famous letter penned by Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem Tov (Besht, c.1700-1760).[xxiii] In this letter written to his brother-in-law, Rabbi Avraham Gershon of Kitov (c.1701-c.1761), then residing in the Holy Land, the Besht described a mystical experience he had on Rosh Hashana 1746. As the Besht ascended the supernal worlds he entered the palace of the Messiah and asked the Messiah when he would come to redeem the Jewish People. The Messiah’s answer highlighted the democratic ideal: “This is how you will know, when your teaching becomes famous and revealed in the world.” Then the Messiah quoted a biblical verse: “When your wellsprings sprout forth (Proverbs 5:16),” and added: “That is, what I have taught you and what you have attained and they too will be able to do [kabbalistic] unifications [of God’s name] like you. Then all the evil forces will be eradicated and it will be an auspicious time for salvations.” Alas, the Besht understood that this was a lofty goal that would not be achieved in his day and he was distraught at this prospect.

As Jewish educators we need not be deterred by the changing landscape; rather our challenge is be holy instruments as the infinite potential is made actual, and access to knowledge is more democratic. Indeed the prophet Isaiah described the End of Days, inter alia, as a time when knowledge of God will not even be a click away:[xxiv]

They will not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the sea.

---

[i]There are four main approaches as to the definition of “most of the student’s knowledge”:

(1) Absolute assessment: Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) adopted the position that “most of the student’s knowledge” was to measured in absolute terms, with no consideration for subject matter (Shulḥan Arukh YD 242:30):

דהיינו, שרוב חכמתו ממנו, אם מקרא – מקרא, אם משנה – משנה, אם תלמוד – תלמוד.

This position was taken up by Rabbi Yosef Ḥaim (1832-1909) of Baghdad (Ben Ish Ḥai, Jerusalem 5658 [1898], shana sheniya, Ki Teitzei, section 11):

“ואֵלו המון העם שלומדים תנ”ך ומעט מדברי רבותינו ז”ל בהגדה לפני מלמדי תינוקות ויוצאים לשוק לעסקים ואין לומדים יותר, דנמצא זה האדם כל חכמתו וידיעתו בתורה או רובה הוא מן המלמד הזה – חשיב המלמד הזה רבו המובהק וחייב לנהוג בו כל הלכות רבו מובהק שכתבנו, דעל זה כתב מרן ז”ל בשולחנו הטהור בדין רבו מובהק שרוב חכמתו ממנו אם מקרא מקרא ואם משנה משנה ופשוט.”

(2) Cumulative calculation: The Rav Muvhak is the teacher who has taught the majority of each subject. This position is attributed to Raavad (1120-1198), see: Shitta Mekubetzet Bava Metzia 33a; Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel Halevi Epstein, Arukh Hashulḥan YD 242:19.

(3) Practical yardstick: The Italian authority Maharik (Rabbi Yosef Colon Trabotto, c.1420-1480) suggested that “most of the student’s knowledge”, was to be measured specifically in terms of practical halakhah and honest, clear thinking (Responsa Maharik, Варшава [Warszawa] 1884, section 169 (p. 352 of the Jerusalem 1988 edition)). This position is cited in the gloss of Rema (1520-1572) to the Shulḥan Arukh YD 242:30:

ובימים אלו עיקר הרבנות אינו תלוי במי שלמדו הפלפול וחילוקים שנוהגים בהם בזמן הזה רק במי שלמדו פשט ההלכה והעיון והעמידו על האמת והיושר.

Cf. Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel Halevi Epstein, Arukh Hashulḥan YD 242:56 who transcribed the word פסק instead of פשט.

(4) Varying definition: A fourth option is to see the Rav Muvhak as dependant on level – When the student studies Bible his Rav Muvhak is his Bible teacher. Once the student graduates to the study of Mishnah, his Bible teacher is no longer to be considered his Rav Muvhak as this designation is applied to his Mishnah teacher. When the student then moves on to the study of Talmud, his Rav Muvhak once again changes. This approach is suggested by Rabbi David ibn Zimra (1479-1573), see: Responsa Radvaz 6:2150 (see also: Darkei Moshe YD 242:14). It would appear that this process ends with the Talmud teacher, for the classic approach views Talmud as including all subject matter; see, for instance: Rema YD 246:4.

[ii]I have employed the masculine following the classic sources. For the application of the laws governing student-teacher relationships to women, see: Responsa Yeḥaveh Daat 3:72.

[iii]See, for example, Maimonides, Laws of Torah Study 5:9. Regarding the question of whether the strictures regarding honoring one’s teacher – in particular, calling the teacher by name – applies to all teachers or only to one’s Rav Muvhak, see: Rabbi Moshe Bleich, “Addressing a Teacher By Name”, Ten Da’at: A Journal of Jewish Education XI (Sivan 5768, Spring 1998), pp. 49-55, accessible at www.daat.co.il/daat/english/ten-daat/bleich2-1.htm (accessed August 22, 2010).

[iv]Maimonides, Laws of Mourners 14:3. The metric values for the talmudic distances are mere approximations, for there are differing opinions as to the exact equivalent of a cubit.

[v]See: Maimonides, Laws of Torah Study 5:9 (cited above note 4).

[vi]Bava Metzia 2:11. All translations presented herein are my own. The Talmud presents three opinions as to what type of teacher falls into this category: The teacher who taught Talmud (as opposed to the teacher who taught Bible and Mishnah); the teacher from whom most of the student’s wisdom was obtained, or; any teacher even a teacher who taught no more than a solitary Mishnah (see B. Bava Metzia 33a; Rashi, ad loc.). Normative law follows the middle opinion, that is – only the lost article of the Rav Muvhak takes precedence over a parent’s lost article. See Maimonides, Laws of Thieving and Lost Articles 12:2.

According to the opinions that a student may have more than one Rav Muvhak (see above note 3, in particular the language of the Shakh and of Rabbi YM Epstein), the hierarchy between different teachers with this designation may be an issue. This question was raised by Rabbi Yosef David Halevi Epstein (1912-2002). For instance, a student who perchances upon two lost articles one of his Rav Muvhak in Mishnah and one of his Rav Muvhak in Jewish thought – which article should be returned first? Rabbi YD Epstein suggested that the Rav Muvhak in yirat shamayim (fear of Heaven) takes precedence over other teachers with the designation Rav Muvhak (see: Rabbi Yosef David Halevi Epstein, Mitzvot Hamussar, New York 1973, p. 235).

[vii]Rabbi Pinḥas Halevi Horowitz, Haflaah, Offenbach 5547 [=1787], Ketubot 96a. Rabbi Horowitz explanation was offered in connection to the talmudic directive requiring students to serve teachers. On the question of whether this duty applies only to one’s Rav Muvhak, see: Yoni Ophir and Yaniv Borenstein, “Shimush Talmidei Ḥakhamim”, Mimaayan Meḥola 2 (Adar 5756), pp. 178-188 (Hebrew).

[viii]See: B. Eiruvin 63a; Shulḥan Arukh and Rema YD 242:4:

אסור לאדם להורות לפני רבו לעולם וכל המורה לפניו חייב מיתה. הגה: ואפילו נטילת רשות לא מהני תוך שלש פרסאות אם הוא רבו מובהק

[ix]Rabbi Yaakov Reischer Bechofen, Responsa Shevut Yaakov, vol. 2, Offenbach 1719, section 64; also cited in: Rabbi Avraham Zvi Hirsch Eisenstadt, Pitḥei Teshuva YD 242:3.

[x]Rabbi Reischer cited scriptural support for this position (Psalms 119:6):

אָז לֹא אֵבוֹשׁ בְּהַבִּיטִי אֶל כָּל מִצְוֹתֶיךָ

Rabbi Reischer also explained why it was sound social tactics to first check sources before issuing a ruling – lest the unlearned accuse the rabbi of being stringent for no necessary reason and causing them financial loss just because he was unwilling to make the effort to scour the sources for a permit.

Cf. Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Halevi Epstein (1829-1908) did not accept this approach (Arukh Hashulḥan YD 242:35):

יש שכתבו שכמו שאסור להורות במקום רבו כמו כן אין להורות בלתי עיון בספר שהמה רבותינו ואין להורות במקום רבו. ואלו דברים שאין בהם טעם ולא חזינא לרבנן קשישאי דעבדי הכי, דבשלמא במקום רבו הוי בזיון מה שלא שאלו לרבו, אבל בזה לא שייך בזיון והכל יודעים שכל שאנו מורים המה מדברי רבותינו הפוסקים ואין לחוש כלל לזה

[xi]Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger, Responsa Binyan Tziyon, Altona 5628 [1868], section 83.

שאין אצלנו תלמיד שרוב חכמתו מרבו כיון שלומדים מהספרים.

For we do not have a student who the majority of his wisdom comes from his teacher, since we study from books.

[xii]Rabbi Yosef Ḥaim, Ben Ish Ḥai, Jerusalem 5658 [1898], shana sheniya, Ki Teitzei, section 20.

To be sure, the notion that books can teach predates the printing press. The Torah records the obligation incumbent on each person to write a Torah scroll (Deuteronomy 31:19):

וְעַתָּה כִּתְבוּ לָכֶם אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת וְלַמְּדָהּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׂימָהּ בְּפִיהֶם לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה לִּי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לְעֵד בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

Rosh (1250/1259-1327) concluded that since the purpose of writing a Torah scroll was to study, the commandment could be fulfilled by producing manuscripts of commentaries and talmudic works (see: Rosh, Halakhot Ketanot, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, section 1). The Rosh made no mention of the role of the Rav Muvhak; his words, however, indicate the possibility of attaining knowledge from written works. This position was expanded and gained currency after the advent of the printing press.

[xiii]Rabbi Avraham Danzig, Ḥokhmat Adam, Vilna 5575-5576 [1815-1816], 104:1:

ולפי שבזמה”ז בעו”ה אין לנו רב מובהק לכן לא העתקתי כל הדינים.

[xiv]Another less well-known example of the effect of advent of the printing press is connected to one of the prerequisites for rabbinic ordination. It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the various academic, formal and personal requirements for ordination. One of the formal requirements is an age prerequisite of forty (see B. Avoda Zara 5a-b; for exceptions see ibid 19b). Medieval authorities earnestly discussed how the forty years should be calculated, seemingly indicating that the rule stands, notwithstanding the licensed exceptions (see, for example: Rashi, Avoda Zara 19b; Sotah 22b; Tosafot, Sotah 22b). It is therefore somewhat surprising that the great codifier, Maimonides (1135-1204), ignored the entire prerequisite in his magnum opus (see: Laws of Torah Study 5:4). As was his wont, Maimonides did not reveal his sources or reasoning, and commentators were left to ponder and surmise why Maimonides did not consider the age prerequisite. One commentator, Rabbi Abraham Ḥiyya de Boton (c.1560-c.1605), offered an explanation pertinent to our discussion (Mishneh Leḥem, ad. loc.):

ולי נראה לתרץ לדעת רבינו דסבירא ליה דמאי דאמרו בגמרא עד ארבעין שנין אין הקפידה בזמן אלא בחכמה … וסבירא ליה לרבינו דהיינו דוקא בזמן קדמון שלא היו לומדים אלא מפי סופרים ולא מפי ספרים וכמו שנראה ממה שלמד הדבר ממשה שלמד מפי הגבורה על פה. אבל עתה שהתורה בכתב ואנו לומדים מפי ספרים ודאי דלא בעינן כולי האי. לזה לא תלה רבינו הדבר בכך אלא שיהיה חכם גדול לבד.

It is worth noting that the author himself barely reached the age of forty!

See also the interesting comment of Rabbi Ḥaim Elazar Shapira of Munkaćs (1871-1937) who noted a further difference that resulted in the transition from an oral culture to a book culture (Divrei Torah, Mukačevo 1933, 6:57):

בימינו ירד ירדנו יותר אשר …נכתב ונדפס כל הדיעות בפוסקים, מה שאין כן מקודם שהיו מייגעים את עצמם בבית המדרש רבותינו התנאים והאמוראים לסדר השמועות ורק מאוזן שומעת איש מפי איש והיו במדרגה ועבודה גדולה יותר ולמעלה מזה לימודם בנסתר

[xv]Shulḥan Arukh YD 244:10.

[xvi]See, for instance: Tosafot Berakhot 31b, s.v. moreh; Terumat Hadeshen, section 138; Tur YD 244:10.

[xvii]See, for instance, www.halachayomit.co.il/DisplayRead.asp?readID=256 (accessed August 24, 2010) where Rabbi Ovadya Yosef (b. 1920) is identified as fitting this requirement in our day:

ומובן אם כן שדין רבו המובהק שייך בזמנינו לגבי גדול כמו מרן הרב עובדיה יוסף שליט”א, המפורסם בדורו בגודל חכמתו, ונוהגים לגביו ככל דיני הכבוד השייכים לגבי רב מובהק, גם מי שלא למד ממנו באופן ישיר אפילו הלכה אחת

This site was established in 2005 and is dedicated to disseminating halakhah in an accessible manner. The halakhic positions are those of Rabbi Yosef and the author is Rabbi Yaakov Sasson, a grandson of Rabbi Yosef.

[xviii]R. Nosson Sternhartz of Nemirov, Likkutei Halakhot, Jerusalem 1999, YD, Hilkhot Simanei Off Tahor 2:1. Commenting on this passage Art Green noted: “The ẓaddiq has come full circle: the new leader who stands in the place of the normative rabbinic figure has now become the voice of tradition itself. … The most essentially halakhic area … has been transformed and removed from the hands of the rav to those of the rebbe” (Arthur Green, “Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Ẓaddiq”, in: Jewish Spirituality: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present, Arthur Green, ed., vol 2, New York 1987, p. 152).

[xix]Rabbi Malkiel Zvi Halevi Tennenbaum, Responsa Divrei Malkiel, Vilna 5651 [1891], 2:74:5.

[xx]For a further reflection grappling with this reality in the context of defining who is the student’s Rav Muvhak, see Rabbi Yosef Ḥaim, Ben Ish Ḥai, Jerusalem 5658 [1898], shana sheniya, Ki Teitzei, section 11.

אם זה רבו שלימדו מן אלף-בית עד גמר התנ”ך, אבל לא לימדו גמרא ותורה שבעל פה, מפני שזה המלמד אינו יודע ללמוד גמרא, והלך זה התלמיד ולמד גמרא לפני רב אחר ונעשה תלמיד חכם חשוב – אינו חייב זה התלמיד לעמוד לפני זה המלמד, אף על פי שלימדו כל המקרא כולו, יען כי זה המלמד נחשב עתה לגבי זה התלמיד חכם לעמא דארעא, ואיך זה שהוא חכם ובעל הוראה יקום מפניו? כי זילותא לתלמיד חכם לקום בפני הדיוט. … מכל מקום ראוי לעשות לו הידור ולנהוג בו איזה כבוד.

[xxi]As in: ‘I am a Talmid Muvhak of Rabbi X.’ The term does not mean that I am that teacher’s prime student, rather that I see the teacher as my Rav Muvhak. The term does not appear in the Mishna, Tosefta, Talmuds or Midrash. For an example from medieval writings, see: Tosafot, Yevamot 106a, s.v. rava; Rashba, Nidda 26b, s.v. hakhi; Shitta Mekubetzet Ketubot 25b, in the name of Ritva; Mordekhai, Eiruvin, section 510.

[xxii]Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hakohen Kook, Orot HaKodesh, edited by R. David Kohen, Jerusalem 1964, vol. 2, p. 537. In this passage, Rabbi Kook is dealing with what he terms Torat Hahitpatḥut, the theory of evolution, progression or development which he sees as enveloping the world in his day. Rabbi Kook’s main contention is that evolutionary theory is best understood in kabbalistic terms, rather than the terms of any other philosophical system.

[xxiii]Printed at the back of: Rabbi Yaakov Yosef HaKohen of Polonne, Ben Porat Yosef, Koretz 5541 [1781]. I will not deal here with the various versions of the letter; on this subject see: Moshe Rosman, Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov, Berkley 1996, p. 99ff.

[xxiv]Isaiah 11:9. In his magnum opus, Maimonides cites this verse twice to describe the End of Days; see Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 9:2:

ומפני זה נתאוו כל ישראל נביאיהם וחכמיהם לימות המשיח כדי שינוחו ממלכיות שאינן מניחות להן לעסוק בתורה ובמצות כהוגן וימצאו להם מרגוע וירבו בחכמה כדי שיזכו לחיי העולם הבא לפי שבאותן הימים תרבה הדעה והחכמה והאמת שנאמר כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ דֵּעָה אֶת ה

See also Maimonides, Laws of Kings and their battles, 12:5 (the final paragraph of his work):

ובאותו הזמן לא יהיה שם לא רעב ולא מלחמה ולא קנאה ותחרות שהטובה תהיה מושפעת הרבה וכל המעדנים מצויין כעפר ולא יהיה עסק כל העולם אלא לדעת את ה’ בלבד ולפיכך יהיו ישראל חכמים גדולים ויודעים דברים הסתומים וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כח האדם שנאמר כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ דֵּעָה אֶת ה’ כַּמַּיִם לַיָּם מְכַסִּים.