Content area
Issue Title: Special issue on Towards A New History of Hasidism
This paper examines the importance of "branding" in hasidic life. It considers the impact of place names associated with the title of a particular rebbe or tsadik and his followers. When there is more than one claimant to succeed to the role of rebbe for a particular group of hasidim, the competition is often intensified because even though each claimant may have his own followers, there is only one name available for the group and its leader. This situation, different from the one that existed earlier in the history of Hasidism, makes the circumstances of succession today more fraught than they once were.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Jewish History (2013) 27: 221240 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 DOI: 10.1007/s10835-013-9187-5
Whats in a Name? The Dilemma of Title and Geography for Contemporary Hasidism
SAMUEL C. HEILMAN
Queens College and the Graduate Center of CUNY, Queens, USA E-mail: mailto:[email protected]
Web End [email protected]
Abstract This paper examines the importance of branding in hasidic life. It considers the impact of place names associated with the title of a particular rebbe or tsadik and his followers. When there is more than one claimant to succeed to the role of rebbe for a particular group of hasidim, the competition is often intensied because even though each claimant may have his own followers, there is only one name available for the group and its leader. This situation, different from the one that existed earlier in the history of Hasidism, makes the circumstances of succession today more fraught than they once were.
Keywords Hasidism United States Twentieth Century Geography Succession
Introduction
As Hasidism became a multigenerational mass movement, the hasidim ceased to think of themselves as unafliated adherents of a particular form of pietistic religious behavior and ideology. Rather, one had to be associated with a specic tsadik or hasidic court.1 While the tsadiks ideology, practices, and charisma accounted for his appeal, his capacity to work miracles, bring blessings, and provide other practical benets to his followers were likewise important. Finally, the institutions he oversaw would become an important part of his power and appeal. Often overlooked in considering what made a particular tsadik or rebbe a success was his geographic propinquity and accessibility to his followers.2 People had to be able to get near to the tsadik and spend time with him in order to be affected by him and establish a bond, both spiritual and material, to become his hasidim. While tales about his unique quality and works attributed to him as well as the reputation of his
1See David Assaf, Hasidism: Historical Overview, Yivo Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe (New Haven, 2008), 1:664; Arthur Green, Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddik, in Jewish Spirituality, vol. 2 (New York, 1987), 153 n. 2.
2For an interesting discussion of hasidic geography in early modern Poland-Lithuania and its inuence on the spread of Hasidism, see Adam Teller, Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography: The Polish Background to the Spread of the Hasidic Movement, AJS Review 30, no. 1 (2006), 129.
222 S. C. HEILMAN
institutions and the numbers he attracted could pique their interest, a face-to-face encounter and sharing a presence among the assembly of his followers were essential.
In time, the town or village where the rebbe held forth or where he made himself best known became the name by which the hasidim and their tsadik became known. To signal their attachment to the rebbe, his hasidim would take upon themselves the name of this locale which would become their brand. Thus, for example, rather than being known as the hasidim of Yitshak Meir Alter, his followers were known as Gerer hasidim, after the town of Ger (Polish: Gra Kalwaria [Calvary Mountain]) about fteen miles southeast of Warsaw, where the tsadik established himself as a religious leader. By the third or fourth generation of the movement, similar branding occurred with most other hasidim. These place names, moreover, took on a kind of numinous charactera sanctity that was enhanced by the destruction they suffered in the Holocaust.
As Hasidism expanded and differentiated itself, new locations for courts were established and they added to the names by which rebbes and their hasidim became known. In the nineteenth century, hasidic leaders could, and often did, move from place to place (especially if they also served as rabbis), quite naturally changing their locale identier and expanding their pool of supporters with each move (e.g. Simhah Bunem, the Vurker Rebbe, who became known as the Otwocker Rebbe when he moved to Otwock, or Menahem Mendel of Pshitik [Przytyk], who became known as the Rymanwer Rebbe when he moved to Rymanw, or Yitshak Meir of Warsaw, who became known as the Gerer Rebbe when he moved to Ger). To be sure, the social signicance and spiritual connotations of these names were connected to the man who had established himself there rather than to any intrinsic value that the place itself had. Nevertheless, geography was not meaningless. For a tsadik to be in a town like Ger, near the large Jewish population of Warsaw, was clearly better than to be in one far from large Jewish populations or inaccessible to them. Thus, while the fth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shalom Dov Ber, eeing the German armies during the First World War, moved to the small Lubavitcher outpost of Rostov-on-Don, his son the sixth Rebbe, Yosef Yitshak, soon realized that he was better off moving to Leningrad where there were more Jews, more human and material resources, more opportunities for economic support, and better access to political authorities. Similarly, to be in a place where hostile forces were in control could spell the end of a hasidic group or its transformation as it sought to remove and reconstitute itself elsewhere. The case of Amdur [Indura] Hasidism in the Grodno region of what is now Belarus offers an example. Their location in a bed of anti-hasidic hos-
WHATS IN A NAME? 223
tility and their failure to move elsewhere led to their demise by the end of the eighteenth century.3
The case of the famous Levi Yitshak, who served as rabbi in Pinsk [Pisk] beginning in 1775 but as a hasid ultimately fell victim to anti-hasidic pressures in Lithuania, and in 1785 settled in Berditchev [Berdyczw] in Volhynia, illustrates the other side of the geographic equation. That is, geography became not only a basis for title, but in many cases it actually allowed for the resolution of, or at least the mitigation of, conict and instead led to expansion. As Levi Yitshak of Berditchev, he was able to become even better known and more inuential than in his previous rabbinic posts.4
In general, a would-be hasidic leader who sought to promote a way of life or his own ideas but who found it impossible to do so in the place where he found himself (because of competition, hostility, or inaccessibility to large numbers of followers) could do so by nding a location where such obstacles did not exist and establish (or re-establish) himself there (either via a formal rabbinic appointment or by making himself prominent in other ways) and thereby attract the needed followers. If he succeeded, he and his followers eventually became known by the place name, or more precisely by a Yiddish variant of it. In those days, the man and his followers gave the name its signicance and worth. Names had not yet become brands; that is, they had not yet taken on a life of their own but were subservient to the charismatic power of the rebbe, and new courts could therefore be established throughout the Jewish world.5
The number of rebbes multiplied with the popularity of Hasidism; new names grew in number. With new locations and names to match, a particular dynasty or hasidic movement might not only enlarge its inuence, with sons (or sons-in-law or even stellar disciples) establishing new courts that were related to the original one, like branches to the root. But such movement could also allow for divergence and differentiation, and most importantly, it could do so in ways that did not necessarily lead to daily conict and tension. Thus,
3David Assaf and Gadi Sagiv Hasidism in Tsarist Russia: Historical and Social Aspects in the present volume. See also W. Z. Rabinowitsch, Lithuanian Hasidism (New York, 1971), esp. 12143, in which the author claims that Amdur Hasidism ended there because of such opposition.
4Ibid.5Ibid. Similarly, in the yeshivah world, the name of the town in which the institution was located would also come to stand for it. Thus, while the yeshivah founded in 1803 in Volozhin [Woozyn] by Rabbi Hayim came to be called Ets Hayim, it was more commonly known as the Volozhiner Yeshivah. On the subject of names and success in the yeshivah world see Jewish History 13, no. 1 (Spring 1999), which was devoted in its entirety to the issue of rabbinic succession, especially Shaul Stampfers paper: Inheritance of the Rabbinate in Eastern Europe in the Modern PeriodCauses, Factors and Development over Time, 3557.
224 S. C. HEILMAN
for example, we nd that the Ruzhin hasidic dynasty was founded by Yisrael Friedmann, a third generation descendent of the Maggid of Mezerich. Ruzhin Hasidism dealt with the fact that several of Friedmanns offspring chose to pursue the family business and become rebbes in their own right by evolving offshoots, including Buhush [Bohus] (led by Friedmanns grandson Yitshak, son of Shalom Yosef), Sadigura [Sadogra] (led by a son, Avraham Yaakov), Boyan [Bojany] (led by another grandson named Yitshak, son of the Sadigura Rebbe), Chortkov [Czortkw] (led by a son, Dovid Moshe) and Husiatyn (led by a son, Mordecai Shraga).6 While each of these could and did compete for prominence and prestige with the others, the location in different places could diminish the intra-familial tension over matters of leadership and prominence. Moreover, the fact that none of these place names had yet established a distinct brand of its own allowed for the competition to be gradual. Finally, because distances mattered so much in those days, the competition was minimized.
A similar pattern emerged when Lubavitch Hasidism experienced a dispute over who would inherit the leadership following the death of the third rebbe, Rabbi Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, known as the Tsemah Tsedek. At the time, a dissenting court located itself in Kopust [Kopy] under his eldest son, Yehudah Leib, who became known as the Kopuster Rebbe (his successor ending up in Bobruisk), in addition to the court of his youngest son, Shmuel, that would remain in Lubavitch [Lubawicze], and to two other sons who established independent courts at Nizhin [Niezyn] and Liady. Each of these rebbes took the name of his town, even as they all remained attached to Habad texts, ideas, customs, and traditions.7 This geographic dispersion and the names associated with it provided positions for a number of leaders simultaneously. In short, the geographic dispersion and the availability of new names as brands could mitigate conict and competition, even though hard feelings and some elements of rivalry might have remained.
This struggle over a name was not the classic basis of disputes among hasidim in their formative period. In those days, the issues that divided them might often be ideological or spiritual. Thus, for example, the hasidim of Yaakov Yitshak of Pshiskhe [Przysucha] challenged and separated from those of his teacher and predecessor, Yaakov Yitshak Horowitz, the so-called Seer of Lublin, over their opposition to what they saw as the vulgarization of Hasidism.8 Names, in contrast, were then easy to come by, for it was the tsadik
6See http://www.nishmas.org/gdynasty/chapt15.htm
Web End =http://www.nishmas.org/gdynasty/chapt15.htm , accessed February 6, 2009. On the Ruzhin/Sadigura dynasty, see David Assaf, Derekh hamalkhut. R. yisrael meruzhin umekomo betoledot hahasidut (Jerusalem, 1997), esp. 44966. For the history of Israel of Ruzhin, see the abridged English version of the same work, The Regal Way: The Life and Times of Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin, trans. David Louvish (Stanford, 2002).
7Assaf, Hasidism, 666.
8Ibid., 663.
WHATS IN A NAME? 225
or rebbe who was the center of attachments, and wherever he came to establish himself and his court, that place name would in time come to denote him and his followers.
Gradually, however, certain names gained a cachet and standing of their own, endowing the one who succeeded in attaching himself to them with authority and esteem that framed anything personal he brought to his position as leader. In part, this branding was an inherited prominence or what Max Weber has called the charisma of ofce. As Weber explained, originally the holder of genuine charisma . . . . would be ennobled by virtue of his own actions and personal following; but with someone who inherited the charisma of ofce, legitimacy, and prominence came by virtue of inheriting the position or title that had become the institutionalized expression of the charisma possessed by its previous incumbent.9 To be sure, the one who inherited the ofce or brand name had to be deemed worthy of it in some way (a matter open to dispute), but overwhelmingly it was the ofce or name that endowed him, his actions, and his ideas with the consideration that allowed for that worthiness to emerge.
As charisma of ofce became an inalienable part of the position of leadership, the names of places associated with hasidic groups increasingly took on iconic power and meaning. Thus it was not enough to be attached to a particular rebbe; one wanted also to connect him and his followers to one of these famous place names. The leader and the place name became a single entity of symbolic import, a focus of cohesion and source of identication. This became a distinctive feature of twentieth century Hasidism, in contrast to the more casual association between the courts name and any of its places of residence that had prevailed previously. For up until the Great War, it was, as we have seen, not uncommon for the name of a hasidic court to change with its leaders move to a new place of residence, especially if he was a minor tsadik and did not belong to an established dynastic line. Only with the mass dislocation and urbanization of east European Jewry in the course of the twentieth century did real geography become secondary to the iconic place names that came to dene the identity of each hasidic court, wherever it was located. Thus, the Lubavitchers never chose to call themselves Rostov, Leningrad, Otwock, or eventually Crown Heights hasidim, despite the fact that since the inter-war years, their court had been resident in all these places. Once one had possession of the name, one could take the court wherever one wanted.
As Hasidism became a more institutionalized element of Jewish life, the place names that became synonymous with the rebbe and his followers took on this charisma of ofce. Moreover, the more distinguished the list of those
9Max Weber, Economy and Society, vol. 1, ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich (Berkeley, 1978), 1139.
226 S. C. HEILMAN
who took on this name became, the more powerful and important did the name become. By the inter-war period, many hasidic leaders had settled in major central and east European metropolitan centers, but none of them was ever known as the Warsaw, d, Vienna, or Odessa Rebbe. One obvious explanation for this is that the presence of several rebbes in the same city precluded the possibility that any one of them would derive from its name a sufciently distinctive brand or specic identity, and none could claim the entire city as his own. Accordingly, the smaller town name (even when it was close to the big city) became the name of choice, a place a rebbe could claim as his own. Thus, for example, Gra Kalwaria (Ger), relatively close to Warsaw, gave its name to the famous rebbe, many of whose followers were actually in Warsaw, a city that Gerer hasidim came to think of as their own.
As the ability to endow new place names with authority and esteem declined, because the places where Jews who might be attracted to Hasidism diminished or became concentrated in fewer locations, certainly by the late inter-war period, this, too, added to the social and symbolic power of the established names. Finally, the Holocaust and the victory of Soviet Communism, both of which wreaked wholesale destruction on centers of Hasidism, to say nothing of the cultural movement of many if not most Jews away from traditional Orthodoxy, endowed the established names of hasidic courts that survived into the middle of the twentieth century not only with charisma but also with a kind of sacred nostalgia that made the thought of exchanging them for others or even enlarging their number unthinkable. No rebbe wanted to, or even imagined that he could, begin his reign without the endowed charisma of an established name. By the time Hasidism had been relocated to America (which for many years was viewed as a trefe medina or unholy state, in contrast to Jewish places in Europe) or even to the modern Zionist state that many saw as a religious affront, new names were impossible to institute.
To be sure, there were a few hasidim, like those who followed Levi Yitshak Horowitz of Boston (19212009), a descendant of the Lelov hasidic dynasty, who took names from America. Horowitz, the so-called Bostoner Rebbe, whose father, Pinchas David, rst established himself as a hasidic presence in the tiny Jewish Orthodox community of Boston in 1915 before moving to Brooklyns Boro Park in 1939, was one of two brothers who called themselves by this name. Moshe, who took the name to New York, did not establish as large a following as Levi Yitshak who remained in Boston. While there are today Bostoner hasidim in Israel and New York as well, this group is small and like the Pittsburgher hasidim (descended from Nadvorna hasidim and located in Ashdod, Israel, after two generations in Pennsylvania) and Clevelander hasidim (today mostly in New York and Raanana, Israel),
WHATS IN A NAME? 227
exceptional in its use of an American name.10 All of these groups, however, took their names before the Holocaust had effectively turned the East European names into a kind of holy franchise. That only these three very small hasidic groups have chosen to use American place names for themselves (and of them only the Bostoners still have a court in Boston) demonstrates that American place names did not succeed in becoming attached to Hasidism in spite of the many hasidic courts located in the United States. Indeed, after Levi Horowitzs death in 2009, all three of his sons were crowned Bostoner Rebbe, even though one was in Betar Ilit in Israel, a second in Har Nof (Jerusalem), and a third in Brookline (Boston) Massachusetts.
By the 1950s, then, Hasidism, uprooted from its East European origins, found itself in a new geographic reality and unable to provide itself with new names or brands for any rebirth it might effect in the new times, even though it managed to replant itself in many new places. Names like Boston, Pittsburgh, or Cleveland could no longer enter the canon. At best one might adopt a name of some place from Europe and try to enhance its importance ex post facto, but even that was most rare.11 This meant that while in the past, groups could defuse the tension of competition or mitigate the consequences of a split by using geography, as the challenger went elsewhere and took a new name, by the 1950s that could no longer happen. As the century wore on and the number of hasidim and hasidic communities grew beyond what anyone would have predicted after the Holocaust had so decimated them, the inability to create new names lent a greater social value to those that already existed and were prominent, but it also increased tensions when there was rivalry over succession. Indeed, it was precisely because the ofce or brand name came to hold so much value that the question of who could inherit it became an ever greater source of tension.
Consider two recent cases that illustrate this process.
10Indeed, many of its adherents are rst-generation hasidim. See Moshe Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (Westport, 1996), 946.
11For the singular case of the Jerusalem Jew who came from a mitnagdic family and who adopted the name of the East European town of Kolomyya [Kolomei, Koomyja], where there never was a resident hasidic leader, and to which he had no personal connection, and then established himself in Jerusalem as the Kolomyer Rebbe, see David Assaf, Hasidut polin o hasidut bepolin? Liveayat hageografyah hahasidit, Gal-Ed 14 (1995), 200. The case of the Vyelipoler Rebbe of Brooklyn is another where a minor European hasidic locale has been resurrected if not invented. European names, even of doubtful provenance, were still preferable to American or Israeli ones.
228 S. C. HEILMAN
Satmar12
The Satmar dynasty traces itself to Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (17591841), called the Yismah Moshe after his most famous book of homilies. Teitelbaum is credited with bringing Hasidism to Hungary from Poland, where he had been a disciple of the famous hasidic master, the Seer of Lublin. One of his grandsons, Yekutiel Yehudah (180883), also known by his Yiddish name, Zalman Leib, as well as by the title Yetev Lev, his commentary on the Torah, established himself in Sighet [Sighetu Marmatiei], a city in Transylvania, where he was appointed as a rabbi in 1858. His position was inherited by his son Hananyah Yom Tov Lipa, who, having been a rabbi in the town of Tesh [Ts] for nineteen years, came back to Sighet in 1883 where he was also known as the Kedushat Yom Tov, the title of his commentary on the Torah. Those who followed the Rabbis Teitelbaum, however, came to be identied as Sigheter hasidim, and in time their leader came to be called the Sigheter Rebbe. Following a childless rst marriage, the Sigheter Rebbe married a second time and became father to two sons. The elder, Hayim Tsvi (1884 1926), also known by the name of his commentary, the Atsei Hayim, would succeed him as the Sigheter Rebbe. The younger son, Yoel (18871979) often called Yoelishwas also judged to have the qualities necessary for rabbinic leadership. But the title Sigheter Rebbe and the town were taken by his brother. Accordingly, Yoelish went about 200 miles away to Nagykaroly (Krole in Yiddish), where he served as a town rabbi and the rebbe of those who were hasidim, until in 1932 he moved to take up an invitation to be rabbi in nearby Satu Mare (Satmar). Although he had established a reputation in Krole, it was in Satmar that he managed to draw more followers, build an institutional base, and gain greater stature and prominence. Thus, he became the Satmar Rebbe.
His rst wife, Havah, who had borne him three daughters, died young and his second wife, Alte Feige, who survived him, remained childless. By the time the Rebbe Yoelish, who survived the Holocaust and re-established his Satmar court in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, had died in 1979 at age 92, all his daughters had pre-deceased him. But by now, his followers, known as Satmar hasidim, were among the largest groups of hasidim in America.
With no obvious successor, the Satmar hasidim turned to his nephew, Moshe Teitelbaum, until then the Sigheter Rebbe. The Sighet hasidic court, once the most prominent one in the Teitelbaum family, had however fallen on hard times after the Holocaust, and was eclipsed by its Satmar branch. Indeed, Moshe Teitelbaum, living in nearby Boro Park, Brooklyn, had spent most of his time running a nursing home business rather than being a full
12I thank David Pollock for help in gaining access to the Satmar community.
WHATS IN A NAME? 229
time tsadik. But now, as a son of the Atsei Hayim and by virtue of his lineage, Moshe could be brought in to claim the leadership of Satmar.
Nevertheless, there ensued a dispute over succession. Moshes selection had been opposed by many of those who had been attached to Yoelishs widow, Alte Feige, and her candidate, Nahman Brach. Feige, as she was known, the closest thing to a woman rebbe, had sought to retain the inuence she had amassed during her husbands physical decline in the closing years of his reign, when she had essentially ruled, often through her control over the disbursements of funds and blessings. The staff that had surrounded the late rebbe now attached itself to her, knowing that if the crown went to Moshe, he would bring his own people into leadership.
The elevation of Moshe, which most of the Satmar hasidim came to support, would ultimately strip Feige, as a kind of dowager rebbetzin, and her followers of their power. But the widow held onto the late rebbes residence and maintained a coterie of hasidim who resisted Moshes leadership and became known as the Bney Yoel, sons of Yoel. At the time, there also had been violence and tension. The fact that all these people continued to live side by side, or at most a short train or bus ride away, exacerbated the tensions.13 Eventually, however, the opponents of Moshe (sometimes also called mitnagedim) declined in number and importance (although they would return in another guise in the years ahead), and he became recognized as the Satmar Rebbe, while the Sighet name faded from view.
In April of 2006, when Moshe Teitelbaum diedindeed even as his health deteriorated during the last years of his lifethe problems of succession appeared again. Now, two of his sons found themselves in a struggle to inherit his title and with it the leadership of the Satmar hasidim, by this time perhaps the largest hasidic sect in America.14 While there are Satmar hasidim in places as far aeld as California and Israel, the bulk of them (about 70,000) reside in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and nearby Kiryas Joel in Orange County, New York (about 22,000 according to 2008 U.S. population gures). There are also smaller concentrations of Satmar hasidim elsewhere in Brooklyn and Glendale, Queens, a few miles away. Unlike Yoelish, the younger son, who could go away from Sighet to make his reputation and build a following under the new banner of Satmar, and unlike Moshe who really had no family rivals, these two sons were stuck in one geographic area and ghting over a title and brand that neither of them had the power to change or abandon.
Citing a verbal will dated from 1996 (5756), supporters of the elder son, Aaron (b. 1948), claimed that he alone would be the new Rebbe of Satmar.
13Hasidic Rabbi Beaten by Hasidic Youths, New York Times, June 28, 1990.14Andy Newman, Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum is Dead at 91, New York Times, April 25, 2006. See also Bob Liff, Feuding Satmar Hasidim Draw Cops into Dispute, New York Daily News, October 6, 1999.
230 S. C. HEILMAN
Aaron, who had moved from the main enclave and seat of the Satmar court in Williamsburg to Kiryas Joel in the early 1980s, had served as the head in this Satmar enclave for a number of years. As the community grew, he could act almost like a full-edged tsadik or at the very least the Crown Prince. For most of that time, the assumption was that as the rst-born, he would inherit the ofce of his father, having already served at least as a Rebbe-in-waiting. Now, with his fathers demise, Aaron sought to claim what he considered his rightful position as leader in Williamsburg, and authority at the seat of the Satmar court, too. If Williamsburg did not have the cachet of the town of Satmar, it had a kind of borrowed sanctity. Williamsburg was the new Satmar, re-established by the rst Satmar Rebbe.
However, while Aaron had become the local Satmar authority in Kiryas Joel, his younger brother, Zalman Leib (b. 1952; also known as Yekutiel Yehudah), the third son, had remained near their father before moving briey to Jerusalem, and effectively led the Brooklyn community from 1999 on, while his fathers health and mind deteriorated. Moreover, in 2002, Moshe had written a letter in which he appointed Zalman Rabbi and Head of the Beth Din [Rabbinical Court] of our holy Congregation and to stand at the helm of our holy institutions here in Williamsburg.15 Moshe undoubtedly believed he had found a way to situate two of his sons in the family business (a third brother, Lipa, ran the school).
Aarons supporters claimed, however, that the 2002 letter had been cajoled out of an inrm Satmar Rebbe by his gabbai, Moshe Friedman, and argued that the father had conrmed his wish to have Aaron reign in 1996.16
Neither side was prepared to accept the legitimacy of the claims of the other, each presenting a narrative that made it clear that their man was the true Satmar Rebbe and heir to the ofce and title.17 The scene was set for battle, and indeed not only was there legal and verbal disputation, but stghts broke out between supporters of each man. Had this sort of situation existed in an earlier time, Aaron, whose community in Kiryas Joel had grown exponentially since its founding in 1974, might have been content to remain there and take the name of this rapidly growing hamlet as his own. But that
15Signed 20 Adar 5762 (March 4, 2002).16The House of Satmar, Jerusalem Post, September 7, 2007. This in itself was striking in light of the principle among hasidim that the living rebbes words and commands are inviolable. To say that he was demented and his words were not to be taken seriously could be seen as heretical. Indeed, making such medical/psychiatric claims would have been unthinkable in the early years of Hasidism when Rebbes were generally unchallengeableand certainly not by their hasidim.
17Andy Newman, Amid Mourning, Satmar Succession Goes to Court, New York Times, April 26, 2006.
WHATS IN A NAME? 231
was not possible in the hasidic world in which he grew and lived. The village of Kiryas Joel was a suburb and an outpost of Satmar of Brooklyn, not a place with its own distinct hasidic identity, and people moved back and forth easily and regularly between it and Williamsburg. The previous rebbes had likewise moved between the two placesa ride of under an hour. Kiryas Joel shared its existence with Williamsburg. The geography was too condensed to allow for a separation between the places, and there was really no other name than Satmar available. Moreover, would the one who saw himself as Crown Prince of Satmar and whose position was enhanced by this name and brand be content to take on another and newer name? Even more questionable, would his followers be ready to rename themselves, and thus lose the cachet and historical eminence of Satmar? When asked, all were clear they would not.18
A similar case had occurred among Vizhnitzer hasidim. Aarons father-in-law, Moshe Hager of Bnei Brak in Israel, himself had been engaged in a feud with his younger brother, Mordechai, who lived in Monsey, New York. Both called themselves the Rebbe of Vizhnitz.19 Indeed, there were a variety of rabbis in many locations who had come to call themselves the Rebbe of Vizhnitz: not only the aforementioned two brothers in Bnei Brak and in Monsey, but also a cousin, Eliezer Hager, in Haifa.
In the early 1980s, at the height of the battle over who would be the fth Vizhnitzer Rebbe, on the evening after the fast of the Ninth of Av (a day that commemorates the destruction of the two Holy Temples in ancient times, events that occurred, according to talmudic tradition, because of baseless hatred among Jews), Rabbi Mordechai, at a celebration at which, as always on this date, he completed the study of a tractate of Talmud, announced to his hasidim that in the spirit of reconciliation, he had decided henceforth to be known not as the Vizhnitzer Rebbe, a title he would cede to his brother, but
18Aaron, who had for years seen himself as the heir apparent, and sought to claim the throne as betted the oldest son, was clearly peeved by what he viewed as a power grab by his younger brother, as were his hasidim. For his part, however, Zalman could easily point to a number of circumstances of hasidic (and Jewish) succession that favored younger sons, and his hasidim indeed did this. While the feud between Aaron, the eldest brother, and Zalman, the youngest, took most of the headlines, there were also claims made briey on behalf of the middle brother, Lipa, who headed a small synagogue in Williamsburg and administered the Satmar schools, as well a son-in-law, Chaim Yehoshua (Shia) Halberstam, who became the Satmar leader in Monsey, another relatively small settlement of Satmar hasidim. Shulem, another brother, was not among the contenders.
19See Chaim Shneider, The Two Viznitzs, http://www.hasidicnews.com/index.php/history/72-the-two-viznitzes.html
Web End =http://www.hasidicnews.com/index.php/history /72-the-two-viznitzes.html (accessed August, 15, 2013) and S. Gimpel Viznitz Rebbe Brothers Reconcile after an 18 Year Bitter Conict, http://www.hasidicnews.com/index.php/news/58-viznitz-rebbe-brothers-reconcile-after-an-18-year-old-bitter-conflict.html
Web End =http://www.hasidicnews.com/index.php/news http://www.hasidicnews.com/index.php/news/58-viznitz-rebbe-brothers-reconcile-after-an-18-year-old-bitter-conflict.html
Web End =/58-viznitz-rebbe-brothers-reconcile-after-an-18-year-old-bitter-conict.html (accessed August 15, 2015).
232 S. C. HEILMAN
rather as the Rebbe of Monsey. The declaration struck the assembled, in the words of one, like a thunderbolt. Several days later, one of the prominent hasidim came to Rabbi Mordechai to tell him that this decision could not stand. He argued that rst, he was already known as the Vizhnitzer Rebbe and it was inconceivable that he should suddenly change his title. Then he delicately explained to him that he could not do what other rebbes had done before World War II, for this generation had no right to abandon the name Vizhnitz. It was obviously now resonant with a symbolic and spiritual meaning that could not be replaced by the name Monsey. Finally, he told him his hasidim would never stand for it, for they saw themselves as Vishnitzer hasidim and nothing less. Quietly, the matter was dropped.20 Rabbi Aaron of Kiryas Joel thus knew from this example the limits of what could be done about names.
A variety of explanations were offered for the new Satmar conict. Some claimed ideology, arguing that Aaron was not sufciently anti-Zionist opposition to Zionism having become a core value of Satmar Hasidism for several generations. The fact that he may have spoken Modern Hebrew at home and that he had married the daughter of the Bnei Brak Vizhnitzer Rebbe, a man who participated in Israeli politics, were offered as signs of this crypto-Zionism.21
Within Satmar, other opponents of Aaron claimed that he had been heavy-handed in exerting his authority in Kiryas Joel, while Zalman had shown himself to be warmer, less regal, and more socially adept than his brother.22
Some charged Aaron with corruption.
The supporters of Aaron offered an alternative narrative. To them, Aaron was a greater scholar and, as someone with his own charisma, not afraid to tell the people what to do. Like a true shepherd of his ock, he ordered them to study the Torah lessons which he distributed daily, to abide by the new directives he issued demanding that they limit the expense of their weddings and bar mitsvah celebrations, and he sent out counselors to help marriages that were in trouble. He was not afraid to take a stand or give an opinion; he thus acted like a true rebbe. Zalman, they argued, was unable to take a stand
20I thank Rabbi Shlomo Gelbman for sharing this story with me. Interview March 16, 2009. 21Aarons brothers-in-law, who had married the other daughters of Moshe Hager, were prominent hasidic leaders. They included David Twersky, the Skverer Rebbe, of nearby New Square, New York, and Issachar Dov Rokeah, the Belzer Rebbe of Jerusalem. This, too, added to Aarons stature.
22That Aaron was really supreme and solitary in his Kiryas Joel principality, and Zalman had to operate in the shadow of his father, might have led to the latters ruling with a lighter hand; however, followers claimed that the reasons for the difference were matters of personality rather than the structure of the situation.
WHATS IN A NAME? 233
because he was not a genuine leader and therefore seemed to be more light-handed in exercising his authority.23 To Zalmans supporters, their leader learned to shape the community not by edict but by restructuring. He led with a quiet authority that, they said, reected the charisma of the late Yoelish.24
The conicts continue to morph into a variety of forms, often hidden in what seems to be a ght about something else. For example, during Passover, the wheat from Arizona that Aarons hasidim use in baking their matzahs was labeled decient by supporters of Zalman, and notices lining up prominent rabbis with this point of view were widely disseminated. In retaliation, the Aaronites lined up their own list of distinguished rabbis to argue that Arizona wheat was the superior one.25 But all this was probably a smokescreen: the real issue was possession of the Satmar brand name.
This rivalry was not simply a contest over a designation and the honor that comes with it, of course; nor was it over political and moral leadership, although that certainly was central. It was mostly a dispute over who would control the resources, organizationseven competing newspapers, real estate worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and economically valuable institutions of the sect; as well as its political inuence, its approximately 100,000 members, and who would inherit the Satmar charisma of ofce. The consequences of the dispute were obvious: Construction work on the grand, new Satmar synagogue in Williamsburg had stopped. A building meant to provide one place where all the hasidim could gather with their rebbe was now a rusting skeleton. Aarons followers built a large synagogue at the edge of the Williamsburg enclave, while Zalmans held on to the old synagogue that was in the geographic and symbolic heart of the neighborhood. The rival forces struggled over that building and its borrowed sanctity, and they did so in the New York courts. Indeed, less than two hours after the death of Moshe, supporters of Aaron were in the courts in Orange County, obtaining an order that would support his claims of leadership.26
Since both groups claim to be Satmar hasidim with their own rebbe, the question of how to refer to them naturally arises. In the everyday references, the followers of Aaron have come to be called Aaronis, while those who see Zalman as their leader are known as the Zalis. These of course are informal tags, for to formalize them would legitimate the schism and give up the all-important title of Satmar Rebbe and Satmar hasidim. That title has grown
23Interview Moshe Indig, Aaron supporter, March 18, 2009. 24Interview Shlomo Gelbman.
25See Arizona Wheat Controversy, in Vos iz Neias http://www.vosizneias.com/29446/2009/03/26/kiryas-joel-ny-arizona-wheat-controversy/
Web End =http://www.vosizneias.com/29446/2009 http://www.vosizneias.com/29446/2009/03/26/kiryas-joel-ny-arizona-wheat-controversy/
Web End =/03/26/kiryas-joel-ny-arizona-wheat-controversy/ accessed March 26, 2009.
26Newman, Amid Mourning. See also Michael Powell, Sons of the Father: After the Satmars Grand Rebbes Death, a Tzimmes Grows in Brooklyn, Washington Post, June 4, 2006.
234 S. C. HEILMAN
all the more important because it resonates with a tradition and legitimacy associated with the Old World, the primary locus and spiritual root of Hasidism. To own that name is to share in that heritage, which no new name, with origins in America (or even Israel), could claim.
In fact, all of the other issues could probably be worked out through a sharing of resources. But in the struggle for followers, the supporters of each man continued to champion their leader; few really switched sides. The title Satmar Rebbe could never be shared, for ultimately it was attached to the ownership of the main synagogue and the yeshivah, Yetev Lev of Williamsburg, an institution founded in 1948 by Rabbi Yoelish Teitelbaum; this was the symbolic gold ring, and neither would give up a claim to it.27
Moreover, it was important not only for the two men who were vying for the title of Satmar Rebbe but also for their supporters, for whichever man succeeded in gaining the title, his supporters would be identied as true Satmar hasidim.
For now, the two groups of Satmar hasidim continue to make competing claims for dominance in Williamsburg and Kiryas Joel. There seems to be a tacit understanding that the Zalis dominate the former, where they hold onto the original synagogue on Rodney Street and their Rebbe lives nearby in the center of the neighborhood, though not in Yoelishs house, while the Aaronis built their Williamsburg outposts at the corner of Kent and Hooper streets, on the margins of the area. In Kiryas Joel, the Aaronis hold sway, though there are Zalis to be found too. To be sure, Williamsburg, the place
27As the court framed the issue in the case (http://www.lexisnexis.com.central.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5924690313&homeCsi=6323&A=0.3544522294038477&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=2004%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%2025432&countryCode=USA"T1extbackslash t"_parent"
Web End =http://www.lexisnexis.com.central.ezproxy.cuny. http://www.lexisnexis.com.central.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5924690313&homeCsi=6323&A=0.3544522294038477&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=2004%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%2025432&countryCode=USA"T1extbackslash t"_parent"
Web End =edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5924690313&homeCsi= http://www.lexisnexis.com.central.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5924690313&homeCsi=6323&A=0.3544522294038477&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=2004%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%2025432&countryCode=USA"T1extbackslash t"_parent"
Web End =6323&A=0.3544522294038477&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=2004%20U.S.%20Dist http://www.lexisnexis.com.central.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T5924690313&homeCsi=6323&A=0.3544522294038477&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=2004%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%2025432&countryCode=USA"T1extbackslash t"_parent"
Web End =.%20LEXIS%2025432&countryCode=USA"\t "_parent" ). Williams v. Congregation Yetev Lev, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25432 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2004): Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum died in 1979 and was succeeded by Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum. In 1984, Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum appointed his son, Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, to be the Rabbi and leader of Congregation Yetev Lev DSatmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc. Aaron Teitelbaum remains in that position today. In 1999, Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum appointed another son, Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum to lead the Brooklyn Congregation. Moving defendant assert that at all times since the founding of Kiryas Joel, the Brooklyn Congregation and Kiryas Joel have operated as distinct entities, each with its own board of directors and ofcers, who were responsible for the business affairs of their respective congregations. The Brooklyn Congregation contends that at all times, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum acted and Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum acted only as spiritual leaders of the Brooklyn Congregation and Kiryas Joel. Neither involved themselves in the business or nancial matters of either their own or the other congregation. Likewise, moving defendant asserts that Aaron Teitelbaum has acted only as the ecclesiastical head of Kiryas Joel, and that Zalman Leib Teitelbaum has acted only as the ecclesiastical head of the Brooklyn Congregation. Although plaintiff alleges, that these corporate entities were linked, at all times, the Brooklyn Congregation and Kiryas Joel have never shared corporate ofcers or directors, and have not even shared spiritual leadership for nearly a decade.
WHATS IN A NAME? 235
where Satmar was resurrected, remains the prize, and control here seems tantamount to control over the brand, which is why so much of the conict occurs in Brooklyn.
Were the name not so famous, important, and exclusive, the struggle would likely have resolved itself in the emergence of two rebbes, each with his own institutions and followers, who shared some common practices and history, but gradually grew into separate entities. The tension continues precisely because the matter of the name cannot be nally resolved, and the name (and of course the resources and assets that go with it, namely control of the Congregations synagogues, cemetery, charitable, educational, and religious institutions, and even its corporate name) remains symbolically crucial.28 As the ling in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District in New York put it, The similarity of names of several Satmar organizations, and their relationships, are at the heart of this dispute.29
Bobov
The Satmar hasidim are by no means the only ones who have recently had to deal with problems of succession complicated by names. Bobover hasidim, perhaps the fastest growing sect in Brooklyn over the last twenty-ve years, recently found themselves embroiled in a similar and bitter feud over who would take on the mantle of Rebbe. Established in the village of Bobov [Bobowa], Poland, these hasidim were themselves an offshoot of the Galician tsadik Hayim Halberstam (17971876), the Rebbe of Sanz [Nowy S acz] also known as the Divrei Hayim.30 His grandson, the rst Bobover Rebbe, Shlomo Halberstam (also known as the Ateret Shlomoh), like many of his cousins who found that they could establish their own courts only by going to another place outside of Sanz, rst moved to Vishnitsa [Nowy Winicz] in Poland. While his original supporters were hasidim of his grandfather, in time the grandson established his own credentials. He accomplished this rst by establishing a yeshivah in Vishnitsa in 1881. Later, when he repaired to Bobov, he moved the yeshivah there and it was here that he, and later his son, acquired more followers. By establishing a yeshivah, and thereby in a sense creating his own disciples and students from an early age, Halberstam managed to become a rebbe on his own, taking the name of Bobov. His son, Ben
28Michal Lando, Brothers Battle in Secular Courts for Control of NY Satmar Community and Its Assets, Jerusalem Post, October 21, 2007.
29Williams v. Congregation Yetev Lev, et al., U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y., No. 01 Civ. 2030 (GBD), cited above, n. 29.
30See Assaf, Hasidism, 666.
236 S. C. HEILMAN
Zion, enlarged the movement in part by establishing other branches of the yeshivah throughout Galicia. Bobover hasidim now had an identity separate from that of Sanz. Then came the Holocaust and wiped much of this away.
The third Bobover Rebbe, also named Shlomo Halberstam, survived the war with his son, Naftali. After he managed to restore his wounded faith, he resurrected Bobov in Brooklyn. When the third Rebbe died at age 92 in 2000, Naftali at the age of 69, became the new Rebbe.31 Ill and inrm with Parkinsons Disease, Naftali died in 2005. The question of succession became troubling for the Bobovers, who by then had claimed a membership of over 120,000 worldwide.32
Naftali had a half-brother, Ben Zion, the only son of the new family Shlomo Halberstam had created in America after the Holocaust.33 To many
Bobovers, Ben Zion seemed to be the logical choice. He had sat at Naftalis side and before that at his fathers at all the gatherings of the Bobovers, a position that marked him as the Rebbe-in-waiting. In a sense, he too was the only son of his father, albeit second in line after the Polish-born rst son. Like his half-brother, he was the next generation after the third Rebbe.
But Naftali had two daughters, and the husband of one of them, Mordechai Dovid Unger, son of the Dombrover Rebbe, was seen by some hasidim as a legitimate claimant to the Bobover crown. They reasoned that once the crown had passed to Naftali Halberstam, Bobov became his to pass on. Moreover, although Unger was married to a daughter of Naftali and hence of the next generation, he was born in 1954, a year before Ben Zion Halberstam; how could the older man be passed over for leadership, and how could the offspring (Ungers wife and children) of Naftali be cut off from Bobover leadership? Indeed, what else would Unger do if he was not the Rebbe of Bobov, living as he did at the court in Boro Park? Given this geographic reality, and the fact that he had cultivated a following as his ailing father-in-laws viceroy, he could not, many Bobovers believed, be denied his position of leadership.
To be sure, Shlomo Halberstam had a son-in-law, Ben Zion Blum, whom he dispatched to lead the Bobover community in Londons Stamford Hill.34
But this alternative of going to another placelike the founder of Bobover Hasidismto establish a new court was not available for Naftalis son-inlaw. There was no other place to go where sufcient Bobover hasidim lacked
31Grand Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam, 92, Is Dead, New York Times, August 3, 2000. 32Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam: After Escaping from the Nazis He Revived an Entire Jewish Sect, Lawrence Joffe, The Guardian, September 2, 2000, p. 22.
33Naftali was the son of Shlomo and his wife (also his cousin), Bluma Teitelbaum, who perished in the Holocaust. Ben Zion was the son of Shlomo and his second wife, Friedel Rubin (also a cousin).
34Joffe, The Guardian, p. 22.
WHATS IN A NAME? 237
a leader or where he could establish a court. Moreover, his own father, Ben Zion Unger, remained the Dombrover Rebbe (living in Boro Park), and his son could not challenge him for leadership. In addition, Bobov is a bigger and therefore more important community, and the young Unger had already entered into its elite. For better or worse, Mordechai Dovid Unger was stuck in Bobov and in Boro Park. Trapped by geography and committed to the Bobover court, he and his supporters decided to make a claim on Bobover leadership.
Following Naftalis death in 2005, therefore, the Bobovers split, with some following Unger, who set up a rival headquarters and beit midrash (study and prayer hall) a few blocks away from the Bobov main building in Brooklyns Boro Park.35 Others remained with Ben Zion Halberstam. Both rebbes considered themselves as rightfully leading Bobover hasidim, and both maintained the traditions and customs of the sect. Like the rst Bobover Rebbe and his attachment to the Hasidism of Sanz, so now they held onto Bobover practices. With no place to go and no alternative identity, both rebbes set up court in the same neighborhood. The split divided families and allegiances with profound consequences and deep feelings.
Around the time of the Jewish New Year in 2007, Bobovers tried to resolve the contest by acceding to a rabbinic courts decree that demanded a survey, which seemed something like an election, to see which of the groups had the most support among the hasidim.36 But even here the name Bobov remained off the table, as some insiders explained.37 The name would not be determined by quantitative criteria; there was no precedent for such an eventuality.
Because both groups continue to call themselves Bobovers, and because they remain anchored side by side, they too have had difculties in identifying and distinguishing their public outer identity. Yet, like the various Satmar hasidim, they must have some way of differentiating themselves, especially because to the uninformed (which includes both the press and local politicians), they appear indistinguishable from one another. Thus, as the Satmars are known as Aaronis and Zalis, so in Bobov, the followers of Halberstam
35Andy Newman, Borough Park Journal: A Battle for Succession Takes No Holiday, New York Times, March 26, 2005.
36Shlomo Shamir, A Hasidic Sect Discovers Democracy, Haaretz, September 24, 2007. 37See, for example, a trademark lawsuit led April 21, 2005, published in The Ofcial Gazette of the U.S. Trademark and Patent Ofce Sept 12, 2006. http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VENcX7NxzIIJ:www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/bobov-78614126-monsey.pdf+Bobover+din+torah&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Web End =http://74.125.113.132 http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VENcX7NxzIIJ:www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/bobov-78614126-monsey.pdf+Bobover+din+torah&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Web End =/search?q=cache:VENcX7NxzIIJ:www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2007 http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VENcX7NxzIIJ:www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/bobov-78614126-monsey.pdf+Bobover+din+torah&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Web End =/04/bobov-78614126-monsey.pdf+Bobover+din+torah&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us , accessed April 13, 2009 and http://chaptzem.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-round-of-bobover-din-torah.html
Web End =http://chaptzem.blogspot.com/2005/06/rst-round-of-bobover-din -torah.html (accessed April 13, 2009).
238 S. C. HEILMAN
are sometimes called Bobov of 48th Street, the original Bobover headquarters, while those who went with Unger are identied as Bobov of 45th Street, where a new parallel headquarters has been set up.
In fact, were the uninformed, seeking one of the rebbes, to walk into a gathering around the other, they would hardly be able to tell into which of the two Bobov camps they had come. For example, on the interim days of the Sukkot holiday, when the Bobovers traditionally play violins at their rebbes table, an observer would nd two identical gatherings, along with the requisite ddlers playing the same tunes, gathered in two remarkably similar sukkahs simultaneously singing and eating with their rebbes, both of whom are referred to as the Bobover. This sort of replication within Bobov occurred on other occasions as well. It was by no means unique to Sukkot.
Conclusion
While it would be wrong to say that the contest in Satmar and Bobov is only over names, it is conceivable that were other legitimate and acceptable names available to would-be leaders in each group, a face-saving way could have been found despite their erce competition for followers, of avoiding the open conict engendered by the desire to capture the name and the charisma of ofce that comes with it.
Complicating the competition over the name is the crucial element of geography. For the two Bobover and Satmar groups, living in overlapping geographic areas makes the issue even more complex. The need to create parallel structuresschools, synagogues, and other institutionsin the same place heavily taxes the communities resources. Yet because all these structures are a tangible as well as symbolic expression of the existence and power of the court, people have been willing to support their creation, even at great expense. Although each of the two communities has continued to grow by virtue of a high birthrate (and in some cases their success in attracting new followers from the hasidic pool, where allegiances often switch, particularly with the transition from one generation of leaders to another), the competition between them ultimately undermines each communitys ability to sustain itself.
This propinquity along with the fact that both groups use the same identity tag also creates confusion for outsiders, particularly in the political realm. Thus, for example, local city and state ofcials looking to gain the allegiance or favor of the Bobovers or the Satmars nd the process of knowing whom to look to for authority as complex and difcult as do the Bobovers and Satmars
WHATS IN A NAME? 239
seeking to exert political inuence upon them.38 This is a matter of consequence, since a visit by some high ofcial to any one of the contenders can serve symbolically and politically as evidence of his dominance.
In both the Satmar and the Bobover cases, there remains a powerful attachment to a contemporary headquarters because it is the place where the group rst reconstituted itself after the Holocaust. But this place shares a borrowed sanctity with the east European site of the groups origin, whose name confers on it the sanctity and prestige that its own name cannot generate (except for 770 Eastern Parkway for the Lubavitchers, a place that represents their missing rebbes and the Hasidism they revitalized at this world headquarters, which has acquired its own aura of sanctity). In contrast, the fact that the new trio of Bostoner Rebbes are all in new and independent locations (even the Boston address is not the original one), relatively distant from one another, and the fact that together Bostoners represent a very small and not terribly prestigious dynasty, may account for the apparent lack of conict that has emerged as they take the same name.
If the victor in the most intense contests is the one with the most followers, as some in Bobov have tried to suggest, then some universally accepted method of counting hasidim must be found, although these numbers are themselves subject to being contested. Moreover, questions remain: who would be countedmen and women, adults and children, newcomers and old-timers; who would do the counting, and what would constitute victory? The Bobover survey still remains unexecuted, and Satmar has no interest in such a mechanism for resolving the conict. Beyond all these questions, such an approach assumes that the followers of each rebbe are mutually exclusive, which may not always be the case. Families are often divided in their loyalties among both hasidic groups, and marital ties make allegiances even more difcult to sort out.
There are also those who argue that the crown has nothing to do with the number of followers but belongs rather to the man who shows greater powers of leadership, charisma, Torah scholarship, and the likeoften articulated by saying that the new pretender is most like the last universally accepted rebbe. These attributes, however, are not easily or quantitatively measured and dened, nor are there many if any neutral authorities available to determine them.
Marriages arranged for the offspring of each of the contending rebbes are also sometimes used as evidence. Presumably the more prestigious the match of the son or daughter, the more it attests to the recognition of the
38See for example, Gershon Tannenbaums column, My Machberes, in Jewish Press, September 19, 2007. http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/25115/
Web End =http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/25115/ (accessed January 27, 2009).
240 S. C. HEILMAN
fathers stature and his position as a rebbe. Here, too, a look at who attends the wedding and associated celebrations becomes part of the contest. The willingness of other rebbes to meet with, or better still to pay a visit to, a contender likewise can be used as evidence of his acceptability as a rebbe, which is why a great deal is made of such visits.
Yet in the absence of some denitive resolution of the conict over a title, the tension often builds and saps the strength of the movement rather than leading to development. In some cases, the conict may resolve itself simply because one faction might wither while the other may continue to grow, either because it manages to command more resources and supporters or because its leadership turns out to be stronger. But if that is not the case, then perhaps, in time, as hasidim recognize the high price of these conicts, they might institutionalize the practice of multiple incumbents sharing a single name as already has been done in a number of other hasidic groups: the Vizhnitzers most famously and most recently the Bostoners. This new nomenclature may take on a life of its own, and hasidim may begin to talk about Rebbes with a time-honored name but add to that a sufx that indicates location. Indeed, the appended identier, for example Vizhnitz of Monsey, may in time come to be the last name that eclipses the importance of the time-honored one. When that happens, we shall have one important bit of evidence of the evolution and development of Hasidism in its new places.
Yet for the moment, the dearth of new names, and the geographic limitations of contemporary hasidic life, have made ownership of the name an important part (albeit not the whole) of the story of succession, and a sign that hasidim are still shackled by their past.
Acknowledgements I thank David Assaf, Menachem Friedman, David Myers, and David Pollock for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Of course, I am responsible for the results.
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013