Rebbe Israel Ba‘al Shem Tov

The Birth of the Ba‘al Shem Tov

One of the greatest phenomena, running like a thread throughout the spiritual history of the Jewish people, is mysticism, a remnant of ancient mythology, which could not possibly integrate or purify, according to the way of Judaism. Therefore, for much time it stood outside [Judaism], like a foundling son from the street, and it accompanied it along the wending path of Jewish history.

It took thousands of years for the teachings of Kabbalah to be summarized in a single book—the Zohar—a book that contained the essence of this esoteric doctrine and became the bible of Kabbalah. At least five hundred years were needed for this book, the agent of Kabbalah, to succeed, after several failed attempts, so that it might establish a practical system for this doctrine capable of encompassing the entire nation; it succeeded in being planted and thrived even among the simpletons of the masses—not only among individual visionaries, as in the past, but also by combining with the foundations of rabbinic Judaism and basing itself upon them. This teaching had to wait a full five hundred years until the appointed hour arrived, the hour when it would become popular in the full sense of that word, when it would instigate a great revolution among large swaths of the Jewish people. This revolution, one of the greatest events of our history, was accomplished in the last ten years of the fifty-sixth century [i.e., 1730–1740] by a man with self-confidence, courage, and a beautiful soul that had enough charm in it to act, to influence, and to draw many people after it—people belonging to that mass, from which this elevated soul emerged, that mass which was like him in its ways, deeds, and views.

Rebbe Israel Ba‘al Shem Tov (the Besht, “Master of the Good Name”) was born in the small city of Akup [Okopy] on the border between Poland and Walachia. The year of his birth is not precisely known, but it must have been between 5450 and 5455 (1690–1695).¹ In general we lack satisfactory biographical information about the Besht’s early years, for the simple reason that no full biography was written by his contemporaries. For us, the presentation of a famous man’s biography is regarded as customary and natural. But it was not standard for believers and intimates to have expected from most of those who established new religious doctrines. They never had a need for chronological accounts. It made no difference to them whether their master was born or did some action in one year or another; it was more imperative to know what the master said and under what circumstances. Early on, his most important sayings and parables would begin to circulate among his followers; these would encapsulate the essence of his method and outlook. However, the followers would deem it superfluous to commit the events of [their master’s] life to writing. [ . . . ] Only after his death, almost as soon as the teacher would shut his eyes, would they begin to recount his praises. Then stories began to emerge, which generally encompassed the master’s teachings—they would begin to recount his travels and his encounters with his greatest followers and adversaries, the approach of his disciples and his relations with them, his death, and the like. Thus, they would compose only biographical fragments, but never attempted a full biography. That which happened in the life stories of all the great religious leaders and ancient philosophers also occurred with the Besht. This is, for example, what Xenophon did when he recorded his memories of the Greek Socrates; he portrayed his great master by relating his dialogues, statements, and proverbs; but neither Xenophon nor anyone else narrated the life of Socrates, because [Socrates’] followers were interested in and amazed by the image that emerged from his words of wisdom and not from the image that could be gleaned from his life story. [ . . . ] This was also how legends and traditions about the Besht developed: his disciples began to record their master’s aphorisms, parables, and interpretations and incorporated them into their own works. His intimates exchanged stories about him and conveyed them among themselves after his death. To be more convincing, they would indicate the place and circumstances where the stories had been told; but no one inquired about which year or date the things were said or done, etc. It is all the same to the believer. The main thing is to know their content, to gain a palpable conception of the master. The result of all this was the book In Praise of the Besht (Shivḥe ha-Besht), which circulated in manuscript among the intimates, “the loyal members” of the group, until his followers increased, and it was printed fifty years after the master’s death. This is aside from the many materials which were incorporated, as was said before, in the books of his disciples.