תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים is a phrase that comes up in the writings of Reb Nachman. It means literally "Torah scholars that are demons." In fact it does not seem to be hard to figure out what Reb Nachman meant by this because the idea of שד יהודי comes up in the Ari [Isaac Luria].
It is borrowed from the Zohar itself and the Ari goes into some detail about it. But the prominence that Reb Nachman places on this concept is unusual. The issue comes up very often in his major book and even in the last Torah lesson he ever said n his lifetime.
But the issue is more than meets the eye. The reason is that every Torah lesson of Reb Nachman is highly structured. And every lesson is a closed unit. I mean he intends every lesson to be able to be taken as a life guide. So only a very few basic הנהגות are mentioned in any given lesson. The idea is to have a small number of basic principles that one can walk in and be assured of coming to that which one must come to.
[In fact, this seems to have been a major concern of Reb Nachman--to find one or more simple basic practices that anyone could hold onto --and then be assured of coming to what he must come to.
For example התבודדות--speaking with God constantly in one's own language as one talks with a close friend.
So then why would this concept of תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים play such a major role in Reb Nachman's thought? I mean to say- apparently from what I can tell, he thought that avoiding Torah scholars that are demons is a prime directive so powerful that if one would just hold on to this one simple principle, then he would be assured of having a good portion in the next world.
I can tell that he was definitely hinting to a major warning, but it is hard to know what are the criteria involved. Who can really tell the good one from the bad ones? Surely Reb Nachman himself was aware of this problem.
Since no one can really tell the difference, the conclusion seems to be simple; to avoid all of them. That way one is safe, and does not have to worry about losing his or her portion in the next world because of associating with a Torah scholar who's a demon. Better safe than sorry.
Apparently Reb Nachman was thinking along the lines of the Rambam who also did not want learning or teaching Torah to be a paid profession.
The Mordechei the friend of the Rosh and disciple of R Meir of Rotenburg brings up the issue of how is it possible to pay teachers of children after that the Gemara itself says מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם God says to the Jewish people: "Just as I taught you Torah for free, so must you teach Torah for free." I forget his answer. But this is not the issue I want to raise here. The focus of Reb Nachman is not whether Torah scholars are paid or not. It is rather that some significant percentage of them are demons. That is to say they are not בטל ברוב nullified by the majority. That is even if you would say the majority are good people that does not nullify or cancel the effect of these bad ones.
It is borrowed from the Zohar itself and the Ari goes into some detail about it. But the prominence that Reb Nachman places on this concept is unusual. The issue comes up very often in his major book and even in the last Torah lesson he ever said n his lifetime.
But the issue is more than meets the eye. The reason is that every Torah lesson of Reb Nachman is highly structured. And every lesson is a closed unit. I mean he intends every lesson to be able to be taken as a life guide. So only a very few basic הנהגות are mentioned in any given lesson. The idea is to have a small number of basic principles that one can walk in and be assured of coming to that which one must come to.
[In fact, this seems to have been a major concern of Reb Nachman--to find one or more simple basic practices that anyone could hold onto --and then be assured of coming to what he must come to.
For example התבודדות--speaking with God constantly in one's own language as one talks with a close friend.
So then why would this concept of תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים play such a major role in Reb Nachman's thought? I mean to say- apparently from what I can tell, he thought that avoiding Torah scholars that are demons is a prime directive so powerful that if one would just hold on to this one simple principle, then he would be assured of having a good portion in the next world.
I can tell that he was definitely hinting to a major warning, but it is hard to know what are the criteria involved. Who can really tell the good one from the bad ones? Surely Reb Nachman himself was aware of this problem.
Since no one can really tell the difference, the conclusion seems to be simple; to avoid all of them. That way one is safe, and does not have to worry about losing his or her portion in the next world because of associating with a Torah scholar who's a demon. Better safe than sorry.
Apparently Reb Nachman was thinking along the lines of the Rambam who also did not want learning or teaching Torah to be a paid profession.
The Mordechei the friend of the Rosh and disciple of R Meir of Rotenburg brings up the issue of how is it possible to pay teachers of children after that the Gemara itself says מה אני בחינם אף אתם בחינם God says to the Jewish people: "Just as I taught you Torah for free, so must you teach Torah for free." I forget his answer. But this is not the issue I want to raise here. The focus of Reb Nachman is not whether Torah scholars are paid or not. It is rather that some significant percentage of them are demons. That is to say they are not בטל ברוב nullified by the majority. That is even if you would say the majority are good people that does not nullify or cancel the effect of these bad ones.
