Toil
of the Mind and Heart: A Meditation in Memory of Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshine
by
Eli Rubin
Rabbi
Eli Rubin is a writer and editor at Chabad.org, and works to further
intercommunal and interdisciplinary study of Chassidism. Many of his articles
can be viewed online here.
This
is his first essay at the Seforim blog.
A
new anthology mines the oral teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi for new
insight into the historical development of his leadership and the
crystallization of his ideology, and also charts the impact of Rabbi Shlomo of
Karlin and Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk on the emergence of Chabad as a distinct
Chassidic movement. “HaRav: On the Tanya,
Chabad thought, the path, leadership and disciples of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of
Liadi” ed. Rabbi Nochum Grunwald, Hebrew, 798 pp. (Mechon HaRav, 2015) (link).
In
memory of the acclaimed Chabad scholar Rabbi Yehushua Mondshine who passed away
one year ago, on the final day of Chanukah, 5775.[1]
Introduction
- From Liozna to Liadi
The past few years have
seen many new publications shedding light on the life and times of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad school of Chassidism, and making
his teachings more accessible.[2] For the most part, however, the
historical and the ideological domains have been treated in relative isolation
from one another. Moreover, while R. Schneur Zalman’s magnum opus, the Tanya,
has been a frequent object of study, less work has been done on the vast corpus
of his oral teachings, transcriptions of which now fill some thirty published
volumes.[3]
HaRav:
On the Tanya, Chabad thought, the path, leadership and disciples of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman of Liadi, appeared just a few months ago as
a rather belated marker of the 200th year since Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s passing
on the 24th of Tevet 5772 (January 1813),[4] and comprises a
collection of articles, teachings and commentary, on the topics referred to in
the volume's subtitle. Rabbi Nochum Grunwald, the volume's editor and primary
contributor, is a leading Chabad thinker and historian, and the editor of the Heichal HaBesht journal. Other
contributors include Chabad scholars Rabbi DovBer Levine, Rabbi Eliyahu
Matusof, Rabbi Aharon Chitrik, and le-havdil
bein chaim le-chaim, the late
Rabbi Yehushua Mondshine.
Of the volume’s six
sections, it is the third—Shaar
Ha-Maamarim, focusing on R. Schneur Zalman’s oral teachings—that is the
most substantial, in terms of both quantity and content. In a loose series of
articles, the volume’s editor, Rabbi Nochum Grunwald, takes several important
steps towards the integration of the ideological content of these discourses
within a broader historiographical context, giving particular attention to
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s relationship with Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk.
An article by Rabbi
Shalom DovBer Levine—in the volume’s penultimate section—traces the impact of
Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin on Chabad’s emergence as a distinct school of
Chassidism, adding additional dimension to the developing picture.[5]
Grunwald’s overarching
thesis pivots on Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s move from Liozna (90km North-West of
Smolensk) to Liadi (Lyady, 70km South-West of Smolensk), shortly after being
released from his second internment in Petersburg in the summer of 1801.[6] The
precise reasons for this move remain unclear, but the distinction between the
Liozna and Liadi periods—also referred to as the periods “before Petersburg”
and “after Petersburg”—appears in a variety of Chabad historiographic
traditions to mark an array of changes in his role as a leader and teacher of
Chassidism. As one source has it, “when he dwelt in Liozna the quality of emotion toward G-d radiated from him,
whereas afterwards, when he dwelt in Liadi, it was not so; there the quality of intellect radiated from him.”[7]
Grunwald’s discussion
of how this shift developed is complicated by Levine’s account. And though
their parallel theses are both presented in the present volume, it remains the
task of the reader to integrate them.
Transcendence
and Interiority
In a 1903 talk
delivered by Rabbi Shalom DovBer Schneersohn (Rashab), the fifth rebbe of
Chabad-Lubavitch, he distinguished between the type of teaching that entirely transcends [מקיף]
the students/listeners, but overwhelms, encompasses and transforms them
instantaneously, and between the type of teaching that is directed to the interiority [פנימיות]
of the students/listeners, to permeate their intellects, so that they can then
transform themselves from within:
Before
he returned from Petersburg the second time his Chassidic teaching would burn
the world, for it was of transcendent quality… there was no one who would hear
Chassidic teachings from him and remain in their previous condition. But after
Petersburg it changed and it wasn’t so, because then… the Chassidic teachings
began to be of internal quality… Through the accusations that were in
Petersburg the interiority specifically was revealed…
Before
this… the Chassidic teachings were specifically of transcendent quality… which
causes very intense inspiration, and such examples are also found in Likutei Torah… But the ultimate
intention is the quality of interiority specifically, for with the coming of
Moshiach specifically the interiority will be revealed… and the quality and
advantage of interiority is achieved specifically through great and extremely
immense toil… with service of the mind and the heart…[8]
Here and elsewhere it
is clear that the Rashab didn’t simply rely on Chassidic traditions alone, but
drew philological insight from his own knowledge of the relevant texts.[9] It
is this philological project that Grunwald seeks to expand, and following the
Rashab, he rejects the suggestion of other scholars that the teachings of these
two periods are primarily distinguished by their relative length.[10] Instead
he describes six features that, in his opinion, characterize the teachings of
the earlier period. It appears that the most central of these features is the
almost exclusive focus on the practical challenge of serving G-d at the highest
possible level. Theoretical issues are only mentioned and engaged with to the
degree that that they are directly relevant to the specifics of divine
worship.[11]
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
preoccupation with this challenge is clear from Tanya, which began circulating in the early 1790s and was published
in 1796. This work, as described in the author’s introduction, is comprised of
“answers to many questions, asked in search of counsel… in the service of
G-d.”[12] As Grunwald notes, the Tanya is a systematic presentation of the
solutions and advice that its author provided in private audiences (yechidut) on an individualized and more
immediate basis. “During this period,” Grunwald concludes, “the distinction between
private audiences and the oral delivery of Torah was almost non-existent.”[13]
The purpose of the oral
teachings during the earlier period, accordingly, was to directly inspire
religious transformation by providing practical direction and immediately
applicable solutions. They therefore do not digress into involved discussion of
complex theoretical questions and abstractions,[14] nor do they linger on the
stylistic niceties of orderly progression.[15] Instead they drive directly to
the point, emphasizing it with sharp language[16] and vivid imagery,[17] and
uncompromisingly demanding utter submission to the exclusive reality of divine
being (“ain od milvado”). In the
earlier period, Grunwald notes, such Chassidic exhortations “are not
complicated by a mantle of explanation or justification, but are [delivered]
straight… penetrating the gut.”[18]
In the later period,
conversely, Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s oral teachings were often devoted to the
theoretical explanation of a particular concept or issue, or to several related
concepts. Here we find detailed and orderly expositions on the nature and
purpose of the Torah and the mitzvot generally, or of particular mitzvot and
festivals, as well as on complex Kabbalistic ideas. “In the extant discourses
[from before Petersburg],” Grunwald writes, “it is almost impossible to find a
delivery that is dedicated entirely to the clarification of an aspect of the
cosmic chain of being [seder
hishtalshalut], in order for it to be understood in depth and in
conceptualized form. As a case in point, after Petersburg Rabbi Schneur Zalman
delivered a discourse on the topic of ohr
ain sof and tzimtzum nearly every
year… but before Petersburg we don’t find anything like this at all.”[19]
Grunwald acknowledges
that this distinction is a generalization, that in each period one can find
anomalies, and that there is far more to say about the development of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s oral teachings with the passing years. But the distinct and
rather rapid change in emphasis is clear enough to demand a broader
historiographical explanation. The question is sharpened when we consider that
the second part of Tanya, Shaar Ha-yichud
Ve-he-emunah, which was circulated and published during the earlier period,
does provide a systematic and thorough account of the unity and singularity of
divine being, vis-à-vis the created realms. The orderly conceptualization and
contemplation of esoteric concepts was already then a fundamental element of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s approach to the service of G-d.[20] (So fundamental, in
fact, that—as discussed elsewhere in the present volume—Rabbi Schneur Zalman
originally intended Shaar Ha-Yichud
to be the first section of Tanya,
rather than the second.[21]) Why then do we not find more of this kind of
material in the oral teachings dating from this era?
The
Making of a Tzaddik[22]
Conventionally, the
onset of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s leadership—and the establishment of Chabad as a
distinct school of Chassidic thought and practice—is dated to 1783, when he
settled in Liozna, or to 1786, when Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi
Avraham of Kalisk wrote from the Holy Land prevailing upon him “to draw close
the hearts of the faithful of Israel, to teach them understanding and knowledge
of G-d.”[23] Grunwald, however, argues that throughout the Liozna period Rabbi
Schneur Zalman continued to see himself—not as an independent leader of a
Chassidic community, nor as a tzaddik in his own right, but rather—as a
personal mentor and guide acting as the appointed representative of the
Chassidic leaders in the Holy Land.[24]
One source that
Grunwald would have done well to cite to strengthen and crystalize this nuanced
conception of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s role is a 1786 letter by Rabbi Avraham
responding to the complaint of the Chassidic community in the region of
Lithuania and Belarus—which, along with
Rabbi Menachem Mendel, he continued to lead from afar—that they were unable to
hear Torah directly from the mouths of the Tzaddikim in the Holy Land. Rabbi
Avraham instructs them to focus less on their desire to hear new wisdom, and more on the practicalities of action:
If
only you would place action before hearing, and our sages already said (Avot,
Chapter 3) “Anyone whose wisdom is more than their actions etc. [their wisdom
will not hold.]” And in my opinion it is tried and tested that too much wisdom
is detrimental to action… Commit your eyes and heart to one thing of Chassidic
teachings that you have heard, and strengthen it with nails that it should be
imprinted and dug into your heart… and due to this you climb and ascend… to
exile materiality bit by bit…
And
as for action you have a master, our honored friend and beloved, the beloved of
G-d, precious light… our teacher the rabbi, Shneur Zalman… filled with the
glory of G-d, with spirit, wisdom, understanding and knowledge to show you the
path…[25]
Strikingly, Rabbi
Avraham encouraged the Chassidic community to turn to Rabbi Schneur Zalman only
as a master of “action,” as one who can guide them along the methodological
“path” of practical service, but not as an independent tzaddik from whom to
“hear” new wisdom.[26] More than a decade later Rabbi Avraham’s opinion “that
too much wisdom is detrimental to action” would become a cause of contention
between him and Rabbi Schneur Zalman.[27] Yet, even following the passing of
Rabbi Menachem Mendel in 1788, and even as the crowds seeking Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s counsel turned Liozna into a bustling Chassidic court, the latter
continued to restrict his instruction to the practicalities of actual service
of G-d. In his introduction to Tanya too, in the same breath that he emphasizes
that its content consists entirely of “answers to many questions, asked in
search of advice… in the service of G-d” he continues to emphasize his
deference and debt to “our masters in the Holy Land.”[28]
But not all Chassidim
in the region were so eager to accept Rabbi Schneur Zalman as their mentor. A
strong contingent looked for guidance and inspiration to his contemporary,
Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin, who emphasized ecstatic faith and the centrality of the
tzaddik, and was famed as a seer and wonderworker. As documented by
Levine—following the earlier work of Rabbi Avraham Abish Shor—Karliner
loyalists persistently lobbied the tzaddikim in the Holy Land to appoint Rabbi
Shlomo in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s place, or to allow them to travel to visit him
in Ludmir, Galitzia, where he settled circa 1786. Such agitation was
consistently rebuffed, but never entirely quelled.[29] Rabbi Shlomo was shot by
marauding cossacks in 1792, and the Karlin legacy was continued by Rabbi Asher
of Stolin and Rabbi Mordechai of Lechevitch.[30] Despite the relative peace
that reigned during this period, Rabbi Avraham continued to exhort the
Chassidim to seek counsel from Rabbi Schneur Zalman alone into the early months
of 1797, when he had apparently not yet seen the recently published
Tanya.[31]
The period from 1788 to
1797 is described by Grunwald as an intermediate one, in which Rabbi Schneur
Zalman came to ever increasing prominence and also crystallized the distinctly
systematic approach to the service of G-d presented and published in Tanya. Neither by restricting himself to
topics directly related to practical worship, nor by describing himself as a
“compiler” (melaket) of a “collection
of sayings”—rather than as the author of an independent work of Chassidic
thought and instruction—was he able to mask the originality of his approach. No
reader of the Tanya can evade the primacy given to intellectual contemplation,
to toil of the mind, as the fundamental basis of heartfelt service and actual
practice, a primacy that is further underscored by the discussion of divine
unity in Shaar Ha-yichud Ve-ha-emunah.[32]
As Levine explains, the
crystallization of this systematic methodology to the point of publication was
seized by Karliner loyalists as an opportunity to press their case before Rabbi
Avraham of Kalisk, eliciting his sharp critique of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s path
in a series of letters penned between the latter part of 1797 and the summer of
1798.[33] Paradoxically, it was precisely this critique that led to Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s emergence as a Chassidic leader of a different stripe, and
ultimately as an autonomous tzaddik in the fullest sense of the term.
In Grunwald’s words:
Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s two great confrontations, with Rabbi Avraham on the doctrine
of Chabad, and with the Lithuanian mitnagdim on the doctrine of Chassidism,
transpired and erupted at approximately the same time. The period from 1798
[when he was first arrested and taken to Petersburg on mitnagdic charges of
treason] until after the second imprisonment marked the birth pangs that
brought forth the shining era of the Chabad doctrine and Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
leadership… It is due to this [difficult] period that we merited the doctrine
of Chabad in all its greatness and depth.[34]
According to Grunwald
the distinction between the Liozna and Liadi periods is far greater than has
previously been understood. Much has been made of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
unwillingness to deal with the worldly concerns (mili de’alma) of his constituents, and of the rules he imposed to
regulate the throngs who traveled to Liozna to meet with him and receive
spiritual guidance in person (takonat
liozna).[35] But according to Grunwald the documentary record attests that
these kinds of restrictions were only imposed during the Liozna period, when
Rabbi Schneur Zalman insisted that his role was only that of a spiritual
guide.[36] In the Liadi period, when he no longer acted as a personal mentor
and took on the full responsibility of autonomous leadership, he no longer
protested against those who came to him with their worldly concerns, and
imposed no regulations on those who wished to come and hear Torah from his
lips.[37]
The focus of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s leadership now shifted from the personal to the public, from
direct inspiration and methodological instruction, to the coherent formulation,
explanation and dissemination of a theoretical edifice accessible enough to be
studied, assimilated and acted upon by every aspiring Chassid. It was only after
Petersburg that Rabbi Schneur Zalman began delivering oral teachings each and
every week, and often several times in a single week. It was in the later
period too that new emphasis was placed on the systematic transcription of
these teachings not only by Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s brother, Rabbi Yehudah Leib,
but also by the former’s sons Rabbi DovBer (the Mitteler Rebbe) and Rabbi
Moshe, his grandson Rabbi Menachem Mendel (the Tzemach Tzedek), as well as by
noted Chassidim such as Rabbi Pinchas Reitzes. These teachings were not simply
instructive or inspirational, each was a new window onto the transcendent
philosophy of Chabad, to be carefully preserved, reviewed, studied, assimilated
and applied, transforming the Chassid from within.[38]
Cerebral
Love
According to Grunwald,
the theoretical emphasis that emerged in the Liadi period also constituted a
substantial shift in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s approach to prayer, and, more
broadly, to the service of G-d with love and awe.[39]
In Tanya, Chapter 16, Rabbi Schneur Zalman distinguishes between love
that is revealed openly in one’s heart, “so that one’s heart burns like flaming
fire, and desires with heartfelt fervour, longing and yearning,” and love “that
is hidden in the mind and concealed in the heart.” Both are the product of
mindful contemplation of the greatness of G-d’s infinitude. Both provide the
impetus to bind oneself to G-d through the Torah and its commandments. But the
former bursts forth as an emotive outpouring of love (hitgalut ha-lev), while the latter remains “enclosed in the mind
and the concealment of the heart” (mesuteret
be-mocho ve’taalumat libo). Rabbi Schneur Zalman establishes it as “a
fundamental rule in the service of ordinary people (beinonim)” that though open love is apparently more ideal, mere
mindful animation is “also” acceptable impetus for Torah study and mitzvah
performance “since it is this understanding in one’s mind and the concealment
of one’s heart that brings you to toil in them.”
In a later teaching
Rabbi Schneur Zalman specifically refers to this passage in Tanya, but argues
that a more cerebral experience of love is actually preferable, rather than merely acceptable.
For one thing, emotional experience is fleeting while cerebral animation
achieves a permanently effective transformation. For another, an open
experience of ecstatic love may itself be so spiritually satisfying that one
will no longer seek to bind oneself to G-d through actual Torah study and
practice of the commandments.[40]
Though the text in
question bears no date, Grunwald devotes an entire article to a survey of
several similar examples, each of which date from the period following the
second imprisonment specifically. Yet Grunwald fails to note a fundamental
distinction between these two texts: Tanya speaks of an individual whose
“intellect and spirit of understanding is insufficient” and consequently suffers from emotional indifference. But the oral teaching he
cites clearly addresses an individual who possesses the intellectual and
spiritual capacity to experience open love, but is enjoined to use the
intellect to exercise emotional discipline
in order to cultivate a more pervading experience of submissive subjugation (bitul) before G-d.[41]
Contrary to Grunwald’s
suggestion, this later text does not present a complete reversal of priorities
when compared to Tanya.[42] It instead introduces a loftier form of
service, through which toil of the heart is further refined rather than
abandoned. As Grunwald explains elsewhere, emotional enthusiasm—even when
directed towards G-d—is essentially a form of self-expression and
self-affirmation, whereas the Chabad ideal is to internalize the recognition
that nothing exists other than G-d.[43] Ecstatic experience can
accordingly be counterproductive, and as already mentioned, may well remain
limited to the realm of emotion. A loftier—and more thoroughly
transformative—mode of worship uses the mind to exercise emotional
self-discipline, subduing self-expression and subjecting the entirety of one’s
being to the mindful apprehension of divinity and the practical service of
G-d.[44]
The distinctions are
perhaps not as sharp as Grunwald portrays them, but the shift is certainly a
real one. In the earlier period Rabbi Schneur Zalman instructed his disciples
to use their intellectual capacities to inspire emotional expression and exuberance
(as reflected in Tanya). In the later
period he taught them to cultivate a more contained and constant form of
internal animation, channeling mindful enthusiasm directly into the practical
service of G-d—Torah study and mitzvah performance—rather than allowing it to
overflow into the heart unbridled.[45]
A related point,
addressed in a different article, is the debate between Rabbi Schneur Zalman
and Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk on the complex relationship between faith and
knowledge. In 1805 the former delivered a series of discourses on the topic,
elicited by the latter’s renewed critique, and Grunwald’s rich treatment of the
sources further underscores the centrality of such theoretical issues in Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s later teachings.[46]
As we have seen, the
transition between the Liozna and Liadi periods was rooted in the parting of
ways that transpired between Rabbi Schneur Zalman and Rabbi Avraham. One result
of this transition—Grunwald further argues—was the subsequent parting of ways
between Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s oldest son, Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch, and his
foremost disciple, Rabbi Aharon of Strashelye. As has been most extensively
described by Naftali Loewenthal, these two personalities clashed precisely over
the question of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s approach to emotional enthusiasm,
particularly during prayer.[47] Rabbi Aharon first came to Liozna at the age of
17, shortly after Rabbi Schneur Zalman settled there in 1783. Rabbi DovBer
would have been less than ten years old at the time, and he did not begin
transcribing his father's teachings until 1798—that is, at the very end of the
Liozna period. Grunwald accordingly asserts that the eras in which they each
matured as students of Rabbi Schneur Zalman can be broadly distinguished along
the lines of their later disagreement.[48] While this claim rings
true, it is complicated by the facts that Rabbi Aharon and Rabbi DovBer were
close associates for many years, and that by 1798 the later would already have
been 25 years old.[49]
Grunwald enriches his
analysis of the relevant transcripts with several recollections and comments of
the Tzemach Tzedek.[50] One example is a note in the latter’s own hand,
appended to a teaching in which Rabbi Schneur Zalman categorically rejects any
emotionalism, preferring the cerebral approach “even if it is only superficial
and somatic… with very brief contemplation, and coldness…” The Tzemach Tzedek
recalls that this extreme formulation was directed towards a particular
individual whose enthusiastic conduct needed to be reined in, and was not
necessarily intended to be applied more generally. More applicable is the
general thrust of this teaching, which gives ultimate primacy to “the quality
and substance of internal subjugation (bitul)
in the mind and heart, in the aspect of prostration… without any detectable
movement.”[51]
Another source records
that seeing the Tzemach Tzedek’s note, one of his grandsons asked him if the
specific individual referred to was Rabbi Aharon of Strashelye: “And his
grandfather answered him… G-d forbid! I was not thinking of him, for he
experienced G-dly enthusiasm…”[52]
Grunwald relates this remark to a distinction drawn by Rabbi Schneur Zalman
himself between the worship of an ordinary individual and that of a tzaddik,
who is not susceptible to the pitfalls of ecstatic love and emotional
enthusiasm. Regarding the difference between Rabbi DovBer and Rabbi Aharon, he
refers to the vivid image provided by the Rebbe Rashab:
Like
a burning stick of hay. When it is dry it burns with a flame. It burns through
and nothing remains. [Such was the service of Rabbi Aharon] But when it
contains moisture its substance is entirely burnt through, and yet [its form]
remains standing. Touch it. It is nothing. Yet the form stands. Such was the
Mitteler Rebbe [Rabbi DovBer]. This is the love of glowing flame, an all
consuming fire, yet the form stands.[53]
Of
Angels and Other Things
Notable both for its
topical interest and for the broader significance of its central point is an
analysis of the treatment of angels in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s teachings by
Rabbi Aharon Chitrik. “Chabad teachings… present comprehensive and deep
explanations, extending to very specific details of the nature of angels: their
creation, their character, their station, their role, their subjugation to G-d,
prayer and song, their constant service, their free-will or lack thereof, etc.
etc.” But these discussions, Chitrik convincingly demonstrates, do not reflect
any intrinsic interest in angels at all. Angels are only the focus of such
intense discussion as a counterpoint from which we can achieve a better
understanding of the unique nature of the Jewish soul, and its mission on this
physical earth.[54] In an 1804 discourse explicating this point, Rabbi Schneur
Zalman extends this principle to all Kabbalistic discussions of the cosmic
chain of supernal realms: Ultimately all such theoretical investigations are
but a stepping stone to achieve direct knowledge of G-d’s essence.[55]
Two additional articles
are devoted to the Tzemach Tzedek’s intensive engagement with his grandfather’s
discourses, firstly from a theoretical perspective,[56] and secondly
as editor and publisher of Torah Ohr
and Likutei Torah.[57] In
Grunwald’s apt and illuminating formulation, the Tzemach Tzedek is to Rabbi
Schneur Zalman as the Tosafists are to the Talmud Bavli: Surveying Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s different treatments of the same or related topics, the
Tzemach Tzedek seeks to compare them and combine them, ironing out apparent
conflicts through innovative explanation, differentiation, and harmonization,
and also to contextualize the former’s teachings within the broader Jewish
tradition of philosophical and mystical thought.[58]
For all the rich depth,
analysis and insight of Grunwald’s scholarship, his work in this volume tends
to suffer from a certain looseness of form. Moving from text to context, from
observation and analysis to elaboration and speculation, order and balance is
sometimes lost; some points are too often repeated, others scattered in
footnotes or hardly developed at all. His article on the Midrashic notion of “a
dwelling in the lower realms,” as developed in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s thought,
abounds with relevant sources, thoughtful comparisons and observations. Yet it
runs to nearly sixty pages and reads more like a voluminous draft than a
tightly argued thesis.[59]
At the outset, Grunwald
takes stock of the various perspectives within the Jewish tradition from which
the purpose of the Torah and its commandments can be viewed—the Halachic, the
philosophic and the kabbalistic—before proceeding to the unique contribution of
Chassidism. Self admittedly his analysis is too sweeping. But it could also be
better grounded in the relevant texts.[60] His conclusion that the Chassidic
object of “a dwelling in the lower realms” is tied to the revelation of divine
unity is in particular need of justification and elaboration. His initial
discussion of the philosophical purpose of the Torah and its commandments
similarly highlighted divine unity, a point that will further confuse many
readers. The Rebbe Rashab explicitly discussed the Chassidic renewal of this
midrashic conception in terms of its relationship with philosophical and
kabbalistic approaches, and Grunwald is as familiar as anyone with the relevant
sources. But it is not till footnote 99 that the first discourse of Yom Tov Shel Rosh Hashanah 5666 (“Samach Vav”) makes an
appearance.[61]
Given the immensity of
Grunwald’s project, as editor of this volume and its chief contributor, he is to
be applauded for his successful effort to share such a great wealth of
information and insight. Nevertheless, in several instances Grunwald’s
arguments would have been substantively enhanced if he had the time and
resources to ensure that they were composed and constructed with more
orderliness and concision. In fact, the more one delves into his work, the more
one can envision all that remains to be
written. Many a brief note, expanded into a fully developed thesis, could be
the topic of an independent article.[62]
Moving beyond the
direct transcripts of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s oral teachings, the volume
includes a substantial collection of short sayings and teachings attributed to
R. Schneur Zalman in a wide variety of secondary sources.[63] A second
collection draws exclusively on the oeuvre of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn
of Lubavitch (1880-1950), whose journals, letters and private talks preserve a
rich reservoir of anecdotes and historiographical data passed down from the
first generation of Chabad.[64] Both of these rich collections were compiled by
Grunwald and benefit greatly from his critical notes, comments and citations.
Also included in this
volume is a newly edited edition of the seminal commentary to the Tanya by one
of the principal educators in the original Yeshiva Tomchei Temimim,
Lubavitch—Rabbi Shmuel Groinem Estherman (d. 1921).[65] Even in its as yet
incomplete form this is a substantial text, which bears study and review in its
own right. Another article gathers information on the period spent by Rabbi
Schneur Zalman in Mohyliv-Podil’s’kyi on the River Dniester, following Rabbi
Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk’s ascent to the Holy Land.[66] Similar articles are
devoted to some of the former’s Chassidim, including, but not limited to, the
well known Rabbi Binyamin of Kletzk[67] and the lesser known —but perhaps
equally influential, and certainly more intriguingly named—Rabbi Dovid
Shvartz-Tuma.[68]
Subjective
Transformation
Although the importance
of Halacha for Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his work as a legal authority receives
little attention in this volume, there are two notable exceptions. The first is
Grunwald’s discussion of the relationship between the legal focus on physical
activity and the mystical/Midrashic notion that G-d desired a dwelling in the
physical realms specifically.[69] The second is a discussion by Rabbi Noach
Green juxtaposing the objective rule of law in cases of monetary disputation
with a more subjective process of arbitration and compromise. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman prefered the subjective approach in practice, and also devoted several
discourses to the mystical basis of that preference, explaining that this was
the surer way of transforming our lowly environment into a “dwelling” for
G-d.[70] As Green puts it: “The truth
of Torah is imposed objectively, without actually refining the lowly material.
Whereas the kindness of Torah is in
accord with the nature of creation, and comes to refine the material as it
is.”[71]
This preference—for
subjective transformation rather than submissive acceptance of objective
law—correlates with the ultimate focus of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s broader
educational project. As we have seen, during the Liadi period his teachings delved
deeply into the most esoteric of kabbalistic doctrines. But their purpose was
ultimately focused on the conjunction of the highest highs and the lowest lows:
direct knowledge of G-d’s essence and the physical practice of the
commandments. As is often noted in Chabad teachings, this overcoming of the
cosmic hierarchy will only be accomplished fully with the advent of the
messianic era. But the period of the exile is not merely a ceaseless struggle
between our reality and our ideals, and messianic revelation is not simply
bestowed from above. As Rabbi Schneur Zalman asserts in Tanya, it is achieved
through our subjective toil throughout the era of exile.[72]
But the question
remains to be asked: Why did Rabbi Schneur Zalman place such an emphasis on the
assimilation and contemplation of theoretical ideals, which most of us cannot
yet adequately replicate in practice? Why did he not restrict his instruction
to the more directly attainable elements of divine service, as he had in the
Liozna period?
A fascinating array of
sources related to these questions are collected in another article by
Grunwald.[73] One example attributes the following distinction between toil of
the heart and toil of the mind to Rabbi Schneur Zalman: G-d promises that with
the messianic advent “I shall remove the heart
of stone… and give you a heart of
flesh,” but nothing similar is said of the
mind. In the realm of the heart, of emotional inspiration and refinement,
we may ultimately rely on divine intervention. But we must first ready
ourselves for such revelation intellectually, independently toiling to
“subjectively assimilate, and affix in our minds, all the stations that will be
achieved with the messianic advent.”[74]
Grunwald argues that
for Rabbi Schnuer Zalman this kind of intellectual work isn’t simply a
technical condition to the messianic revelation. It is actually central to his
vision of such revelation as something achieved through human toil, through the
subjective transformation of our lowly reality into a lofty messianic state. It
is only if we have internally readied ourselves that the messianic advent can
be complete, with the mindful quality of interiority openly spilling over into
our hearts.[75] In the words of the Rashab, cited earlier in this article: “The
ultimate intention is the quality of interiority specifically, for with the
coming of Moshiach specifically the interiority will be revealed…”[76]
Notes:
[1] On Mondshine’s life
and work see Eli Rubin, “Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshine, 67, Acclaimed Scholar and
Author, Passes Away in Jerusalem,” Chabad.org
(25 December 2014), available here.
See also David Assaf, “Avad Chassid Min Ha-aretz,” Oneg Shabbat blog (26 December 2014), available here here.
[2] Notably, the new
and improved edition of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s Igrot Kodesh (Kehot Publication Society, 2012), edited by Rabbi
Shalom DovBer Levine, and the still ongoing publication of all extant
transcripts of Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s oral discourses in the multi volume series
Maamarei Admur Ha-zaken. See also
Rabbi Shalom DovBer Levine, Toldot Chabad
Be-russia Ha-tzaarit (Kehot Publication Society, 2010), and Rabbi Yehushua
Mondshine, Masa Barditchev (2010), Ha-maasar Ha-rishon (2012) and Ha-masa Ha-acharon (2012), among other
works. In English see, most recently, Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of the Chabad School (Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University
Press, 2015). While this is a valuable introductory work that takes advantage
of first-hand documentary sources, I have noted elsewhere that its scope is
rather limited. See Eli Rubin, “Making Chasidism Accessible: How Rabbi Shneur
Zalman of Liadi Successfully Preserved and Perpetuated the Teachings of The
Baal Shem Tov,” Chabad.org (10 September 2012), available here.
The shortcoming of that work are further highlighted when compared with the
insights offered of the present volume. See my related comment below, note
three. For an earlier, but in many ways broader, more complex and more
insightful work see Naftali Loewenthal, Communicating
the Infinite: The Emergence of the Chabad School (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1990). For a partial review of recent publications see Eli
Rubin, The Rabbi Who Defied Napoleon and Made Mysticism Accessible: New
publications illuminate the life and legacy of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi,”
Chabad.org (11 January 2013), available here.
[3] For an important exception see Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 66-76 and
117-119. Though relatively brief, Loewenthal’s discussion is well grounded in
the primary sources, and in several ways prefigures insights that are presented
with far more elaboration in the present work. Another important work is Roman
A. Foxbrunner, Habad: The Hasidism of R.
Shneur Zalman of Lyady (University of Albama Press, 1992), which takes
stock of some important aspects of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s teachings through a particularly
wide analysis of the oral, as well as written, teachings. In certain respects
this work similarly prefigures the present volume, but without the diachronic
dimensions that will here be highlighted. For further treatments see Eli Rubin,
“The Future is Now: Assorted reflections
on the oral teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi,” Chabad-Revisited
(30 November 2015), available here,
and Jonathan Garb, “The Early Writings of
Rashaz,” delivered at Johns Hopkins University, April 2015, and available
online here.
Etkes’ fleeting discussion of the oral teachings (Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 50-54) relies on secondary sources,
and at one point (note 93) confuses Rabbi Schneur Zalman with his great grandson,
Rabbi Chaim Schneur Zalman of Liadi. It should be noted that none of these
sources, including the present volume, address the two volumes of discourses
published by Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s son, Rabbi DovBer: Siddur Tefilot Mi-kol Ha-shana Im Pirush Hamilot Al Pi Dach
(Kopust, 1816), online here, and Bi’urei Ha-zohar (Kopust, 1816), online
here.
See also Elliot R. Wolfson, Open Secret:
Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), where many texts by Rabbi
Schneur Zalman are contextualized within a discussion of the thought of
Chabad’s seventh Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson; Elliot R. Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted Within a Dream: A Dream
Interpreted within a Dream: Oneiropoiesis and the Prism of Imagination
(Cambridge, MA: Zone Books, 2011), 197-217. For more on Wolfson's oeuvre, see
Joey Rosenfeld, “Dorshei Yichudcha: A Portrait of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson,”
the Seforim blog (21 July 2015),
available here.
[4] Such belatedness
seems to be something of a custom with such publications. In the introduction
to the present volume (p. 15) reference is made to Sefer HaKan, a collection of articles on Rabbi Schneur Zalman that
was intended to mark the 150th year since his passing in 1962, but which did
not appear till the beginning of 1970, and is available online here.
[5] For the
relationship with Rabbi Avraham see Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 51-54 and 77-90; Nehemia Polen,
“Charismatic Leader, Charismatic Book: Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s Tanya and His
Leadership,” in Suzanne Last Stone, ed., Rabbinic
and Lay Communal Authority (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2006),
60-61; Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Shneur
Zalman of Liady: The Origins of the
Chabad School (Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press, 2015), 209-258.
On the relationship with Rabbi Shlomo see the articles of Rabbi Avraham Abish
Shor, as cited specifically below.
[6] See Rabbi Meir
Chaim Hillman, Beis Rebbi
(Berditchev, 1902), Part 1, Chapter 20, note 5. See also the account in Rabbi
Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, Igrot Kodesh
Vol. 3 (Kehot Publication Society, 1983), 444-445.
[7] Cited in HaRav, 401, and attributed to Rabbi
Shlomo Zalman of Kopust in the name of his grandfather, the Tzemach Tzedek.
[8] Rabbi Shalom DovBer
Schneersohn, Torat Shalom (Kehot
Publication Society, 1970), 26.
[9] See Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 72-73.
Grunwald, HaRav, 402-406.
[10] Torat Shalom, 114. Grunwald, HaRav, 412-413.
[11] This is the second
of the six features described by Grunwald, HaRav,
415-416.
[12] Another article in
this volume, by the late Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshine (HaRav, 609-650), collects extant accounts of such audiences,
providing illuminating glimpses of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s interactions as a
personal mentor.
[13] HaRav, 415, and at greater length, Ibid., 394-396. See, however, the
discussion of Tanya as exoteric in relation to the esoteric aspect expressed in
the oral teachings, as cited by Loewenthal, Communicating
the Infinite, p. 235-236, note 67.
[14] HaRav, 416.
[15] HaRav, 415.
[16] HaRav, 420-421.
[17] HaRav, 416-418. See also Jonathan Garb,
“The Early Writings of Rashaz,”
delivered at Johns Hopkins University, April 2015, and available online here.
[18] HaRav, 413. On this last point see also
Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite,
68. On the stringent demands Rabbi Schneur Zalman attaches to worship of G-d
see Foxbrunner, Habad, 116.
[19] HaRav, 415. For an ongoing exploration
of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s discussion of ohr
ain sof and tzimtzum, on the part
of the present writer, see my series here.
[20] See HaRav, 430-431.
[21] See the extended
discussion in HaRav, 361-375.
[22] A formulation
borrowed from Jonathan Garb, “The Early
Writings of Rashaz,” delivered at Johns Hopkins University, April 2015, and
available online here.
[23] See the
introduction to Igrot Kodesh Admur
Ha-zaken (Kehot Publication Society, new and improved edition, 2012),
42-43, and sources cited there; Levine, Toldot
Chabad Be-russia Ha-tzaarit, 29-31; Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 42; Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of
Liadi, 9-19.
[24] HaRav, 391-396. See also pages 421-423
where Grunwald argues that Rabbi Schneur Zalman sought to deemphasize the role
of the tzaddik in chassidim altogether. In my view the picture he paints is
overly simplistic, and he himself notes that more research is required. As I
have argued elsewhere, while Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s understanding of the
tzaddik’s role was different to that of other Chassidic leaders, he understood
it to be no less central than they; see Eli Rubin, “The Second Refinement and the Role of the Tzaddik: How Rabbi Schneur
Zalman of Liadi discovered a new way to serve G-d,” Chabad.org, available
online here.
For further comments on the role of the tzadik in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
teachings see below note 28.
[25] As published in
Rabbi Aharon Surasky, Yesod Ha-maalah
Vol. 2 (Bnei Brak, 2000), 85-86.
[26] In a similar vein
see Rabbi Avraham Abish Shor, Kovetz Beit
Aharon Ve-yisra’el, Issue 167, 137.
[27] See the related
discussion of this source in Rabbi Avraham Abish Shor, Kovetz Beit Aharon Ve-yisra’el, Issue 157, p. 187).
[28] Elsewhere in the present volume, Rabbi
Eliyahu Matusof points out that when, in 1806—that is, in the Liadi
period—Rabbi Schneur Zalman published a new edition of the Tanya, this
reference to “our masters in the Holy Land” was omitted. Both Matusof (HaRav, 344-380) and Grunwald (HaRav, 398, note 30) see this as
evidence that the distinction between the earlier and later periods of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s leadership (as described in more detail below) is to be
extended to Tanya as well. In the earlier period it served as a proxy for
one-on-one mentorship (yechidut). In
the later period (when references to yechidut
were also omitted from the 1806 edition of Tanya) it was transformed into the
foundation of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s broader project to formulate, explain and
disseminate the unique theoretical edifice of Chabad in terms that were
accessible enough to be studied, assimilated and acted upon by any aspiring
Chassid for perpetuity.
Grunwald’s
general thrust also provides an important counterbalance to the argument
advanced by Nehemia Polen (Charismatic
Leader, Charismatic Book, 53-64) that the Tanya was designed to craft a
balance between control and empowerment, enforcing a rigid structure of social
stratification, in which the tzadik is placed on a spiritual plain that the
average man (benoni) can never hope
to reach. Grunwald’s work complicates this sociological interpretation by
demonstrating that during the period of Tanya’s composition the sociological
structure of the Chassidic community had not yet been crystallized into
distinct hierarchies led by individual tzaddikim, but was rather a complex
network with a spectrum of different kinds of authorities and leaders, whose
homogeneity Rabbi Schneur Zalman did not seek to break. It is my belief that Tanya’s
portrait of the tzaddik in contrast to the average man is primarily to be read
theoretically and psychologically rather than sociologically. That is, it
relates to the inner world of man, rather than to the external world of the
community. As Polen acknowledges, the entire distinction between the tzaddik
and the beinoni is such that outwardly the latter may be mistaken for the
former. Tanya does discuss the role of the tzadik within the community, but it
primarily does so using the terms “wise men” (chachamim), “Torah scholars” (talmidei
chachamim), “wise men of the generation” (chachmei ha-dor), and “visionaries of the community” (enei ha-edah), which carry more obvious
degrees of social implication. This claim, I believe, is born out by the
sources discussed in my article, as cited above, note 24. Moreover, the plural
tense of these terms better reflects the less stratified sociological reality
of the time.
[29] Levine, HaRav, 661-684; See also the important
series of articles by Rabbi Avraham Abish Shor, Karlin Be-tekufat Galut, in Kovetz
Beit Aharon Ve-yisra’el, as cited by Levine, Ibid., 662, note 9.
[30] See Rabbi Avraham
Abish Shor, Al Harigato Shel Moshiach
Hashem, in Kovetz Beit Aharon
Ve-yisra’el, Issues 39, 39 and 40.
[31] Levine, HaRav, 668-669. During this more
peaceful period a match was arranged between Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s widowed
son-in-law—Rabbi Shalom Shachne, father of the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch—and
Rivka Rivla, the sister of Rabbi Asher of Stolin. See Shor, Kovetz Beit Aharon Ve-yisra’el, Issue
162, p. 139-140.
[32] See the relevant
discussions in HaRav, 426-431;
Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of
Liady, 98-100; Jonathan Garb, Yearnings
of the Soul (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015), 50-57. This
last source is particularly notable for its emphasis on the respective roles of
the mind and the heart in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s teachings, which is also the
broader theme of the present essay.
[33] Levine, HaRav, 670-672. See the excerpts
appended to Igrot Kodesh Admur Ha-zaken
(Kehot Publication Society, new and improved edition, 2012), 496, 498-500.
[34] HaRav, 400. The coincidence of these two
ruptures is underscored in a letter by Rabbi Schneur Zalman noting his
inability to respond to Rabbi Avraham’s critique until circa 1799-1800, due “to
the distress of the times,” referring to his arrest. See Igrot Kodesh Admur Ha-zaken, 341; HaRav, 672.
[35] See the editor's Introduction to Rabbi Schneur Zalman of
Liadi (ed. Rabbi DovBer Levine), Igrot
Kodesh (Kehot Publication Society, new and improved edition, 2012), 35-37.
[36] With regard to mili de’alma see HaRav, 391, note 13; 409-410. With regard to takonat liozna see HaRav,
398, note 29; 408, note 65. See also Levine, Toldot Chabad Be-russia Ha-tzaarit, 36.
[37] In one of the very
last texts penned by Rabbi Schneur Zalman before his passing he even went so
far as to justify and explain this central link between material concerns and
the spiritual service of G-d. See sources cited and discussed in the editor's Introduction to Igrot Kodesh, 39. See also Yanki Tauber, “The Physical World
According to Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi,” Chabad.org, available here.
[38] HaRav, 396-398; 388-389, note 6. See
also the discussion by Shor, Kovetz Beit
Aharon Ve-yisra’el, Issue 172, 151-152. Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 71-77. For a similar shift in the role
that Tanya came to play in this period see above, note 28.
[39] For Grunwald’s
extended discussion see HaRav,
432-461. See also Loewenthal, Communicating
the Infinite, 75-77 and 117-119. For a particularly extensive discussion of
the nature and role of love and awe in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s teachings see
Foxbrunner, Habad, 178-194.
[40] Maamarei Admur Ha-zaken Al Maamarei Chazal,
94. HaRav, 453-454. See also
Foxbrunner, Habad, 186.
[41] My thanks goes to
Rabbi Avraham Altein for bringing this distinction to my attention, and for
providing other important comments and citations.
[42] HaRav, 438-552.
[43] HaRav, 433-434. See also Foxbrunner, Habad, 185.
[44] In a discourse
delivered in the autumn of 1799 (Maamarei
Admur Ha-zaken Ketuvim Vol. 1, 67 [96]), in between the first and second
imprisonments (and misleadingly described by Grunwald as “the very beginning of
the period following Petersburg”), Rabbi Schneur Zalman describes how to
cultivate this cerebral form of love. It is noteworthy that this contemplation
is explicitly directed from the mind to the heart:
“Speak to your
heart quietly and coolly, which is the opposite of the heated movement of the
heart… Settled mindfulness (yishuv ha-daat) is cool, without any movement, and
you shall delve deeply into settled mindfulness with ease and calm (be-nachat),
and say to your heart: ‘The infinite revelation of G-d creates [existence],
something from nothing, at every moment, it is clear in my intellect that this
is so… If so how can I be separate [from G-d]? And [how can] all my thoughts
and the capacities of my soul not constantly be cleaving to G-d… ?”
[45] See also
Loewenthal, Ibid., where similar
argument are made drawing on additional textual examples. Loewenthal also
demonstrates an increased focus on abnegation (bitul) in contrast to emotionalism.
[46] HaRav, 473-505. See also Levine, HaRav, 675-684. Levine, Introduction to Igrot Kodesh, 49, points out that the year 1805 is when the term
“Chabad” comes into use as a way of expressly distinguishing the followers of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman from those of other Chassidic leaders.
[47] Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 100-138, and
167-174 and 195. See also Hillman, Beis
Rebbi, Part 1, Chapter 26, and Louis Jacobs, Tract on Ecstasy (Vallentine
Mitchell, 1963); Louis Jacobs, Seeker of
Unity: The Life and Works of Aharon of Starosselje (Vallentine Mitchell,
1966). For more recent comments on Rabbi DovBer, Rabbi Aaron and the
interrelationship of their thought see Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted Within a Dream, 210-214, and Garb, Yearnings of the Soul, 56-57.
[48] HaRav, 432-438.
[49] See also the accounts
transmitted by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn in Igrot Kodesh Vol. 3 (Kehot Publication Society, 1983), 477; and in
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Reshimot
Ha-yoman (Kehot Publication Society, 2006), 367.
[50] HaRav, 448-449.
[51] Rabbi Menachem
Mendel of Lubavitch, Ohr Ha-torah,
Bereishit Vol. 3, 603-604 (Hebrew pagination). This last quote—as well as the
source quoted above, note 44—further emphasizes the central role that the heart
continued to play in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s thought, even in the later period.
See Maamarei Admur Ha-zaken 5570,
207-210 for a discourse delivered by Rabbi DovBer in the lifetime of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, which similarly emphasizes this point, contrasting between the
exteriority of the heart and the interiority of the heart (pnimiyut ha-lev). As Loewenthal puts it (Ibid., 122) Rabbi DovBer too demanded ecstasy: “not ecstasy of the
self, but of the nonself…”
[52] Hillman, Beis Rebbi, Part 1, Chapter 26, note 4.
[53] Torat Shalom, 213.
[54] HaRav, 563-572.
[55] Maamarei Admur Ha-zaken 5565, 4.
[56] Rabbi Nochum
Grunwald, HaRav, 573-586.
[57] Rabbi Nechemia
Teichman, HaRav, 587-606.
[58] Grunwald’s
description here is inspired by the comment of the Maharshal regarding the
achievement of the Tosafists. See Yam
Shel Shlomo, introduction to Chulin.
[59] HaRav, 506-562.
[60] For one relevant
text that Grunwald does not discuss see Ma’amarei Admur ha-Zaken 5565, Volume 1, 489–90. For my own
discussion of this text, as well as a contextualization of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s approach within the broader streams of Jewish rationalist and mystical
thought that differs somewhat from Grunwald’s approach see Eli Rubin, “Intimacy in the Place of Otherness:
How rationalism and mysticism collaboratively communicate the Midrashic core of
cosmic purpose,” Chabad.org,
available here.
[61] HaRav,
544-545. Footnote 99, incidentally, is well worth reading. Among other points
there, Grunwald makes explicit reference to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man. Indeed, hints to the
similarities and differences between the latter’s approach and that of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman are already apparent from the onset of Grunwald’s article. For
more on this general topic See Elliot R. Wolfson, “Eternal Duration and
Temporal Compresence: The Influence of Habad on Joseph B. Soloveitchik,” in
Michael Zank and Ingrid Anderson, eds., The Value of the Particular: Lessons
from Judaism and the Modern Jewish Experience - Festschrift for Steven T. Katz
on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 196-238.
[62] Take for example
page 562, footnote 145, where Grunwald gestures to the question of Jewish
chosenness as developed in Chabad thought through the generations. For a
lengthy treatment of this topic see Wolfson, Open Secret, Chapter 6. See also Eli Rubin, “Divine Zeitgeist—The
Rebbe’s Appreciative Critique of Modernity,” Chabad.org, available here,
and Wojciech Tworek, Time in the
Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (dissertation submitted for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University College London, 2014), 126-136. None
of these treatments deal with the diburificating statement Grunwald points to Likutei Sichot Vol. 16 (Kehot
Publication Society, 2006), 477-478: “When will it be achieved in a revealed
sense that the Jews are a dwelling for G-d? …Specifically… when, through the
Jews, the lower realms themselves become a place that is fit for G-d’s
dwelling… Since the intention of a dwelling in the lower realms is [rooted] in
G-d’s essence, it is impossible to say that this intention should be compounded
of two things…”
[63] HaRav, 3-124.
[64] HaRav, 125-211.
[65] HaRav, 215-343.
[66] HaRav, 653-658.
[67] HaRav, 701-740.
[68] HaRav, 765-770.
[69] HaRav, 516-528.
[70] HaRav, 693.
[71] HaRav, 698. On Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
Halachik work and method Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, “Shulchan Aruch Admur” in Sofrim Ve-seforim Vol. 2 (Tel Aviv:
Hotza’at Sefarim Avraham Tziyoni, 1959), 9-21 [Hebrew], translated and adapted
by the present writer as, ‘Systematization,
Explanation and Arbitration: Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi’s Unique Legislative
Style,” Chabad.org, available
here.
For an overview of the current state of scholarship on this topic see Levi
Cooper, “Towards A Judicial Biography of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady,” Journal of Law and Religion 30, no. 1
(2015), 107-135. On the need to address the relationship between Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s Halachik and Kabbalistic work see Garb, Yearnings of the Soul, 155-157.
[72] Likutei Amarim, Chapter 37. For an
extended discussion of the prominent place of the messianic idea in Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s thought, correcting a major gap in previous scholarship, see
Wojciech Tworek, Time in the Teachings of
Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (dissertation submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, University College London, 2014), especially Chapters 2
and 3. See the related discussion in Foxbrunner, Habad, 85-93, and also Eli Rubin, “The Idealistic Realism of Jewish
Messianism: On Chabad’s apocalyptic calculations, and why Jews have always
predicted elusive ends,” Chabad.org, available here.
[73] HaRav, 462-472.
[74] HaRav, 469.
[75] HaRav, 470-472.
[76] Torat Shalom, 26.
