Chabad-Revisited

Rethinking the Significance of "Rebbe Stories"

2012-01-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

I just watched this video account by Jerry Levine of his "encounter with the Rebbe".

In general I'm not one for miracle tales, nor for "Rebbe stories" in general. Not because I don't believe in miracles, but because I do not believe that miracles display the true greatness of a Rebbe. To me the greatness of a Rebbe, and especially the greatness of my Rebbe, lies in the mystic transcendence transmitted in his teachings.

Jerry's story is not a classic miracle story, in the sense that no unexplained change in the natural order of things occurs, but it certainly does point to some kind of transcendent insight on the Rebbe's part.

But what really grabbed my attention though was the insight pointed to by Jerry himself:

Rather than think of this story in terms of the mystical statement it makes, we need think of it in terms of what it reveals abt the Rebbe's concerns and agendas.

He entirely transcended the mundane concerns anyone coming from a practical / rational perspective, would expect him to address. Instead, he addressed himself to an apparently irrelevant - or solely mystical concern. Only once that issue had been satisfactorily been dealt with did he address the more practical issue with understated simplicity.

Hasidology: Studies in Chasidic Thought & History

2011-12-29T16:20:00.000-08:00

I'm very pleased to announce that my new blog Hasidology: Studies in Chasidic Thought and History has now been launched at chabad.org/academia
You can follow Hasidology using this rss feed (paste it into your reader):
http://www.chabad.org/tools/rss/blog_rss.xml?aid=1723575
I may post occasional on this blog, but Hasidology will now become my main platform. Readers can expect to see fuller, more thoughtful and better researched efforts. Be sure to take a look at my first posting entitled On the Eternal Unfolding of the Transcendent Torah, all comments welcome!

"Light and Life" - Celebrating Yud Tes Kislev

2011-12-14T14:39:00.000-08:00

Last night I sat with a few friends in a small shul in an anonymous corner of Crown Heights. We had gathered there on the evening before Yud Tes Kislev[1] to Farbreng, and we didn't leave till the wee hours of the morning.

It is very difficult to describe or capture the intimate atmosphere, the other-worldly spirit of truth and open honesty, the strangely unremarkable mix of self criticism and celebration that makes a Farbrengen. But I can highlight some of the themes that I came away with last night.

This year is the 110th year since Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn, the Rebbe Rashab, termed Yud Tes Kislev the Chasidic "Rosh Hashanah". In a letter penned from Moscow to his son, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak (later known as the Rebbe Rayatz) in Lubavitch on the 16th of Kislev 5662, he described it as "the day upon which the light and life of our souls [ohr v'chayut nafshenu] was given to us, and one might say that it is the Rosh Hashanah for the Word of the Living G-d [i.e. the teachings of Chasidism] bequeathed to us by our holy forebearers..."[2]

Light. Transcendent windows onto the super-rational, which may yet be assimilated intellectually via the thousands of Chasidic discourses recited by the Rebbeim and studied by their Chasidim for centuries.

Life. The immanent actualization of those lofty ideals, in the mind, heart and actions of the individual - in the all encompassing service of G-d.

In the words of the Rebbe Rashab, we must "draw the depth and innerness of G-d's Torah and G-d's Commandments from the innerness and essence of the Infinite blessed-be-He, that it should shine in the innerness of our souls, that our entire essence (that is, the entirety of our being - both the essence and also its manifestation) should be dedicated to Him alone... all our activity and purpose (whether in matters of service... or in worldly matters...) shall be with true intent for the sake of heaven, that this is G-d's desire."

Chabad Chasidism requires that the most abstract of Divine realities be made manifest within the most concrete of human endeavors. In Lekuttai Sichot Vol. V (172-9), the Rebbe explained that herein lies the boundless celebration and joy that is made manifest on Yud Tes Kislev, for it is only with the power of the Truly Infinite that the transcendent secrets of the innermost part of the Torah - embodied in the teachings of Chasidism - can be rendered immanently accessible and applicable in the concrete realm. Can an elephant fit through the eye of a needle?! The continued manifestation of the inexpressible essence warrants a truly boundless celebration.

In a similar vein I have often thought that in the famous Kuntras Inyanah Shel Toras Hachasidus, delivered by the Rebbe on Yud Tes Kislev 1965, in which he articulated "the essence of Chassidus", he manages to articulate that which really cannot be articulated or clearly defined - to me there isn't a single line or sentence in that masterly thesis where I can put my finger on the central point, but somehow by the time you have assimilated all the components the essential light shines through...

Here is some footage from that historic farbrengen:

Le'chaim! Le'shonah Tovah Be'limud Ha'chasidus U'be'darchai Ha'chasidus!

__ __ __

[1] The day upon which Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi was released from Tsarist imprisonment in the winter of 1798-9. Here is an article on the subject by Prof David Assaf drawing attention to the documentation of these events by Chabad Scholar Yehoshua Mondshine (available here). Click on images to enlarge.

[2] Here is a facsimile of the relevant section of that historic letter as published in Kuntras U'mayon (see there, pages 14-16, for a description of the circumstances under which the letter was written and received). Click on image to enlarge.

S'vent'zich vu me'redt - A Question of Context?

2011-12-07T21:07:00.001-08:00

A couple of posts back I wrote about the complex depth of Jewish Mysticism, in general, and Chabad Chasidism in particular, as reflected in Prof. Elliot Wolfson's rather challenging style of delivery. I now feel compelled to compare his style to that of Prof. Don Seeman as exemplified in this lecture:

Indeed, Seeman himself (beginning at approx. 38:40) draws attention to an essential difference between what I will call their respective "styles of reading". According to Seeman, Wolfson readings emphasize "the coincidence of opposites and the sense of paradox", Seeman goes on to explain how he disagrees with this reading. "In my reading... there is actually very little focus on paradox, what there is - is a focus on the sense that opposites are often both true, which is then absorbed [or rationalised] in a kind of Lithuanian manner - 'two dinim'; this is true in this context and that's true in that context..." Thus, two contradictory statements within Chabad literature are usually to be interpreted as both being true.

What Seeman doesn't say is that in Chabad Yeshivahs this approach is so common that it is known by the catch phrase "s'vent'zich vu me'redt" (Yiddish: It depends on the context). What is not always emphasized enough in Chabad Yeshivahs is Seeman's qualifying statement to the effect that you cannot just "leave it like that", you have to find and explain "the particular concept, or in which particular conceptual framework this is true, and in which that's true". It is primarily in this qualification that Seeman strays from Wolfson's paradoxical approach. While I haven't yet read the particular book that Seeman is referring to I am reminded of how on reading Wolfson's article Revisioning the Body Apophatically: Incarnation and the Cosmic Naturalism of Habad Hasidism I remarked in an email to a friend on that,

Wolfson "seems to have a love for paradox simply for the sake of paradox (he seems almost inspired by the very impossibility on nonsensicality of the idea...) ...in talking of the Apophatic Body... he seems to circle around and around the point drawing attention to it but never putting his finger on it."

Of course, this itself captures the tension that undeniably continues to exist even as the contradictory statements are rationally contextualised and resolved, or as Wolfson might say, (un)resolved.

Even Seeman cannot escape the issue. As he himself goes on to explain, in Chabad thought the whole system in which different contexts or conceptual frameworks exists is itself a matter of context. Taking into account the Chabad principle that tzimtzum lav kipshuto - in Seeman's words, Tzimtzum is only "an inability for most people to recognise the fact that the or ha'mamaleh kol almin (immanent manifestation of Divinity) and the or hasovev kol almin (transcendent manifestation of Divinity) is really the same all the time". Ultimately there can be no separation between discrete realities, there is only the One ultimate reality. The discrete elements of existence experienced by ourselves is merely a matter of perspective and illusion. Here, Seeman slips seamlessly into phraseology quite reminiscent of the Wolfson he so disagrees with, "Chabad writers from the very beginning... have emphasized repeatedly and insistently that bittul ha'olamot (abnegation of the worlds) does not mean that the world is an illusion or that it doesn't exist... of course the world is real, its just that its not."

Ultimately, Wolfson is right. Whether our rationalist minds like it or not, a serious student of Chabad must acknowledge and confront the undeniable paradoxes that Chabad thought embraces, and which are most strikingly highlighted in the works of the late Rebbe specifically.

All of this, and many of the other issues touched on in the above lecture, provides much food for thought. Seeman does not fail to draw attention to the theological issue posed by the question of the created worlds "reality"; if it is not really real, then the validity and importance of the Divine commandments as proscribed in the Torah is thrown into question. On which note see this even more thought provoking letter, penned by Chabad scholar par-excellence, Rabbi Yoel Kahan - achron achron choviv.

The Ultimate Chasid

2011-11-30T12:30:00.001-08:00

I just came across this passage (from Habad: the Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, by Roman A. Foxbrunner) describing the ultimate Chabad Chasid:

Scholarly yet sociable; reticent, yet a capable singer of Hasidic melodies and relater of Hasidic tales and traditions; austere and somewhat ascetic, yet possessing a refined appreciation of this world’s pleasures; earnest but not humorless or somber; deeply religious but not unctuous or pietistic; modest but self-confident; devoted to RSZ [R. Schneur Zalman], but fully capable of thinking for himself: this Hasid personified the profound and paradoxical system that came to be known as Habad Hassidism.

Personally, I think this is a very insightful description. The more one studies Chabad Chasidus, and the rich oral and written literature describing the history and nature of the Chabad Chasidic ideal, the more one becomes aware of the sophisticated inner world that the Chabad Chassid must attain: A controlled balance between worldliness, intellectual and critical awareness - what might be called "class", on the one hand - and the utilisation of that sophistication for the attainment of a higher purpose; an end to which all the worldly self awareness is but a necessary means. Chabad is a path of discipline and intellectual rigour, which harnesses the best and fullest qualities of humanity in the service of G-d. Thus the Chabad Chasid must live life fully, but the fullness of his or her self expression must itself be a manifestation of Divinity. The ultimate Chabad Chassid achieves self-renunciation in the medium of self-completion.

I am reminded of a letter penned by the Rebbe Rayatz and printed in Hatamim, where he describes the novelty of the Chasidic ideal as making an "inner light and life" manifest within the medium of the complete and healthy self. Only once the individual has achieved human completion can the true ideal of Chasidus be realised. Readers are invited to read the letter themselves, its three pages can be viewed here I, II, III.

The Foxbrunner passage is cited in an article by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, well worth reading in its own right, and available here.

Immanent Transcendence

2011-11-19T20:08:00.001-08:00

I've just finished watching a great lecture (embedded below) by Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, author of Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson (2009). The main theme (if I am reading him right) is that central to each mystical movement is its distinct path, whose boundaries and limitations must be adhered to in order to arrive at the ultimate manifestation of the Infinite and the Unbound. In oisies hachasidus we would say that the only way to be toifus atzmus or ain sof is through the hagbolo atzmis of mitzvos. (The only way to grasp the Essence of Divine Infinitude is via the essential limitation of the Divine mandate - the fulfilment of the Commandments.)
Unfortunately, Wolfson's vocabulary is somewhat obscure, presenting quite a barrier to the average reader/listener (in Wolfsonian terms, the veil of darkness via which one perceives the light). In an interview with MyJewishLearning, Wolfson claimed that "the delivery of a complex message demands a rhetoric that is commensurately complex and too often Jews outside the academy are not willing to be pushed to think harder and to expand their vocabulary." While I am not sure I agree with him on the first point, and would like to see scholars make the attempt to express themselves in more accessible terms, I do agree that this is rather a tall order.
At any rate, this lecture and the question and answer session that follows is studded with pearls of insight (and humour), and I highly recommend that the effort be made to listen to what is being said and to think about what is meant (don't jump to any hasty conclusions, the ideas are as deep as they are broad).
One important point that he touches on in the question and answer session is the fact that when we conceive of different levels of reality, or of Divine Manifestation, we must not conceive of them as being completely separate from one another. To enlarge on this idea for a moment: The realm of limitations and boundaries in which we function is not distinct from the realm of the Infinite (indeed, it cannot be, for if it was not itself a manifestation of - and a key to - the Infinite, then the Infinite could not truly be describe as Infinite). These are variant perspectives on the same reality. More-so, it is specifically in the finite world that we can experience the ultimate reality of the Infinite. As we said earlier, the only way to be toifus atzmus or ain sof is through the hagbolo atzmis of mitzvos. In Wolfson's words, the transcendent is within the immanent.
If the embed feature doesn't work please click on the link below.

Elliot R. Wolfson: The Path Beyond the Path: Mysticism and the Spiritual Quest for Universal Singularity on Vimeo.

The Divine Source Of Atheism

2011-11-09T16:48:00.000-08:00

A story: The fifth Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohnwas once asked, “it is known that all earthly realities stem from a Divinearchetype, what then is the Divine source of atheism?” Rabbi Sholom DovBerreplied, “The atheist does not believe that God exists as empirical realitiesexist, and in this he is closer to the truth than many a believer. In truth,the nature of the Divine reality is of a quality entirely different to that ofphysical existence.”

The issue of how to reconcile current scientific theory with the 1) belief in G-d and 2) the Torah's account of creation, has been on the table for decades, but the intensity of the debate does not seem to dissipate with the passage of time. The most recent contribution of note is The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. While I have not yet read it I certainly intend to. I usually find Rabbi Sacks to be eloquent and fairly penetrating. A couple of weeks ago the UK's BBC Radio 4 hosted a discussion between Rabbi Sacks, Richard Dawkins and Lisa Randall. On this occasion I was to be disappointed; while Rabbi Sacks was as eloquent as ever, I felt that he could have done a better job of expressing the Jewish concept of G-d, and defining the role He plays in reality.
The central issue that I would like to address is this: Often, in the course of such discussions, an appeal is made to (one or more variations of) the Argument from Design or (more broadly) to "the wonder of nature", rather than to the Cosmological Argument. Both of these approaches can be found in Jewish sources, but there are two major distinctions between them.

1) In the language of a Talmudic debate: The Argument from Design is a svarah - its a good idea, it resonates, but its not conclusive; the Cosmological Argument is a hochachah - a conclusive argument. When I say conclusive I do not mean that it cannot be debated; of course one or anther component of the argument may be subject to criticism, but if we except the logical veracity of the Cosmological Argument we must except its conclusions (See here for an earlier post describing the version of the Cosmological Argument made in Choives HaLevovos). On the other hand, the Argument from design will always remain a matter of opinion; for some it has resonance for others it has none. (On a related but slightly different note, the theory of evolution has absolutely no bearing on the Cosmological Argument, while it does weaken the Argument from Design.)

2) The Argument from Design says that there is an Intelligent Designer, but it doesn't say that their is a Creator, nor does it say much about the nature of the relationship of the Designer with the universe He designed. We may very well conceive of physical existence as an autonomous reality, which has been manipulated by an "external" Designer. Both G-d and physical reality may exist on equal terms, only that physicality has no "intelligence" of its own so G-d supplied some.

The Cosmological Argument, on the other hand, concludes that physical matter cannot have existed for ever (indeed, time itself must have a beginning), it must have been created (not just designed). In this light the reality of Divine existence is shown to be of a very different quality, entirely transcending the limited (time and space bound) reality of physical existence. G-d cannot be defined only in relation to the reality we know, His being is of another quality entirely, existing with or without us. In Chasidus there is an oft quoted saying, "The fact that He creates worlds is not the essence of Divinity". (I can't find the original source right now.)

On a different note, physical reality is shown to be a product of Divinity, its very presence, its own reality, is a function of the Divine reality that makes it be. We can no longer conceive of G-d and the universe as being separate realities that somehow interact to some degree or another. Rather there is no reality aside from G-d, the physical reality that we experience is no more and not less than a limited manifestation of a truer reality; that of the Divine Himself. (This last point is one of the central themes of Chasidus, to which the second part of Tanya, Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah is dedicated.)

The Argument from Design may be prettier, more poetic, and if it happens to resonate for you, then it is more accessible; but while the cool-headed logic of the Cosmological Argument, may demand more intellectual effort, the rewards are greater. The rigours of reason provide clarity and a depth of perspective that is far more compelling.

Chabad: Returning Chasidism to its Roots

2011-11-07T17:00:00.000-08:00

Dr. Naftali Loewenthal talks about how the post-modern aspects of Chasidism espoused by Chabad can return Chasidism to its roots and heal the schisms in Jewish society today:

As an aside, the Chasam Sofer's attitude to modernity is also discussed (and juxtaposed with his tendency to issue lenient rulings on an individual basis), which relates back to some of the conclusions drawn in an earlier post regarding how he influenced the way Orthodoxy came to regard Mendelssohn.

Adon Olam: Casting A Familiar Prayer In A New Light

2011-11-06T13:24:00.000-08:00

אדון עולם אשר מלך בטרם כל יצור נברא

Some years ago Prof. Marc B. Shapiro dealt with thetranslation of the opening words of the well known Adon Olam prayer in a post on the Seforim Blog. He began with the premise that the proper translation must be “EternalLord”, but goes on to explain that based upon the expert opinion of Rabbi MeirMazuz, he is forced to admit that Artscroll’s translation “Master of theUniverse” and other similar renderings are in fact more correct. The centralpoint is that the sages of the post biblical era who composed Adon Olamunderstood “olam” to mean “world” or “universe”, although in the Biblical Canonit usually means “eternal”, or “forever”. Subsequently, another blogger by thename of Zack (Sholem) Berger, took issue with Shapiro’s conclusion. Hereagain the premise is that the rendering of “olam” as “eternal” is “moreplausible”.

While neither Shapiro, nor Berger, justify their premise, theirline of reasoning should be clear enough: The words “adon olam” are directlyqualified by the continuation of the verse “asher malach beterem kol yetzur nivrah” – since G-d is described here as the one “who who reigned before anyform was created”, G-d cannot be simultaneously described as Master (or Lord)of the as yet non-existent universe.

Long before this issue was raised in the blogosphere it wasaddressed in a Chasidic discourse (mamer) delivered by Rabbi Yosef YitzchakSchneersohn, the Rayatz of Lubavitch. In that discourse (see Sefer Hamamrim 5703, pages 10-11) the Rayatz points out that even ifwe were to translate “adon olam” as “Eternal Lord”, we would still be left withan unresolved contradiction implicit in the qualifying description itself: Theconcept of kingship – reign – applies to a particular form of relationship thatcan only be achieved by a ruler in relation to a group of people who, save forthe dynamic of kingship would exist as entirely separate and independent selves.The designation “who reigned” (“asher malach”) cannot be applied to the EternalLord absent the creation of ostensibly independent entities (“before any formwas created”) over which He may reign.

This difficulty is only compounded by the fact that in theopening words of Adon Olam are rendered as “Ribon Almin” – “Master of theUniverse” by no less an authority than Rabbi Yeshaya (Isaiah) HaLevi Hurwitz,famed as the Shaloh (an acronym for his work Shnei Luchot Habris). In hiscommentary on the Siddur, Shar Hashamyim, the Shaloh deals with the issuesraised above by invoking the passage in Tekunai Zohar, which is read in somecommunities every Friday afternoon: “Pasach Eliyahu ve’amar: Ribon Almin…”, andthe interpretation of that passage by Rabbi Moses Cordevero (Ramak) in PardasRimonim. In doing so, the Sheloh plunges us into a discussion that reaches farbeyond the technicalities of translation and into the fundamental questionsthat lie at the core of religiously fueled philosophical inquiry. The Shaloh inquestion can be viewed here.)

Since the terminology in these sources is heavilyKabbalistic, I will attempt to formulate the central ideas in less crypticlanguage.

The foremost premise here is that empirical existence(existence as we know it and experience it via the senses), by virtue of itsimpermanent state, cannot have existed eternally and therefore can only existif a being of a more absolute quality caused its existence. Ramak explains thatalthough such a being exists essentially and entirely independent of any relationshipwith created existence, It is nevertheless referred to as “Master of theUniverse” because our knowledge of the Absolute Being is gained via ourknowledge of the empirical realm, from which data we deduce that only a being ofa more absolute quality can be the “First Cause” of existence as we know it. Framedslightly differently; although G-d essentially has no need to cause theexistence of the universe, since G-d ‘chooses’ to do so, a context exists inwhich the term “Master of the Universe” carries meaning, even though it doesnot at all reflect the true nature of the being it refers to.

Every relationship between two separate entities creates animplicit spectrum of multiple perspectives from which the relationship may beseen in various forms. The Rayatz provides us with an analogy, which I willparaphrase: A king is a king to his people, but a son to his mother, a husbandto his wife, a father to his son, and above all, an individual to himself. Inorder to act the part of a king to his people, he must – to some degree – stepout of his role as an individual, and apply himself to a different mode ofliving. This shift from private individual to public officer is not onlytechnical but also psychological; the individual himself undergoes an inner paradigmshift in which the people independent of himself can no longer be seen asindependent of himself, and nor can he think of himself as independent of them.Only after this relationship has been established internally can the technicalfunctions of kingship be executed.

In applying this analogy to the relationship between G-d andhis creations we must be careful, but nevertheless, the Shaloh asserts that asimilar dynamic does exist: Beyond the technical relationship that must existbetween the Creator and creation, the relationship necessitates an earlierparadigm shift in which the First Cause, the Absolute Reality, considers thepossibility of another form of existence, only then can the act of creation beinitiated. In this context, the Shaloh cautions us, when we use the word“earlier” we are not referring to an earlier time, but to a “loftier” conceptionof Divinity (i.e. to G-d as Essential Reality, rather than mere Creator).

The phrase “Adon olam asher malach beterem kol yetzur nivra”(Master of the universe, who reigned before any form was created”), is now castin a new light. In essence this is a statement that describes the depth towhich the Absolute Reality – which we refer to as G-d – is immersed in therelationship with created existence. Even as G-d exists essentially andabsolutely – “before any form was created” He chooses to “reign” as “Master ofthe Universe”.

What led the Supreme Being, absolute in every sense, to enterinto the creation and maintenance of the non-absolute ‘reality’ that we inhabitand empirically experience – a form of existence whose transient time and spacedynamic is utterly incongruous with the absolute and infinite nature of itsFirst Cause? It is this question that the Rayatz seeks to address in the seriesof discourses cited above.

Newly Published Book and Letters Cast New Light on the Rebbe's Biography and Persona

2011-10-29T19:32:00.000-07:00

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport has recently published a revised and expanded edition of The Afterlife of Scholarship, his critique of The Rebbe by Heilman and Freeman. R. Rapoport has gathered much interesting information and analysis, expanding and reorganising his detailed arguments, and also summarising specific elements of the debate that was played out between him and the authors of The Rebbe on the Seforim Blog (see here, here and here). R. Rapoport has also included an appendix entitled The Ten Lost Years (1941-1951) detailing the role the Rebbe played in the Lubavitch movement following his arrival in America, and the more controversial issue of his rise to the leadership of Lubavitch following his father-in-law's passing. Large parts of the newly published work can be viewed via Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature.

Since my own opinion could hardly be objective (R. Rapoport thanks me for my contribution in A Note To The Reader), here is what Professor ElliotR. Wolfson of New York University, author of Open Secret, has to say:

In Afterlife of Scholarship, Chaim Rapoport offers a meticulous critique of Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman, The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, published by Princeton University Press, 2010. Rapoport challenges many of the assumptions made by Heilman and Friedman, and argues, through close textual reading, that these assumptions are based on interpretive flaws and/or lack of knowledge of Hasidism in general and of Habad in particular. Despite the overtly polemical tone, Rapoport's criticisms are never offered ad hominem. On the contrary, he painstakingly documents every point of contention, and has thereby provided ample evidence to allow other readers to assess his arguments against the portrait of the Rebbe presented by Heilman and Friedman. Whatever one might decide on the merits of his analyses, Rapoport's volume provides an invaluable treasure-trove of sources for future generations of scholarship on the seventh Rebbe of Habad-Lubavitch.

While on the subject of the Rebbe's biography and persona, two recently published letters (available here pages 18-26) are worthy of attention:

The letters were both penned by the Rebbe (henceforth Ramash) in Berlin in the summer of 1928 (the summer before his marriage to Rebbetzen Chaya Mushkah), and are addressed to his future mother-in-law, Rebbetzen Nechamah Dina. Perhaps the most striking thing about them is that the content of these letters is uncharacteristically mundane, and the tone is light and carefree. To anyone familiar with Ramash's usual style, this is an extremely rare departure from the tersely written words of greeting, the businesslike, almost impersonal tone, and the sparse lines of cryptic scholarship. His style is usually very different from the far more expressive, descriptive and colourful style of his father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak (Rayatz). This difference in writing style and personality is highlighted by an exchange of letters between the two early in 1930.

In response to his father-in-law's complaint to him that "your many letters of great length and many pages have, to my dismay, not yet been received, and apparently have not yet been written", Ramash wrote:

The reason I have not written is... that it is difficult for me to find in my life occurrences of interest to inform you of, with which to fill a page, [simply] writing a letter for the sake of a letter. Why should I steal your time for this...
(Igros Kodesh Rayatz Vol. 15, 74)

The Rebbe Rayatz replied:

I think it is clear that when you take note of the truth; of the deep relationship that must exist between us, you will always find something of interest that will extend over more than one page.Who is it that can limit the expression of inner feeling by the measure of pen, paper and the like?
(Ibib, 77)

In answer Ramash wrote:

There are individuals, for whom the central focus of their lives is in the realm of introspection, the world of thought (whether intelligent or empty), their main [direction of] 'movement' - for anything that lives moves - is inward, to the world that is placed in their heart, rather that the world that surrounds them and is external to them. After prefacing that even in my own eyes this is no great advantage, the fact is, that whether due to the nature of my soul, or due to external causes, it appears that I too am amongst them. My life has ever been poor in interesting events [as opposed to ideas], which are also of interest to me internally.
(Ibid, 78)

This exchange reveals a rare glimpse of the subtle clash of personalties and the depth and openness of the relationship that existed between the two; to no one else will you find Ramash laying bare his inner world. There is much to be said about to think about here, but we'll leave it for another time. In the light of this exchange, the letters written by Ramash to his future mother-in-law are noteworthy. The fact that Ramash so eagerly enters into discussions of the weather and descriptions of Berlin street scenes in a manner so reminiscent of the style of Rayatz, perhaps betrays a special effort on his part to accord her due respect and attention in the manner she was used to.

Another point of interest is that the second letter is dated "The day before Tisha BeAv, on which was born our righteous redeemer [Moshiach Tzidkainu], [56]88, Berlin". Clearly, the paradoxes of exile and redemption, the potential light within the darkness; the themes which would occur and reoccur in his talks and discourses decades later, were already then at the forefront of his mind.

In this letter too he keeps the tone light and carefree, finishing with a bitter-sweet Tisha BeAv joke:

The heat has dissipated somewhat. It will be an easy fast. How the Germans will manage when you can't say "gutten tag", I can't imagine...
I remain your relative who wishes you all the best. May the time come when these days will be turned to joy
Menachem Schneerson

Getting back to The Afterlife of Scholarship, here's a selection of what some other commentators have written:

[Rapoport has crafted an] impressively knowledgeable critique… -- Adam Kirsch in Tablet Magazine

Rapoport has gotten the better of the exchange… a failure of biographical research and imagination on Heilman and Friedman's part… -- Abraham Socher in the Jewish Review of Books

[Heilman and Friedman] unfortunately play trivial pursuit… present hearsay as facts… and sometimes wade into the cynical end of the research pool with tabloid-style innuendos and suppositions. -- Joe Bobker in the Jerusalem Report

[T]here are peculiar omissions and contradictions [in Heilman and Friedman's book…] Readers of this biography may wonder if the authors have failed to grasp their subject… -- David Klinghoffer in London's Jewish Chronicle

On The Eternal Relevance of Talmudic Cures

2011-10-26T15:25:00.000-07:00

Over at the Talmud Blog there's a discussion about the medical advice offered by the Talmud.

I am reminded of a discussion in Lekutai Sichot (Vol. 23, pages 33-41) by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson זי"ע, which sheds some light on some of the more general issues raised there. The central problem he seeks to address is that Maimonides included some (but certainly not all) of these Talmudic cures in his Mishnah Torah, codifying them as a part of Jewish Law, despite the fact that he only includes laws that are pertinent for all generations in that work (see Lechem Mishnah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:1, Sdei Chemed Vol. 9, Klolei Haposkim 5:11). At the same time he is clearly acknowledging that they are not eternally relevant by only including some Talmudic cures.

The Rebbe's explanation is essentially mystical: All aspects of Torah (including medical cures recorded therein) are essentially spiritual; even as the Torah speaks of physical objects, we must be aware that core of the issue actually refers back to the spiritual arch-types of those objects. In the words of the Shelah - R. Isaiah Horowitz, "The Torah speaks of the supernal realms and hints to the lower realms" (SheLaH, 13b and 161a). While this principle does not contradict the better known principle that "a verse cannot be divorced from its simple meaning" (TB Shabbat 63a), there can sometimes be a divide, a miscommunication, between the spiritual arch-type and its physical manifestation. As we know only to well, not always is the physical reality in synch with the spiritual ideal.

The Rebbe goes on to apply another essentially mystical idea to his reading of the Rambam: The Tumim (to the Shach's Tokfo Kohen, SK 124) writes of the authors of the Shulchan Aruch that "the spirit of Divinity radiated within them, that their words should conform to the Halacha, without the intention of the writer..." Here too, the Rebbe asserts that the Rambam was guided from on high to select those cures whose spiritual arch-types were indeed eternally relevant, if not necessarily eternally applicable in the physical realm.

In accordance with this principle, the Rebbe argues that in every aspect of Torah study we must always endeavour to achieve an awareness of the spiritual core of even the most (apparently) mundane aspect of Jewish law and practice, applying all aspect of the Torah not only in their all important practical form, but also in the inner service of the heart and mind.

If you take a look at this discussion, and the format in which the Rebbe presents the problems and his arguments, you can only wonder at the way in which the Rebbe - I think very characteristically - integrates the paradoxical elements of a profoundly mystical conception of Torah study, and the cool analysis of rigorous scholarly methodology.

What Mendelssohn Did Wrong - Part Two

2011-10-25T08:54:00.000-07:00

ASSORTED NOTES ON CHASIDIC AND NON-CHASIDIC ATTITUDES TO MENDELSSOHN

The source cited in Part One, associating Mendelssohn, Wesseley and Satanow with various levels of Klipah, is an example of antagonism directed towards Mendelssohn from the Chasidic camp specifically, and it seems quite clear that the Non-Chasidic Traditionalist contemporaries of Mendelssohn did not necessarily see him in such a negative light.

Amongst the Chasidic leadership, perhaps the most prominent in his attacks on Mendelssohn and his associates was Rabbi Pinchus Horowitz, Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt, author of the Hafloah (by which name he is often referred to) and a disciple of Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezritch. In an impassioned sermon delivered in 1782, he justified his opposition to Mendelssohn and the other Biurists, with a withering attack centering on the Biur’s rendering of the following verse:

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא (ויקרא יט, יז)

Mendelssohn explains this to mean, “You may rebuke your friend if he has insulted you earlier”. Here is the offending passage (click to enlarge):

Not only does this rendering ignore the obligatory imperative, “You shall” and substitute it with a far more polite, “You may”, it also interprets the verse to be referring to a social context, a case where affront has been caused between man and man specifically, rather than between man and G-d.

This may appear to be a small matter, but its subtlety belies its subversive nature. Indeed, this is a very good example of how Mendelssohn sought to whitewash the Torah and transform its connotation to conform to his program of rationalist universalism. Apparently Mendelssohn considered it more important to portray Judaism in the image of western liberalism and tolerance, which he sought to propagate, than to uphold G-d’s laws and rebuke (and even punish) those who transgressed them. The implications of such a distortion undermined the principle of mutual responsibility for the religious behaviour of one’s fellow man (arvus), and Rabbi Horowitz – the Hafloah – paraphrased Mendelssohn in more explicit terms:

Why should it matter to him if his friend sins, let every man do as his heart pleases...

The Hafloah continued:

Look and see that all their books turn on this, that they wish to establish corrections and guidelines for the conduct of Torah Scholars, how to conduct themselves in matters of the world...

Clearly this example was seen as indicative of the broader Mendelssohnian agenda – namely, to cast the Torah and its scholars in a light that would conform to the philosophical and social norms made fashionable by the trendsetters in Berlin. Such a path, however carefully trod, was one that was implicitly heretical, for it placed a secular philosophy and agenda as being more edifying and desirable than the precepts of the Torah. As we have already noted in Part One, the principle here is that Mendelssohn and his associates got their priorities dangerously wrong.

The Hafloah was not alone in his abhorrence for the insidious undertones reflected in Mendelssohn’s Biur, and indeed his suspicions were echoed by many prominent disciples of his teacher Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezritch, amongst them Rabbi Elimelech of Lizensk, his brother Rabbi Zushe of Hanipoli, Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Barditchev, and others.[1] According to an account transcribed by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Shneersohn of Lubavitch, the initial suspicion with which the early Chasidic leadership treated Mendelssohn was also rooted in a far-sighted warning that the Baal Shem Tov had delivered some thirty years earlier. See רבנו הזקן ותנועת ההשכלה here.

On the other hand, it is apparent from the approbation of Rabbi Yechezkal Landau – the Chief Rabbi of Prague, famed as the author of Nodeh Beyehudah – to the Biblical commentary of Shlomo Dubno, that his reservations regarding Mendelssohn’s Biur had little to do with the subversive nature of the content, but rather concerned the language it was written in. Dubno authored the Biur that accompanied Mendelssohn’s German translation to Genesis and much of Exodus, but abruptly left Berlin before its completion. Now that Dubno was publishing the Biur independent of the German translation, the Nodeh Beyehudah explained, he was happy to give his approbation.

The figure of Dubno, his relationship with the circle of Mendelssohn, and his subsequent relationship with the circle of Rabbi Eliyahu, the famed Vilna Gaon, has been the subject of much contention.[2] While I may not be impartial on this point, it seems quite implausible that despite working closely with Mendelssohn for a number of years, Dubno remained unaware of the direction in which he was headed and did not share any of his aspirations. Nevertheless, he was welcomed by many of those closest to the Vilna Goan, and the Biur that he originally wrote to accompany and support Mendelssohn’s translation received the approbations of such figures as Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin and his brother Rabbi Shlomo Zalman (Zelmele). It would seem that, unlike their Chasidic counterparts they did not see Mendelssohn as particularly dangerous.[3]

This brings me to the following passage, which appears on page 253 of The Making of a Gadol (thanks to my friend A. for bringing it to my attention), and juxtaposes the (assumed) attitude of Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (the Tzemach Tzedek), with that of the son and successor of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, Rabbi Yitzchak (Reb Itzeleh):

Another interesting and distinctly Chasidic example of antagonism to Mendelssohn appears in a discourse printed in the appendixes of the edition of Keter Shem Tov (a compilation of teachings attributed to the Baal Shem Tov) published by Kehot Publication Society. The authorship of the discourse is unknown, but it is clear that it was written by a student of Chabad Chasidism. Here is the relevent text (thanks to a reader, Rabbi Avrohom Bergstein, for drawing my attention to the source):

The reference to Mendelssohn appears in the midst of a discussion of the difference between “these times” when the spiritual station of the Jewish people is so low that some are no longer inspired by the teachings of Chasidism, and the times of the Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Shneur Zalman (referred to as Admor Hazaken), when Divinity was manifest explicitly, and no one could bring themselves to sin. However, the present misfortune is explained to be a blessing in disguise, for now latent evil can never be hidden or ostensibly overcome by good, but must always be openly manifest and recognisable, and therefore will never cause damage to some unknowing innocent how cannot discern the evil beneath the veneer of good. Whereas if Divinity was manifest as in earlier times, even the evil would not openly sin, but “the bad would remain hidden in their hearts and they would be able to damage others” – an interesting discussion in itself, but lets not distract ourselves from the reference to Mendelssohn – “like Mendelssohn and his students may there memory be erased who caused many souls to sin, because they considered them to be upright, but now that they have publicly gone in an evil way no one will learn from them”.

Here Mendelssohn is equated with the “souls that are rejected and lost to the three impure Klippot”; a more extreme designation than that applied to Mendelssohn by the Mitteler Rebbe and cited in Part One.[4] But in the same breath we find again acknowledgement of his religiosity on a practical level and his ostensibly upright conduct. Whatever 'evil' lay in his heart, it was veiled in subtleties and difficult to discern.

Today, all Orthodox communities – whether Chasidic or non-Chasidic – view Mendelssohn as the arch-Maskil; a destroyer of Orthodoxy, and an usurper of Rabbinic Authority and the Jewish Tradition. How did such a state of unanimous agreement come about? How is it that in communities that disagree on any number of Halchic, Philosophical and Sociological issues, Mendelssohn is so universally infamous?

It would seem that the answer lies with the famed author of Chasam Sofer, Rabbi Moshe Shreiber (Moses Sofer). His paraphrase of the Talmudic dictum “Chodosh is Biblically forbidden” has become famous as an expression of his opposition to any form of modernization or reform. Not as famous but perhaps no less influential, was the stringent imperative recorded in his ethical will; “do not touch the works of Mendelssohn”.

The Chasam Sofer was a student of the Hafloah, whose fierce opposition to Mendelssohn has already been discussed, and it is clear that much of much of his abhorrence to Mendelssohn and his works was passed on to his student.[5] Despite the Chasam Sofer’s Chasidic influences, he resided in an area that was geographically removed from the centers of Chasidism in Poland and Russia, and did not conduct himself in the manner of a Chasidic Rebbe. As such, he is identified neither as Chasidic, nor as specifically non-Chasidic or opposed to Chasidism. For these reasons, he has become a unanimously accepted figure of authority for all branches of Orthodox Judaism. This is especially so in regards to the Orthodox response to the movements of modernity and Reform, which took hold first and fastest in the regions of Germany, Austria and Hungry. As the Rabbi of Pressburg (situated sixty kilometers east of Vienna and today called Bratislava), the Chasam Sofer has become famous for the battles he fought against the Reformers, and in many ways it was he who shaped the Orthodox response to modernity, setting the boundaries that are seen to uphold the integrity of Rabbinic Judaism to this day.

Two important articles, containing many of the primary sources for this post:

הרב דוד קמנצקי, הסכמותיהם של גדולי הרבנים לחומשים של רבי שלמה דובנא

ישראל נתן השל, דעתם של גדולי הדור במלחמתם נגד המשכיל נפתלי הירץ וויזל (ד)

What Mendelssohn Did Wrong - Part One

2011-10-24T03:23:00.000-07:00

MENDELSSOHN, HIRSCH AND THE MITTELER REBBE OF LUBAVITCH

Click here to read Part 2

Moses Mendelssohn is widely acknowledged as one of the great Jewish thinkers whose ideas marked the progression of Modern Jewish thought. However, the image of the man in his own time and his legacy thereafter, continue to mystify. Despite his almost legendary fame, there is no modern stream of Judaism that traces its roots back specifically to his worldview or labels itself "Mendelssohnian". On the other hand, it is clear that he and all others associated with the early Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement, have been generally disassociated from Orthodoxy. Relative to the great Jewish thinkers of the nineteenth century, Mendelssohn is more likely to be associated with Abraham Geiger and other reformers than with Orthodox figures such as Samson Raphael Hirsch or Esriel Hildesheimer.

By all accounts, however, Mendelssohn was a strictly observant Jew who championed the validity of the ritual component of Jewish law as Divinely mandated by the authority of the Revelation at Sinai. If so, it would seem that the differences between Mendelssohn and Hirsch, are less significant than those between the former and Geiger, for example. To be sure, Hirsch was a Rabbi with a beard, while Mendelssohn looked and lived the part of a renaissance man of letters. But their attitudes towards Torah and modern society don't seem to be so fundamentally different. There certainly are differences, but apparently they relate more to semantical aspects of Jewish thought than to the fundamental tenets of belief. Both attempted to draw Judaism into the modern world, championing the causes of general education and integration into secular culture, without compromising on Jewish law and practice.

However, while the contribution of Hirsch to Orthodoxy and to Modern Orthodoxy in particular is acknowledged, and he is acclaimed - even in more right wing Orthodox circles - as the savior of German Orthodoxy, Mendelssohn is written-off by the Traditionalist establishment as a free thinker, and considered the forerunner of the Reform movement. Often, Mendelssohn's Traditionalist detractors will point to the fact that few of his children remained true to their father's faith as proof of his own "heretical" leanings. Many have wondered what exactly it was that Mendelssohn and his contemporaries where guilty of that they deserved such treatment. (In this connection it is also important to distinguish between the German Haskalah and its Eastern European successor, which was often more directly antagonistic towards Rabbinic authority.)

Every historical figure must be viewed within their own contemporary context. No one lives in a vacuum and the various external forces at work in a given time and place go a long way to defining the nature of a particular individuals thought and loyalties. This brings us to the one obvious distinction between Mendelssohn and Hirsch; Hirsch lived in an environment where Traditional Judaism was being challenged from within the Jewish community itself. His activities (if not his general worldview) were in many ways formed as a direct response to the threat of the Reformers. As an activist he was an upholder of Tradition and Orthodox Jewry. Mendelssohn, on the other hand, faced no such challenge from within, and in the context of his own times his philosophy and activities can only be seen as a step away from Tradition and towards assimilation.

Nevertheless, the suggestion that the only distinguishing factors between Mendelssohn and Hirsch are time and space, seems to amplify the question even more: Certainly they were each moving in different directions, and in his own time Mendelssohn was moving to the left of the Traditional establishment, but does that explain why his memory has been so ostracized for ever after?

Recently, I came across the following statement, attributed to Rabbi DovBer Schneuri, the Mitteler Rebbe of Lubavitch, son and successor of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (thanks to S. of On the Main Line for drawing attention to this source):

הדעסואי הוא הרע שבנוגה, הירץ וויזל - טוב שבנוגה, סטנאב הוא כתר דקליפה

The Dessauite (i.e. Mendelssohn of Dessau) is the bad component of nogah (a mundane domain; neither sacred nor profane, but potentially either) Hertz Wessely is the good component of nogah, Satanow is the Crown of klipah.

What is most significant about this source is that it does not tar all Maskilim with the same brush, but acknowledges the subtle differences between the theological positions of these individuals, even going so far as to acknowledge that neither Wessely, nor Mendelssohn, were "all bad", rather they belonged to nogah, a category that straddles good and bad, a grey area. By entering the secular world and contemporary society they entered into the world of the mundane, a domain where one must strike a careful balance and is at constant risk of employing the mundane in a cause that is not holy; that serves not the cause of the Torah and its commandments but rather the causes of other allegiances. It is clear that Hirsch also entered this realm, as did many others. Some succeeded in utilizing the mundane in the cause of the holy while others leaned more towards the profane.

Based on the above, it would seem that the reason Mendelssohn is categorized as "bad" is due more to his motives or priorities than his progressive and open attitude to modernity and secular society. It would seem that he put greater faith in the philosophy of the rational mind, emancipation and the good will of the nations, than he did in G-d and the Torah. He used the former as the benchmarks of his worldview, to which the latter must be made to conform. The view expressed in Jerusalem; that the role of revelation in Judaism is merely to confirm rational truths already available to unaided reason, is indicative of this attitude. While he never explicitly crossed the line into the realm of the profane, Mendelssohn saw the mundane realm of secular civilization, embodied as rationalism and emancipation, as an end to itself. Indeed, on a personal level he realized this ideal, and in certain circles his image has been enshrined as the Jew who was enlightened enough to be acceptable to Berlin society.

In direct contrast to Mendelssohn's position, in his Nineteen Letters Hirsch asserted that Torah is not to be measured by standards or values independently derived, but most be understood purely within its own revealed context. He even went so far as to criticize Maimonides for allowing Aristotelian rationalism to influence his understanding of Judaism. Unlike Mendelssohn, Hirsch saw the rational mind, along with the offerings of modernity and secular society, as no more than a means, to be embraced in the service of Divinity.

Moreover, as we shall see in the forthcoming Part Two, Mendelssohn’s priorities led him down a path, which while not openly heretical, was subtly subversive to the authority of the Torah.

A Leaf in the Wind

2011-06-05T02:56:00.000-07:00

The Principle of Specified Providence (part 2)

One of the principal theological innovations of Rabbi Yisroel of Mezibush – the founder of Hasidism, known universally as the Baal Shem Tov – is the principle that Divine Providence extends even to the most apparently insignificant of events. In the words of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn:

The Baal Shem Tov says that G-d moves many diversified causes in order to carry out a specified providence for even the smallest of created beings. In order that a fallen leaf, which has already blown around in a backyard somewhere since autumn a year ago… should be moved from one place to another… To this end, a strong wind breaks out in the middle of a warm summer day, moving heaven and earth, and thereby is the ordained providence fulfilled for that fallen leaf…

In a lengthy discourse (Lekkutei Dibburim Vol. 1, page 164), Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak dispels the sense of helpless and arbitrary insignificance normally conveyed by the ‘leaf in the wind’ metaphor, and in its place builds a model of elaborate providence. The image is now used to exemplify an irreplaceable component in a carefully ordained plan; a grand design in which each and every created being is endowed with its own unique significance relative to its station. The millions of small events, apparently swept together at random by the great gusts of world shaking events, are in fact precisely ordained, designed to fit together like the pieces of some great puzzle. There is nothing which is not a priority.

When applied to the story of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak’s life, this model fits like a glove. Some of the most earth-shattering milestones of modern history; the social and political upheavals that began to plague Tsarist Russia at the end of the nineteenth century, the First World War, the Rise of Communism, and the Second World War, swept Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak from the provincial village in white Russia where he was born, to the tottering grandeur of Tsarist St. Petersburg, to the darkly secretive silences of communist Leningrad, to Riga, the Holy Land, Warsaw and ultimately to New York.

Another may have seen himself as a helpless leaf, powerless in the grip of such powerful winds. But Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak saw each new situation into which he was thrust as a provident opportunity, orchestrated with a demanding – if sometime unfathomable – deliberation. For him there was no such thing as default. Each new circumstance carried with it the weighty import of a Divinely ordained mission – it was his responsibility to set his own concerns aside and meet the need of the hour, however difficult.

Hashgacha Protis - The Principle of Specified Providence (part 1)

2011-05-25T06:41:00.000-07:00

In Elul 5645 (1885) The Friediker Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, then a youn boy just five years old traveled to Yalta with his parents. More than forty years later, while under soviet arrest in the Shpalernaya Prison in Leningrad, he fortified himself with a lesson imparted by his father on that trip:

We were traveling then amongst the Mountains of Crimea, between Sevastopol and Yalta, in a closed carriage harnessed to four horses, as is the custom in those parts… The journey takes us amongst lofty mountains, towering high – a wilderness strewn boulders – with the road twisting and turning below. On the right are the mountains and on the left the sea shore…

Once we stopped to rest in the open field, that is to say, between one stopping place – where the wagon drivers usually stop to graze their animals – and another. While we sat on a rock, my father turned aside under one of the tall overhanging boulders, or rather into a kind of valley sheltered between two towering boulders, and there he prayed the afternoon prayer, although it was only two o’clock in the afternoon. My mother set out a variety of different foodstuffs, for we still had to travel for five or six hours in this carriage or another.

Although I preferred the company of the wagon driver, who was taking care of his four horses… however I had already come to understand the obligation of a son to worry for his father’s health, and I was very pained by his weak health. However, my strong desire that my father should study with me was stronger than anything, and I thought that my good conduct would make my father feel better. So well did I conduct myself that since we left Charkov [where Rabbi Sholom DovBer was warned by the Doctors to guard his health carefully], I carefully considered each aspect of my conduct that it should be executed in the most helpful fashion. Therefore I took a prayer book and reviewed my lesson; the psalm “the heavens describe the glory of G-d”.

We sat to eat, and my father pointed out a place, high on the mountainside and far away. From where we sat we could see what seemed to be a large hole in the rock. My father told us that when, in the year 1884 [according to the extent correspondence it would actually have been the late summer of 1883] he traveled with his brother, my uncle Raza, they traveled this road at night. At six in the mourning they stopped to rest in this very place, and went to pray high up on the mountain. At first, from a distance, it appeared to be no more than a hole, but once they arrived there they saw that it opened into a large cave, complete with smaller stones ideal for seating.

My father then explained to me then, that G-d created the world in such a way that each Jew is enabled to fulfill the commandments of G-d. When someone is traveling on a journey and the time to pray arrives, it is forbidden to pray in the open field. Therefore G-d created hollowed out rocks like these – which are like houses, in order that one may pray therein.

CHASIDIC TEXT OF 1882 PUBLISHED

2011-05-19T03:39:00.000-07:00

Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters

A new volume in the series of Chasidic discourses by the fourth leader of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn, covering the year 5642/1882, has just been released by the Kehot Publication Society.

The year 1882 was a year of great upheaval for Russian Jewry. A large wave of anti-Jewish riots swept through south-western Imperial Russia from 1881-1884. In that period more than 200 anti-Jewish events occurred in the Russian Empire. During these pogroms, which continued for more than three years, thousands of Jewish homes were destroyed, many families were reduced to poverty, and large numbers of men, women, and children were injured.

The year 1882 was also the last year of Rabbi Shmuel’s leadership, as he passed away in the fall of that year, on 13 Tishrei, 5643.Rabbi Shmuel (1833-1882), known as the Rebbe Maharash, fought very hard for protection of the Jewish population from the pogroms, traveling often to the capital city of Petersburg to meet with and implore high-ranking government officials, and in fact, being instrumental in quelling the disturbances.

The year was also significant in that the Rebbe’s youngest son, R. Menachem Mendel, wed the granddaughter of the renowned Rabbi Moshe Sofer (Schreiber) author of Chatam Sofer.

The present volume, Torat Shmuel Sefer 5642, contains the Chasidic discourses delivered and written by Rabbi Shmuel during this eventful year. The discourses cover a wide variety of topics, such as the Chasidic meaning of the holidays of Sukot, Chanukah, Purim and Pesach; the inner meaning of prayer and study; insights into Biblical figures such as the Patriarchs and Moses. The volume also includes the discourses delivered by the Rebbe at the wedding of his son and a unique discourse (M’eimatai kor’in) which covers the topic of siyum hashas.

The book was expertly annotated by Rabbi Alexander Z. Piekarski, of the Chabad Research Center, and is rounded out with a full index compiled by Rabbi Simcha Zaiontz of Migdal Haemek, Israel.

In a unique effort led by Mordechai Engel and Dovid Blier of Melbourne, Australia, 200 Chabad community members, banded together to dedicate this volume. “Dedicating the publishing of a text by the Rebbes is an extraordinary zechus which benefits the donors and their families in an everlasting way,” said Rabbi Nosson Gurary, the driving force behind this collective effort. The names of the donors are published in the book.

Officials at Kehot noted that this effort has ignited interest in other communities and a group of donors in New York have recently dedicated a volume of Chasidic discourses by the fifth Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Dovber of Lubavitch, containing the discourses of the following 3 years – Sefer Hamaamarim 5643-45 (1883-84).

The Tanya: revealing the essentially transcendent

2011-05-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

The "Tanya" is the central work of Chabad thought, a complete guide to the deep and often complicated relationship between man and G-d, instructing the "average" person every step of the way, foreseeing and forewarning all possible obstacles to his or her service of G-d. Written by the first Rebbe of Chabad it was first published in Kislev 5557 (the winter of 1797-8).

The following is a collection of extracts from a letter of the Friediker Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneesohn, describing the great importance, value and power of the Tanya.

The title page of the first addition of the Tanya

For twenty years the Alter Rebbe wrote the Tanya, adding and subtracting, and meticulously analysing every word till it was refined to the last letter, and then he gave permission for it to be copied and publicized. However, due to the thousands of copies of various manuscripts the number of errors increased, and then the Rebbe sent special messengers to the Tzadikim Reb Yehuda Leib HaKohen and Reb Zushe of Hanipoli to decide with them if it should be printed, and with their agreement the Rebbe granted them permission to print it. In his letter to the printer in Slavita he pleaded that he should be very careful with every letter, in order not to ruin the inner intent which he arrived at through intense effort.

The Mittler Rebbe said:

“With the Tanya my father opened a new hall in the heavenly Yeshiva; for the simple Chassidim who recited the words and letters of the Tanya, through which the essence of the soul was revealed in their fulfillment of Mitzves – and how much more so in the case of those of knowledge and perception.”

When my father began studying the Tanya with me, he said:

“The Tanya is like the Chumash; every Jew from the greatest scholar to the most simple and ignorant studies the Chumash, and each according to their ability understands what they are able to, yet none of them understand anything, and the greater one is, the greater one’s recognition of how supremely removed its conception is from one’s grasp.

“Not only does a chapter of Tanya shatter all that hides and impedes, but more-so it brings about the revelation of the essentially transcendent [manifestation of G-d], both spiritually and physically,” and he concluded with these words – “a chapter of Tanya brings about an abundance of blessing and success.”

(אג"ק כ"ק אדמו"ר הריי"ץ ח"ד ע' רסא ואילך)

True Education

2011-05-04T04:38:00.000-07:00

There is a difference between a Chassidic upbringing and a regular upbringing… even a religious upbringing.

When I was a very small child, as soon as I began to talk, my father the Rebbe said to me, “Whatever you may wish to ask, you should ask me”. Although there were others who paid attention to all my needs, my father said, “Anything that you may wish to ask, you should ask me”.

When I was taught to say Modeh Ani, I was told to lay one hand next to the other, bow the head, and so say Modeh Ani. When I grew a little older, though still a child, I asked my father the Rebbe, “Why is it that when saying Modeh Ani, one must put one hand next to the other, and bow the head?”

He answered me, “In truth one must do so without asking why, however, I said that you should ask of me whatever you wish.”

My father called for Reb Yosef Mordechai the attendant, a Jew of eighty years, and asked him, “How do you recite Modeh Ani in the morning?”

Answered Reb Yosef Mordechai, “I lay one hand beside the other, and bow my head.”

“Why do you do so?” asked my father.

“I do not know,” replied Reb Yosef Mordechai, “when I was a small child I was taught so.”

“You see,” said my father to me, “He does so because his father taught him so, and so on before him, in a chain that leads back to Moses our teacher and Abraham our forefather, who was the first Jew. We must do without asking why.”

“But I am only a little one…” I said, in an attempt at self defense.

“All Jews are little,” replied my father, “and it is only when we become older that we realize just how small we really are”.

That is true education.

(Sefer Hamaamorim 5710, page 244)

This short account may seem a rather simplistic anecdote, but when understood within its correct context it is revealed to be loaded with depth and insight, requiring careful study. At the outset it seems that two contradictory themes are presented almost in a single breath. On the one hand the educational relationship was an open one, in which the young Yosef Yitzchak knew that he could ask his father any question he wanted and expect to receive an answer. However, Rabbi Sholom DovBer’s response to one such question seems to be decidedly reactionary in nature.

Perhaps the key to this rather enigmatic description lies in a comment made by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak on another occasion:

When I was still very young, my father the Rebbe taught me to understand a concept through subtle insinuation, and to grasp each notion through allegory.

(Sefer Hamaanorim 5711, page 91)

Although Rabbi Sholom DovBer seems to have dismissed the question, in truth he gave his son a very good answer. The posture we adopt when saying the Modeh Ani prayer, reflects the message of its content. “I submit before You, living and eternal King, for You have, with great mercy, restored my soul within me...” The lesson that Rabbi Sholom DovBer imparted to his young son is that submission before G-d must be complete and unquestioning. Rather than attempting to explain the theological concept to so young a child, Rabbi Sholom DovBer chose to show him a living example – the concept personified.

Herein lays one of the differences between the classic educational method and the Chassidic upbringing experienced by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak. Rather than being essentially academic in nature and purpose, true education seeks to cultivate the loftiest moral and theoretical truths, specifically as they are implemented and activated in their most practical form. The most subtle and abstract of ideals were demonstrated via the most tangible of examples.

A moving picture is worth many thousands of words...

2011-02-06T03:23:00.000-08:00

The popular COL (Chabad On Line) Hebrew language site recently posted four clips from a documentary that portrays the life led by the Chassidim of Kfar Chabad in the mid 1960’s. The film is titled in German “CHASSIDISMUS – ODER DER FROHLICHER WEG ZU GOTT” (“CHASSIDISM – OR THE JOYFUL PATH TO G-D”), however the narration is in English.

The producer is identified as Kobi Jaeger, I don’t know he was but he seems to have a very good grasp of his subject, and in my opinion has generally succeeded in capturing the essence of the Chassidic ideal authentically and with an elegant simplicity, which reflects the purity of Chassidic life as it should be.

These are beautiful camera shots of real Chassisdim, Davening, learning, Farbrainging and working, epitomizing the ideal of “be’chol derochecho de’aihu” (“in all you ways you shall know Him”) – joyously serving Hashem with every breath. Here you can really see the Chassidus of the Bal Shem Tov as persevered through Chassidus Chabad, so that it may be manifest in every aspect of the human experience.

There are of course some inaccuracies, in the bar mitzvah scene the narrator describes the Chassidim as discussing the bar mitzvah boy’s merits, which is unlikely… Another inaccuracy, which must be pointed out is that in the second clip, where the Chassidim are learning the introduction to Shaar HaYichud VeHemunah, which explains the concept of G-d’s unity and the nullification of all existence in great depth, the narrator says that “chassidic thought is contained in parables and anecdotes”. While this is a true statement, it does not do justice to the intellectual effort required to assimilate the highly abstract concepts that are the subject of the Chassidic discourses that are the subject of the relevant footage.

Nor is the anecdote about the man who finds a wallet, illustrative of the subject matter of “the Rabbi’s words” which the Chassidim gather each evening to discuss. Similarly in the scene where the girls are being taught about the ten Sefirot (which are so central to Jewish mysticism and Chassidus) and the relationship between the intellectual Sefirot and the emotional ones; while the accompanying anecdotes are nice, and do to some degree illustrate the fundamentals of Chassidic thought, they do not at all reflect the true depth and complexity of what the instructor is really saying.

The narration is peppered with Chassidic sayings and anecdotes, and although they are not necessarily exact renditions, they do (generally) authentically reflect the basic principles of Chassidic Philosophy. Watch and Enjoy!

I have only uploaded the first two sections, the rest can be downloaded here.

Below are some of my thoughts, please share your own in the comments section below.

In today’s world we often lose sight of the simple truths by which Chassidim once lived. Part of the authenticity that must try to preserve, is that these truths were not abstract ideas that they studied, but were rather woven into the very fabric of their lives.

Once upon a time people acted out of conviction, served G-d out of conviction, lived their lives out of conviction… but today the Chassidic way of life has become increasingly complicated. So many other factors are involved, some of them social, some of them political; some more obvious some less so.

Each of us has opinions about what should be done and what shouldn’t be done, we analyze each other and ourselves… this is not all bad bad, but we have to some degree become to sophisticated than is good for us. It is high time that we start getting back to basics. As scary as it sounds, we must personaly invlolve ourselves in doing what G-d wants us to do.

A Chassidic concept is not just intellectually stimulating; Davening, learning and working, are not just things that we have to do, simply because the situation demands it. The Rebbe Rashab once explained (Toras Sholom) that a pnimi is someone who is totally absorbed in what he is doing. When one davens, learns or works, one must be totally involved in that particular service. Each is a worthy endeavor in its own right, and if we do not commit ourselves to the moment, we are simply going through the motions.

In the modern world we are constantly rushing and our minds often seem to be a step of the moment, thinking of the next step rather than the now. If our minds are not in the now, then the now is compromised. Our service is not true and complete, neither can we enjoy it and celebrate it for what it should be.

These Chassidim were authentic, to them G-d was real, and their lives were simply extensions of that reality. These Chassidim realized that every moment was Divine, and they rejoiced - as we should - for the opportunities that G-d gives us to serve Him.

Rabbi Yakov Landau Ztza"l

2011-01-31T04:46:00.000-08:00

הגאון החסיד רבי יעקב לנדא זצ"ל

אב"ד עיר התורה בני ברק ת"ו

This Monday, the 26^th of Shvat, is the twenty fifth Yhortzeit of Rabbi Yakov Landau, who served for fifty years as the Chief Rabbi of Bnei Brak. He was born in the year 5653 (1893) in the Chassidic town of Kurnitz, where his father, grandfather and great grandfather had served as Rov. He too took up that post upon his father’s death, which occurred before is twentieth birthday. He did so at the express directive of the Rebbe Rashab of Lubavitch, with whom he enjoyed a very special relationship.

This week Hebrew language weeklies such as Ba'kehila and Hamodia published special articles or sections in his honor, and while I have not yet seen the Hamodia, the main focus seems to be on his activities as Rov of Bnei Brak. This post will focus on his years in Russia.

During World War One, the Russian government passed a law expelling Jews from the towns and villages that were close to the front, and forcing them to move into areas further east that had previously been beyond the pale of settlement. These areas had almost no Jewish infrastructure, and the religious observance of the Jewish refugees was severely threatened. Many of the towns that they were now forced to settle in did not have Shuls, Chadorim or Mikvas; the most basic elements of religious life simply did not exist.

While efforts on behalf of the material needs of the refugees were spearheaded by Baron Alexander Ginzburg, the Rebbe Rashab and Reb Chaim Oizer Gridinsky, Rov of Vilna, spearheaded the efforts to ensure their spiritual welfare. A glance through the Rashab’s correspondence, printed in Igros Kodesh Vol. 5, provides a complete picture of the situation. Rabbi Yakov Landau was sent as the Rebbe’s personal representative to oversee the efforts on the ground. His chief preoccupation was the construction of Mikvahs. (See also the introduction to Igros Vol. 5.)

To a great degree it seems that the Rebbe Rashab considered him his personal Rov, and in that capacity he also constructed a Mikvah for the Rebbe himself in Rostov. Many years later the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe consulted him as to how the Rebbe Rashab had had that Mikvah constructed, and is thanks to the ensuing correspondence (see Igrot Kodesh Vol. 2 pages 203, 226-7) that the famous “Bor Al Gabei Bor” model was preserved for posterity. The Rebbe consulted him on many other aspects of the Rebbe Rashab’s conduct (see for example Igros Kodesh Vol. 20 page 39), and looked to him as an authoritative source for transcripts of the Rebbe Rashab’s writings, talks and correspondence (e.g. ibid. Vol. 2 pages 128, 146-7).

A very poignant occurrence, which highlights his very close relationship with the Rebbe Rashab, is related by his contemporary, Rabbi Moshe DovBer Rivkin, who later served as a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivas Torah Vedaas. This occurred following the famous Purim Seudah in Rostov, a few short weeks before the Rebbe Rashab’s passing:

“When the Rebbe stood up from the Seudah, entered his room and sat on his chair to rest a little, the Tomim Reb Yakov Landau – who was a “Ben-Bayis” to whom the Rebbe always showed extra closeness – followed after him. And being that on that occasion he [Rabbi Landau] was in a very excited and happy mood, he gathered his courage and said to the Rebbe ‘On this night, thank G-d, we experienced such joy, that we merited to sit with the Rebbe by the Seudah, which we didn’t previously expect! May Hashem grant that next year we will again merit to rejoice together with the Rebbe in Lubavitch!’

“The Rebbe did not reply to this at all. Reb Yakov again made a similar statement, and again the Rebbe did not answer him. Suddenly the Rebbe got up from his chair and went into the other room, the Reb Yakov followed him, and again repeated his previous words, and the Rebbe answered him, ‘May Hashem grant that we should be close spiritually.’

“Reb Yakov came out from the room and told us all this very excitedly, saying that he thinks that the Rebbe has decided to leave Russia (for at that time there was a suggestion from influential Chassidim that the Rebbe should leave the country…) …it never occurred to us that such a calamity would occur.” (Ashkavtah De'Rebbi, pages 11-12.)

Later he spent time in Moscow, where he organized and ran an “after hours” Yeshivah for Jewish university students and working men. In a letter dated the first of Kislev 5697 (winter 1936-7), (published in Sefer HaMamarim 5711, page 215-6,) the Friediker Rebbe writes:

“In the year 5687 (1927 the year of the Rebbe’s arrest) Purim Koton fell out on Wednesday, I was then in Moscow, and Anash and the Chassidim prepared a Farbraingen in the Chabad Shul…

“On that occasion I repeated the Mamer “Vekibel HaYehudim…” and in many places it speaks of committing one’s soul [‘Mesiras Nefesh’] for the observance of Torah and Mitzvahs, I stressed these points with special emphasis, without worrying that the walls have ears, and during the Farbraingen I again repeated these points with intentional enthusiasm, in order to arouse the hearts as was needed in those times.

“Amongst those gathered where approximately thirty – may they multiply – youngsters, the vast majority of them ‘high school’ [university?] students, and despite this, through the encouragement of Rabbi Yakov Landau – who was for a while the Rov in Blivoveh – they made themselves a “Tiferes Bochurim” group, and set aside time to study Torah, they also learnt Chassidus. During the Farbraingen our good friend, the Chossid Rabbi Yakov, who was present, said that we must show special regard to these youngsters who commit their souls in order to keep Shabbos and observe Mitzvahs, and also set aside to study Torah…”

Interestingly, he did not marry till he was in his late thirties. The wedding was held in Divinsk and Rabbi Yosef Rosen, the famed Rogotchover Goan, officiated. The Latvian Jewish newspaper “Fri’morgen” reported on the event, including a picture of the Chosson and some of the biographical details mentioned above.

New Book! "Journey to Barditchev"

2010-10-04T22:54:00.000-07:00

Marking the passage of two hundred years since the journey of the Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Schneur Zalman, author of the Tanya and the Shulchan Aruch, to Barditchev in the year 5570 [1800], and marking two hundred and fifty years since the passing of the Baal Shem Tov - one of the aims of the said journey being to pray at his gravesite in Mezubush - a Hebrew language book has been published describing that journey.

The story of the journey - conducted between the months of Tevet - Sivan 5570 [1800] - has been reconstructed from dozens of testimonials and descriptions of events, compiled to present a complete picture - by Rabbi Yehushua Mundshine, who eloquently describes the details of the trip, and also describes the historical background related to the Rebbe's conduct during this period, which are connected to this journey and the events surrounding it.

As the story unfolds, important details are uncovered concerning the close relationship on the one hand, and the differences of opinion on the other hand, with several of the great Tzadikim of the time, including: Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk, Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Barditchev, the Shpoler Zaida, Rabbi Baruch of Mezubush, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov and Rabbi Yisroel of Ruzhin who was at that time still a youth.

Between the lines many details of the Alter Rebbe's opinion and position regarding matters of Torah study, philosophy, regulations and leadership, emerge that have a direct connection to the "Journey to Barditchev".

The book was produced and marketed by 'Chazak' Publishing.

- adapted from "shturem"

New! "History of Chabad in Czarist Russia – Selected Chapters – 1770-1920"

2010-10-04T22:24:00.000-07:00

by Chabad-Lubavitch Headquarters - Brooklyn, NY

The Chabad-Lubavitch publishing house, Kehot Publication Society, has announced the publication of an important new book on the history of Chabad.

The Hebrew volume: "History of Chabad in Czarist Russia – Selected Chapters – 1770-1920," was compiled by Chabad historian Rabbi Shalom Dovber Levine, director of the Central Chabad-Lubavitch Library and Archive Center.

In its 166 chapters, the book presents an eclectic overview of historical events and personalities connected to Chabad-Lubavitch since its establishment by the Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812) until the passing of the fifth Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn, in 1920.

The historical sketches in the book are presented in chronological order, and cover details such as family lineage and marriages in the Schneersohn dynasty to more major themes such as the publication of classic Chasidic texts; the establishment of the central Chabad Yeshiva in the town of Lubavitch, in 1897, and a description of its various branches; the major Rabbinic conferences on Jewish affairs in Russia in 1843 and 1910, and following the Russian revolution.

The well-researched book is based on original documents and memoirs, housed in the Central Chabad-Lubavitch Library, making it an invaluable resource for the historian and layman alike.

Some of the chapters include:

· The lineage of the first Chabad leader, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi

· His years as a disciple of Rabbi Dovber of Mezherich

· His published works: the Shulchan Aruch, Siddur, Tanya, and Discourses

· Published works of the second leader of Chabad, Rabbi Dovber; his establishment of the town of Lubavitch as the movement’s headquarters; his imprisonment by the Czarist regime in 1826

· Descriptions of the town of Lubavitch during the eras of the second through the fifth generation of Chabad

· Biographical sketches of several prominent Chasidim of the fourth and fifth Rebbes

· The social services activities of the fifth Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn, on behalf of Russian Jewry

· The 1916 move of the Chabad-Lubavitch headquarters from Lubavitch to Rostov-on-Don, Russia

The handsome 8 ½” x11” 370 page volume is nicely complemented by photos and facsimiles of various historic manuscripts and documents.

Other books in this series, by the same author, and also in Hebrew, include:

History of Chabad in Soviet Russia—1918-1940; History of Chabad in the Holy Land—1776-1940 and History of Chabad in the United States—1900-1940.

The books are available online, at: www.kehot.com.

Simchas Torah 5690 [1929], Riga

2010-09-28T21:14:00.000-07:00

The following is a free translation of a letter by Reb Elyeh Chaim Althoiz to the Friedike Rebbe [Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Shneersohn] describing the tremendous impression made by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson [son-in-law and later successor of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak] on all the Chassidim who gathered at the Rebbe's court in Riga for the festivities of Simchas Torah, while the Rebbe was absent on a visit to the united states.

Though I have not yet returned to my full strength after the strain of the last two days of Yom Tov [Shmini Atzeres and Simachas Torah], and from all the dancing I am still shattered, there is not a whole limb in my body… I am unable to withhold the good, the gratification and true pleasure from the Rebbe [Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn], who is beloved and dear, for even one moment. I must give satisfaction at the earliest opportunity, while I still stand in a state of great feeling of joy and pleasure; that I merited to see the rising glory of the Rebbe’s household with my own eyes, exalted in spirituality and holiness, may we only merit that it should not cease till the coming of the redeemer.

I thank G-d for his kindness that he did for me, paying me in accordance with my deeds. I was the first who merited undeservingly that the Rebbe should reveal to me, in a private audience during the summer of 5683 [1923], that which was hidden in his pure heart, his early intention – that it was his desire to give his precious and beloved daughter that she should be the wife of this man [the future Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson] about whom I will now speak.

I am the only individual from amongst all of the closest Chassidim, who saw his toil, his pain, how he spilled his bloodlike water, his tremendous humility - unintentional and intentional, his tremendous patience – revealed and hidden, throughout the five years during which his head, the leader and prince of Israel [a reference to the previous Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak] was constantly between two mountains of burning fire [presumably a reference to his prosecution at the hands of the communists in the USSR]. I was the first representative [of the Rebbe in this endeavor] and I was chosen then to make the first step and bring him from Yaketrenislav to Kislovodashk [regarding this meeting see the letter dated Friday of Parshas Pinchos 5683 (1923), printed in the new volume of Igros, page 30-2].

And now too I am the one who merited to see the building of this everlasting edifice. And now too I saw – wonders that I never imagined nor aspired to, G-d has shown me on this occasion. For that which I will now relate, not only do I not exaggerate, but I only reveal a very small portion of the abundant good that we merited to enjoy, I and all the Chassidim here during this festival…

One night of Simachas Beis Hashe’aveh the Chassidim gathered in the Rebbe’s Sukka and Rabbi Menachem Mendel sat with us and we heard many beautiful things from his mouth and it was very pleasurable for all of us… On the night of Shmini Atzeres there was a grand Kiddush in the Rebbe’s Sukka, to which all the Chassidim came, till late into the night, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel, with overwhelming humility and without in any way making himself noticeable, drank a lot and spoke for a few hours without pause – words of Chassidus combined with Medroshim, Kabbalah and Gematriah, in the fashion that he received from his father. His words were sweet and appealing for my ears to hear and all of those gathered where tremendously impressed.

The next day the news spread throughout the city of all that he spoke and is wonderful abilities, as is the way of the world there was much exaggeration, but for the good, such that all the questions and veils [that had obscured Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s true character and provoked speculation] were removed. Each man commented to his fellow “you see, the Rebbe took a son-in-law befitting to him” and even the critics were forced to concur against their will.

In the wake of these report, many more people gathered the next day for Hakofes, before which the older Rebbitzen [Shterna Soreh, wife of the Rebbe Rashab and mother of the Friedike Rebbe] made a Kiddush in the room of Rabbi Yechezkel Feigin. Rabbi Menachem Mendel sat at the head and spoke for four hours straight!

I sat arranged everyone at the table very orderly, Rabbis on one side wealthy laymen on the other, and gave each individual a place befitting to him. The brothers Valshanik, the brothers Chefetz, Vekslir – the father of the young Veksilir – very quiet like his son, a great critic and he considers himself to be a great intellectual. He came the first night to hear with his own ears, what he heard from Berlin of the greatness of the Rebbe’s son-in-law, and he stayed until 2am with all the Chassidim. He left very impressed and told me, “In my entire life I never saw or heard of such a thing! Happy is the one who bore him!” and I heard similar statements from everyone.

The Hakofes were executed with much dancing and joy, with singing and gladness of heart.

Similarly, the next day approximately a hundred men gathered by about 11am and we left three hours after midnight. In other words 3am. The Yom Tov meal was set up in various rooms, we sat down to eat at about 4pm and we Bentched at about midnight. For all those eight hours Rabbi Mencahem Mendel did not move from his place, and the entire time he spoke warm words, arousing Teshuva and Divine Service. He often he mentioned the Rebbe’s name with great respect “I heard from the Rebbe, may he be well…” “the Rebbe, may he be well said…” How good and how pleasurable it was for me to hear all this! Happy are we that we merited this.

Newly Published Correspondence Provides Unpercedented Insight into the Early Life of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson

2010-09-19T20:46:00.000-07:00

BOOK REVIEW: LETTERS OF RABBI YOSEF YITZCHAK SCHNEERSOHN VOL. XV, kehot publication society: brooklyn, 2010

As the subtitle of the book informs us, this volume contains the letters of the sixth Rebbe of the Chabad chasidic dynasty, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, to his son-in-law and eventual successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and to his daughter Rebbitzen Chaya Mushkah Schneerson. Significantly, the volume also includes relevant extracts from Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s letters to his father-in-law.

While it has been published as the fifteenth volume in a series it should in truth be viewed as an independent book, worthy of singular attention and an identity of its own. Other volumes in the series have collected a wide variety of letters, addressed to many different personalities and representing a very colorful tapestry of the R. Yosef Yitzchak’s activities and interests as well as a virtual treasure trove of historical narrative and anecdotal insight into the idealistic past of the Chassidic movement. This, however, is the first in the series to focus entirely on a single theme. These letters tell the story of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak’s private relationship with the individual upon whose shoulders his hopes and dreams for Jews and Judaism would be carried into the future. Perhaps herein lays a crucial key with which to decipher the journey of the Chabad dynasty, and the broader path of the Chabad movement, through the uncertainties of the twentieth century and into modernity.

The vast majority of these letters were written between 1927 and 1941, during which the future Rebbe and his wife spent significant time in Berlin and Paris. Many details of his whereabouts and activities come to light, and more importantly we are granted deep insight into the very intimate and active relationship that he enjoyed with his father-in-law. This volume reveals aspects in the personalities of both men, which have never before been exposed on such a scale. While the combined correspondence of both fills more than fifty published volumes, the vast majority of letters published therein reveal them in their public roles. In this volume we are allowed a window into their lives as private individuals.

Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak’s correspondence, as published in the present volume, is sometimes surprisingly mundane, detailing his travels and describing his surroundings with wry humor and requesting that the young couple write similar letters in reply. In one letter his son-in-law explains why he has not honored those requests, “there are individuals whose lives are strongly centered on the world of introspection… (either intellectual or vacant)… Inclining… to the world in their hearts rather than the world that surrounds them externally… Even from my own perspective I acknowledge that this is not necessarily an advantage … [but] apparently I am among them. My life has [therefore] always been poor in interesting incidents [to relate] .” Many errands of a private or communal nature are detailed, in which Rabbi Menachem Mendel was engaged on his father-in-law’s behalf. Correspondences regarding matters of religion, Divine service and Chassidic doctrine are almost always instigated by Rabbi Menachem Mendel rather than his father-in-law, and in his replies Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak enthusiastically responds to each of his observations and searching queries. Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak clearly valued his son-in-law’s learned opinion, seeking it regarding the scholarship of other individuals whom Rabbi Menachem Mendel had met and even concerning his own writings.

Flowing so prominently through all of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak’s letters, is the powerful sentiment, hope, esteem and blessing of a father who truly loves his children, constantly yearns for their company and worries about their welfare. In one letter, which goes a long way to revealing the profundity of his feelings for his son-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak expresses “great inner pain, that you did not merit to see the face of the Holy of Holies [a reference to his father, Rabbi Sholom DovBer, the fifth Rebbe of Chabad], the face that literally shone with G-dly light…” He continues to describe his personal memories and sentiments upon being in his father’s presence “specifically during Elul, the High Holidays… and the days of Joy… Also the sight of the Chasssidim in Lubavitch…” and concludes, “However, in every loss there must be gain, and that is the longing to commit yourself… to that which is truly good, to learn much Torah… to pray at length and with contemplation… and to implant character traits that are truly good and pleasant”.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s letters too, reveal a new dimension to a personality that has engaged, enraptured, sometimes antagonized and – more often than not – eluded, a wide segment of global Jewry. We have become used to seeing this great man in his role as “the Rebbe”, the Chassidic leader who did not retreat in the face of modernity but successfully harnessed it in the dissemination of his message and the realization of its ideal. In this volume, we are allowed a glimpse of the open and honest relationship he enjoyed as a devoted son-in-law and Chassid of his own Rebbe. As well as representing his father-in-law in various offices and being heavily involved in the publication of the journal “Hatomim”, it becomes clear that he himself was heavily engaged in the study and practice of Chassidism on a very personal level. It was perhaps his reticent nature (earlier alluded to), that allowed his inner life to remain so firmly centered on the sincere pursuit of Chassidic values, even as he lived in Weimar Berlin. In these days before Rosh Hashana, it is fitting to cite the following letter, penned in that city by Rabbi Menachem Mendel in the summer of 1929.

“I am reminded that the month of Elul is imminent, which is a month of preparation [for Rosh Hashana] and return [to closer communion with G-d]… Which is the way, and what is the solution that this should affect me, that it should finally touch my heart…?” In a very personal display of self analysis, he continues to bare the inner recesses of his heart, as only a true Chassid can before his Rebbe, “Looking deeply into my heart, perhaps all this is only externality on my part [i.e. the preoccupation with preparation and return is merely subconscious pretence] and it does not truly matter to me.” In reply, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak reassured him that he was in fact being true to himself in expressing his aspiration that the Divine service of Elul should affect him, for “when one learns Chassidus, especially matters of [Divine] service, in a way that it has its effect through service of the heart, which is prayer, with contemplation and communion – one begins to speak in a different language, one understands and grasps things differently, and automatically ones aspirations are very different…”

A review such as this cannot hope to portray the full depth and character of a volume of such unembellished simplicity, fascination and significance as this. I can only express my hope that the new opportunities presented herein will be utilized to better understand the enduring legacy of the Chabad ideal, its history, its present situation, its future and the lives of those who represented and perpetuated that ideal. We can only conclude by thanking Rabbi Berel Levin, archivist at the central Chabad library, and his team for painstakingly devoting themselves to the preparation of such a beautiful volume for print from the original manuscripts.

This highly recommended volume can be purchased here. Below appears the book's preface.

Riga, Yom Kippur 5690 [1929]

2010-09-16T13:00:00.000-07:00

From a letter by Reb Elyeh Chaim Althoiz to the Friediker Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (Rayatz), who was visiting the United Sates of America at the time. As is described in the present letter, the Rebbe's family and the chassidim who he left behind were distraught at the prospect of Tishrei without the Rebbe. They were, however, consoled by the presence of the Rebbe's son-in-law and successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Free Translation.

The Yom Kippur service finished later this year in the Rebbe's minyan than ever before, for the Rebbe's son-in-law [Ramash, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson] became totally absorbed in his prayers and oblivious to anything else during Neilah. A nice while passed before he managed to climb out of his reverie. All of us were filled with pleasure from this very pleasing wait. And as is well known, after Neilah the enthusiasm and ability of every Jewish soul to serve G-d is renewed like the strength of a young eagle.

Before the evening prayer we concluded with "Napoleon's March" like every year, but in every strain we sensed that everything we do without the Rebbe is as though we are only imitating - as Chaim Meir [the Rebbe's aid] says - "artificial". The element of truth and the lively enthusiasm, is somehow lacking. Why? I do not know. But certainly it is so...

As the morning dawned on the day proceeding Yom Kippur, at 4:30am, I came to the rooms of the Rebbe. I found that the Rebbitzen [Nechomah Dina, wife of the Rayatz] was already seated in the dining room as though it were the middle of the day, and the Rebbe's son-in-law [Ramash] was watching intently as our friend Reb Mordechai Cheifetz slaughtered the Kapparos.

Already the previous evening I had been commanded by the Rebbitzin to come and "Shlog Kapparos", for she had prepared a white cockerel for me. I Shlogged Kapparos, Reb Mordechai Chefetz slaughtered slaughtered it and Rabbi Menachem Mendel covered the blood. Afterwards the three of us, the Rebbitzen, her son-in-law and myself, stayed in the dinning room, all of us thinking the same thing... of the dispersion of close souls and the distance between those who are bound together, where are we? where is the Rebbe? Why did it have to be so? What will be in the future?

[Reading these letters one gets a sense of the relief, the uncertainty and the hope that prevailed during the interim after the Friediker Rebbe left Russia and before he settled in Warsaw, a situation that intensified as he spent long periods of time in Eretz Yisroel and the USA.]

I wanted to be the valiant one and attempted to distract the Rebbitzen from the many thoughts in her heart, I asked her why she rose so early in the morning, and suggested that she should retire to her room to rest. She answered with a simplicity both unpretentious and refined, saying "for more than thirty years I have accustomed myself to this. I was unable to sleep". And then, despite herself, tears began to pour from her eyes... and we too cried with her, reliving somewhat the intensity of our emotion. She poured tea for us from the thermos and also for herself, and we drank and began to talk.

Mendel [Ramash] opened a Tehilim and began to read in a tone that was a pleasure to hear [the word used hear is "geshmak" and denotes a certain depth of feeling, that brings the words to life]... I waited a while and realised that he intended to read the entire Tehilim without interruption, for I spoke to him and he did not reply. So I too took a Tehilim and was forced to do likewise (in front of the Rebbitzen I could do nothing else). We finished at 7:00am.

We went to the Mikveh, and then we set ourselves to pray with the Minyan, the Davening flowed geshmak...

Such is the short account of those few hours when a thread of kindness prevails throughout the world... May it be His will that this year my wife and children should see that kindness, as the Barditchever stressed "and your treasury that is good for us, open..."

Rabbi Yoel Kahn on the Nature of G-d's Existence

2010-09-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

Yiddish, followed by English transalation

Delivered at the National Jewish Retreat 2009.

Click on the picture below to watch:

The Yeshiva in Lubavitch - Part 1

2010-08-24T10:18:00.000-07:00

In honor of the 15th of Elul, the day on which Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim Lubavitch was founded in 5657 [1897] we continue with the memoirs of Reb Nochum Shmaryahu Sussonkin, in which he describes his arrival in Lubavitch to study in ישיבת תומכי תמימים. This is the third installment. The first two, in which he describes his youth in Prepoisk and his studies in the Yeshiva of Reb Elchonon Bunim Vasserman הי"ד, can be found here and here, respectively.

From Left To Right: Reb Avrohom Elyeh Plotkin, Reb Nochum Shmaryahu Sussonkin and Reb Nissen Neminov

I finished learning in the Yeshivas for younger students at the end of the winter of 5665 [1905]. At that time the most famous Yeshivas for older students in the world were Telz, Volozhin, Slobodka, Mir, Radin and Lubavitch. I stood on a cross roads and did not know where to turn. Though I had studied in Krementchug, a city of Chassidim, I had not had much contact with them and knew nothing of Chassidus, especialy not Chabad Chassidus. I had met with students who had come from Telz, Volozhin etc and though I knew that not all the students in those Yeshivas were alike, I decided that I would not go to those Yeshivas for I knew too that the spirit of the [secular movement of] enlightenment had already permeated their study halls and was afraid for my soul lest I too be smitten.

First I thought that I would go to Radin to the Yeshiva of the "Chofetz Chaim", or to Lubavitch, for the students returned from there complete in their fear of G-d. But I quickly decided not to go to either. I did not go to a Yeshiva where they studied Musser [ethical works] due to the air of melancholy that hovered over the students of those Yeshivas, and regarding Lubavitch I heard that the study of Talmud was neglected there and that they spent most of the day studying Kabbalah.

His search for a Yeshivah brought him to the city of Kishnev:

With the passing of time I learned that in this city dwelt the in-law of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Avrohom Shneersohn, [his daughter was married to the only son of Rabbi Shollom Dovber of Lubavitch, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok and he himself was] descended from the Rebbes of Chabad, and that from him I would be able to find out about Lubavitch and about Chassidus. I visited him and he was very gracious to me, assuring me that there was no better place for me than the Yeshiva in Lubavitch. He explained that all the rumors about Lubavitch were fabrications, that Chassidus is not Kabbalah but an intellectual discipline of phenomenal lucidity.

I remained in Kishnev till after the festivals. In the small synagogue where I studied one of the Rabbis of the city prayed. He was very gracious to me and throughout the festivals I ate at his table. Once he told with great excitement that he saw in a small book called "Tanya", written by "the Rav" - as the Alter Rebbe [the first Rebbe of CHabad] was known - A wonderful explanation on a matter that bothered him his entire life, the matter of Divine manifestation: Why is there a need for a specific house such as the Temple of old [in Jerusalem], or a synagogue nowadays - is it not true that "the entire world is filled with his glory"?! However there it is explained at length, by way of a parable, that while the soul does indeed fill the entire body, it is manifest and revealed mainly in one specific place, namely with the consciousness that resides in one's head. Similarly regarding G-d too, though the entire world is indeed filled with his glory, He is nevertheless more revealed in the Temple, and today, in the synagogue - a "small" Temple (see Tanya chapters 51, 52. 53). The Rabbi explained the concept at length and from his words I learned that the discipline of Chassidus that they learn in Lubavitch - whose source is the scholarly genius, the author of the Tanya - is not incomprehensible matters of Kabbalah, but rather concepts filled with logic and complete lucidity. This episode strengthened and inflamed within me the desire to travel to Lubavitch.

* * *

From afar we could see the courtyard of the Rebbe, before us appeared beautiful wooden buildings and towering over all of them a great hall (called by everyone der groiser zal [or Zal Hagodoil]), very long wide and tall, with large, high windows in three of its sides. We passed through almost the entire city before arriving at the Rebbe's courtyard and did not see a building as large or as beautiful as this. Even from some distance we recognized it as the Rebbe's courtyard, for the sound of Torah being studied by Yeshiva students reached our ears.

When I entered the Zal hagodoil, I was received with great joy by many of my old friends who had learned with me in the Yeshivas of Krementchug, and Amtzislav. I told them of my uncertainty that had gnawed at me on the journey, but they answered me with great joy and jubilant faces that everything is as it should be and that they are happy that Divine providence had brought them here. They added that they already gained a general knowledge of Chassidus, which is literally a remedy for the soul. For, as we have said, the disipline of Chassidus is not Kabbalah nor an explanation of Kabbalah, but a "chapter" in its own right: A discipline of depth, wisdom and deep inquiry into matters of Divinity [Elokus] similar to the study of Talmud.

My friends had changed very much. Their clothing had changed, their sentiments and aspirations had changed, and even their faces had already altered somewhat. Even when in Yeshiva we had been very poor in the spirit of Torah, the details of Mitzves and their beautification, we almost had no idea of such things. The "small Tallis" [Tzitzis], for example, was indeed "small", for we did not know at all to ensure that it was of the correct [Halachic] measurements. As small as it was, it was "large" in our eyes, and since we were very careful not to transgress G-d forbid the caution "it shall not be seen" [a tongue-in-cheek reference to the prohibition that Chamatz should not be seen on Pesach] we hid it completely in our pants so that they would not be seen at all...

Also regarding Tefilin we did not think to be particular, and we would buy both Tzitzis and Tefilin from the peddlers who circulated from town to town, or in any store. It was enough for us that we believed the seller to be a religious Jew. Our only aspiration was to be a great scholar of Torah, and even in our studies we only concentrated on those areas in which sharp scholarly arguments and explanations are reflected.

Everything, including prayer, we did by rote, without energy, coldly and inattentively. Being that time was very precious to us, with the main aspiration being to acquire wide knowledge of the Talmud, everything else was secondary. It is self understood that since this was the goal, even those who learned much Torah - this sort of study did not inspire the spirit of Torah at all, and there was no visible difference between us and the youths of the marketplace and the street. In our external appearance and even in our inner sentiments we were the same. On our faces one could not discern the subtlety and refinement of a Ben-Torah [student of Torah] as the Rebbe Rashab complained in "Kuntrus Eitz HaChaim".

It is no surprise, therefore, that I didn't recognize my friends, their features were already more refined and their clothing had already changed. Their Tzitzis were in accordance with the [Halachic] measurements and more specificaly of wool. They were particular that their Tefilin should be made of one piece of leather, as well as other details. In order to fulfill these Mitzves in the most beautiful way, in accordance with the dictum of our sages in the Talmud (Shabbos 133), there were G-d fearing experts who specialized in preparing these articles.

The sense of attempted uniformity had already disappeared, for why should they attempt to assume the habits of the wider world if they had already realized that the world and all that fills it are not true entities? Since the autonomous existence that the world grasps for itself is an utter fallacy, the world itself is of no account. On the contrary, this recognition dictates that the outer world should seek to become like Bnei Torah [students of the Torah] for the true existence of the world is essentially the Torah with which it is was created and the true purpose of the world is the practical fulfillment of the Mitzves. As our sages say (Brochos 17), "The verse does not refer to those who study them but to those who practice them..."

Their aspirations too had changed. Indeed, their desire to become great Torah scholars had doubled, however the motive and purpose had changed. The motive for their study was that the Torah is the wisdom and will of G-d, and just as He is infinite so His wisdom and will are infinite; just as "no thought can grasp him", so no thought can grasp is infinite wisdom, for He and His wisdom are one (Zohar, Rambam and Tanya). However, "in the place where you find G-d's greatness, there you find his humility, and G-d contracted his will and wisdom into the 613 [Taryag] Mitzces of the Torah, in their Halachos, in the combination of letters that form the Tenach, and in the tales and parables in the Medroshim of our sages, in order that each soul that is invested within the body of man may intellectually grasp and practically fulfill His will and wisdom". By way of this contraction we are able to grasp the Torah, and since G-d and the Torah are one, it transpires that we are in fact grasping G-d Himself. "And although the Torah is manifest in terms of lowly, physical matters, the study of Torah may be compared to one who embraces a king, where it makes no difference to the exalted intimacy and grace if he is wearing one garment or many, since the body of the king Himslef is within those garments." Similarly it makes not difference if the terminology of the Torah refers to mundane matters, since G-d himself has chosen to make Himself manifest in that terminology (Tanya Chapter 4).

Likewise regarding the fulfillment of Mitzves, since they are G-d's statutes and laws, a great exactitude is inspired in study and an aspiration to attach oneself to Him with ever greater strength. It is self understood that once a change in outlook and aspiration takes hold, the way in which one studies Torah changes automatically and slowly one is divested of one's coarse form and begins to take on the appearance of a true Ben Torah, one's clothing and general conduct too changes accordingly. This would be achieved naturally, with the passage of time, through study and the spirit of Torah that permeated the Yeshiva.

The Berlin & Paris Years - Revisited

2010-07-27T22:57:00.000-07:00

A so-called 'biography' of the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn has stirred much controversy and debate as to how committed he actually was to Chabad and the Chassidic (or even Orthodox) way of life. Much ink has already been spilled (most extensively at The Seforim Blog) in which the 'scholarship' of the author's is unmasked as being at the very best extremely lacking, and more probably, deliberately misleading. I do not intend to reiterate or add to the numerous examples of blatant falsification, nor do I intend to attack their central thesis directly. My intention here is simply to provide some context, lending perspective and better allowing the reader to appreciate the story of the Rebbe's life, who he was and what he did.

The Rebbe's conduct, prior to becoming Rebbe in general, and specifically during his sojourn in Berlin and then Paris, reminds of the following episode (as recorded in Shmues Vesipurim Vol 1, page 69):

When the third rebbe and leader of Chabad chassidism, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch - better known as the "Tzemach Tzedek", passed away in 1867, he was survived by a number of scholarly and pious sons. Each had a following of disciples who wished to see their mentor assume his father's place. Eventually Reb Shmuel, the youngest son, succeeded his father as the Rebbe in the town of Lubavitch and today he is known as the Rebbe Maharash.

Reb Shmuel Grunem Estherman, one of the great mashpi'im in Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim Lubavitch, was a young man at the time, and undecided as to which of the Rebbe's sons to turn for leadership and guidance. When he discussed his dilemma with Reb Shmuel Ber Barisover (of Barisov) - a Chossid of renown, the latter said to him: "Listen, Grunem. They are all children of the Rebbe. "They are all beloved, they are all mighty, they are all holy." But let me tell you of one incident, and then you do as you see fit.

"During one of my visits to Lubavitch, there was something in our late Rebbe's discourse which I found difficult to understand - it seemed to contradict a certain passage in the kabbalistic work of Eitz Chayim. None of the elder disciples were able to provide an answer satisfactory to me, so that night I made my rounds among the Rebbe's sons. I visited Reb Yehudah Lieb, Reb Chaim Schneur Zalman, and the others. Each offered an explanation, but, again, none of their ideas satisfied my mind. By now it was fairly late at night. I was headed for my lodgings when I noticed a light burning in Reb Shmuel's window. I had not considered asking him - he is the youngest of the sons and, as you know, his nature is retiring and diffident. However, I was curious to know what he is up to at such a late hour.

" The Rebbe Maharash's house, which stood in the courtyard of the Tzemach Tzedek, was built in the style of the wealthy, with high windows. I pulled myself up on to his windowsill and peered inside. What did I see, but Reb Shmuel immersed in the very section of Eitz Chayim where my difficulty lay?! 'So!' I thought to myself 'I have to visit him' . I dropped from the windowsill, walked around to the door and finding it locked, I knocked. 'Just a minute' he called out. After a rather long minute the door opened. I took in the scene: various newspapers were laid out on the table, German papers, Russian papers... However, of the Eitz Chayim there was not a trace.

"The Rebbe Maharash offered me a seat, which I accepted and he said to me 'Rather late, isn't it, Reb Shmuel Ber! What brings you here?' I told him of my problem with the discourse the Rebbe had delivered that day and the passage in Eitz Chayim. 'Ah, Reb Shmuel Ber' he said 'they say you are a smart Jew. Nu, I ask you, you come to me to talk about such things?'

" 'Listen,' I said, 'If you will discuss this with me all will be well. But if not, know that tomorrow I will tell everyone what I saw with my own eyes a couple of moments ago, the whole Lubavitch will be talking about it. Five minutes ago I saw you with the Eitz Chayim, only now did these newspapers appear.'

"Hearing this the Rebbe Maharash began to laugh and agreed to discuss my problem. We sat together all night till dawn, and I came away thoroughly impressed by the extent and depth of his knowledge and even more impressed by his unique humility." Rabbi Shmuel Ber concluded, " This is what I can tell you, Groinem, now you do as you see fit..."

What impressed Reb Shmuel Ber and what inspired Reb Groinem to accept the Rebbe Maharash as his Rebbe, was not Reb Shmuel's apparent prestige and position in the hierarchy of his fathers court. But on the contrary his positive attempt to hide his erudition and saintliness beneath the guise of a modern and worldly young man. To an outsider he may have appeared to be the least worthy candidate for the leadership, but to the discerning insider, the veteran Chossid, he was the most ideal candidate despite - and indeed because of - his attempts to disassociate himself from any form of positive publicity.

If you will speak to people like Reb Yoel Kahn and the other veteran Chassidim who were around at the time, if you will read the memoir literature and read the letters that document the Rebbe's arrival on American soil and eventual assent to leadership, this same theme reoccurs many time's over. To those who observed the Rebbe closely, he was an individual of great erudition and emotional depth, who constantly sought to disguise his true self from the Chassidim, shrinking from the limelight. The following is an excerpt from a private letter written by Reb Yoel Kahan to his father, dated Monday the 3rd of Adar 5710 [1950]:

"In general the Ramash is a very restrained and reticent individual, he appears to be a cold person, sitting composedly and speaking quietly, and suddenly he bursts into tears, before continuing to speak in the same tone of controlled quietude."

Idon not bring this as 'proof' but for the sake of illustration. I translated the Hebrew word Pnimi as "restrained and reticent", but in truth the term means much more than that. In the terminology of Chabad Chassidus the word Pnimi is used to describe an individual who acts upon what he understands to be the truth, without any need for recognition. And individual who is completely self aware and entirely comfortable with that self, and therefore independent and beyond the reach of external social influences. The conduct of a Pnimi is not effected in anyway by the circumstance in which he may find himself and is dependent only on the truth. He knows what needs to be done and doesn't waste a moment, applying himself wholly to its pursuit and fulfillment. All this, the Pnimi does with out fanfare, deliberately avoiding external attention as much as possible, in the knowledge that any unnecessary publicity may distract him from the obligations placed upon the self.

The Pnimi, in Chabad terminology, is perhaps the highest possible honorific. [In truth I could continue to describe the many nuanced character traits that exemplify the loftiest values of Chassidus and which are distilled into the single word Pnimi, at far greater length. However, I am sure that my readers will not hesitate to find fault in the limited description above (perhaps due to its simplicity, but yet) forcing me to better elucidate the merits of the Pnimi in the comments below.]

This is just one of many instances where the Chassidim are clearly seen to respect the Rebbe, not only despite his apparent coldness, modern outlook and non-chassidic appearance, but precisely due to the fact that they recognized these as signs that he was a true Pnimi. To the discerning eye, the Rebbe's Chassidic core was complete and unscathed, but more-so, the fact that he remaining pure and untouched by the external influences of Berlin and Paris stood as proof of his unflinching commitment to Chassidus under all circumstances. He was not in the game of Yiddishkeit for publicity or recognition, for a secure place in the hierarchy of his father-in-law's court, but because Yiddiskeit is the truth even in Berlin and Paris.

Non-Chassidic Hashkofic Disciplines

2010-07-13T18:48:00.000-07:00

A discussion in the comments to the previous post, "Chassidus & Chakira", highlighted the unfortunate fact that way Chassidus should ideally be viewed and properly taught, does not always coincide with the actual presentation of Chassidus in the "Chabad" educational "system" of today. The specific issue under discussion was whether or not it is the "official Chabad doctrine" to study works of Chakira.

No one ever claimed that Works of Chakira, or Musser, or Drush etc. are part of the official curriculum taught in Lubavitch Yeshivahs, however to say that study of such works is discouraged is absolutely wrong. On the contrary, Rabbi Chadokov [Hodakov], the head of the Rebbe's secretariat, a man of tremendous insight, the main implementer of the Rebbe's Hashkofeh on a practical level and an expert in the field of education, often advocated that both individuals and institutions should pay more attention to such works. In "The Educator's Handbook: principles, reflections, directives of a master pedagogue", a compilation of his advice and directives, there are many examples of this. While I will focus mainly on the example of Rabbi Chadokov, which is better documented, any Mashpia worth listening to shares and implements a similar attitude (see below.)

On page 180 in the section entitled "Senior Yeshivot" we find, "Seforim whose subject is religious awe, such as Reishit Chochma and Sha'arei Teshuva of Rabbenu Yona, should be studied, together with whatever deals in the most direct way with the fear of Heaven, (not that this should be integrated into the regular seder, for which we have no precedent in the yeshivah's history, although I have heard from mashpi'im that such seforim were in fact studied privately)."

Similarly on pages 181-2, "There are various more specialized pursuits within the

Torah that virtually remain a closed book and in which it is hard to find knowledgeable individuals-for example, Hebrew grammar, Midrash, Ein Yaakov, the history of the Jewish people, and so on. It is no secret that the Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak, fully expected the students to study and be proficient in Nach, Hebrew grammar and penmanship, as well as Jewish history.

We must therefore expand our curriculum to include these subjects – albeit outside of the regular yeshiva schedule, or at times when there is no formal yeshiva program. Most effective for this purpose will be the teaming of students into pairs, each pair pursuing the specialty of its choice and studying it in sufficient depth to arrive at a reasonable degree of mastery.

For example, one pair might focus its energies on various aspects of "drush" – homiletic interpretation… Another pair might lean more towards philosophy and faith, which is the subject of such works as Duties of the Heart. Another idea worth considering is to put together an anthology – passages culled from various sefarim and dealing with various topics – to contain easy material as well as some which is more challenging – and to develop out of this a study manual, for the use of the group or the individual."

Regarding the education of girls we find, page 47, "The curriculum for the girls should include the following:

A: Specific topics from "Duties of the Heart," the section "Gate of Understanding."

B: Various aspects of hashkafa, from "Gates of Understanding, of Rabbeinu Yona.

C: Serious and intensive study of Pirkei Avot, whose subject is the fear of Heaven and the development of good character traits. Learning various sayings and aphorisms by heart." See pages 89, 94, 107, 112, 157, 172, 177 and 185 for more examples.

Secondly and indeed more obviously (to anyone who has learned Chassidus), implicit in every Chassidic discourse is the assumption that the student is familiar with the terminology and frame of reference, most of which is drawn from works of Chakira, Drush, Musser and Kabbolah (as exemplified in the previous post). In other words, if you are really trying to learn and understand Chassidus (rather than simply reading it parrot fashion) you must explore the various concepts drawn from that wider frame of reference. If you ignore this fact and ignore (or worse disallow) the study of these disciplines, your study of Chassidus is practically worthless. Contrary to popular supposition, learning Chassidus is not only about translating the words, but about understanding and assimilating the concepts, arguments and ideas to which those words refer.

In the words of Rabbi Chadokov, (page 182), "Where did the idea not to study such things come from! Did some committee form itself for just such a purpose, deliberate, and in its wisdom banish them from the curriculum?!"

Thank G-d, this is not a problem which exists across the board, there are many Mashpiem and teachers of Chassidus (Reb Yoel Kahn, Reb Meilich Zweibel, Reb Itiche Meir Gourarie, Reb Yossi Gourarie, to name but a few), who continue to teach Chassidus as it has always been taught, presenting it within its full context and frame of reference - which includes aspects of Drush, Remez, Musser, Chakira and Kabbola. I myself owe any understand of Chassidus that I have to masters such as these who take the time to explain each concept in its full depth, drawing on their thorough knowledge of the wider frame of reference and making their students aware of the need to use their private time to familiarize themselves (at least to some degree) with the relevant works. I strongly advise anyone who really wants to have an intellectually satisfying experience, to get hold of Reb Yoel's Shuirim. They are in widely circulated and some of them are available here.

In conclusion: Chassidus is considered to be a loftier form of study, providing its student with a more complete, balanced and astute worldview than can be attained through the study of Chakira, Musser or Drush alone. However, this does not mean that these disciplines are to be ignored, on the contrary they are complementary and in fact vital to the study and understanding of Chassidus. Indeed only through a full understanding of the wider context can one fully appreciate the true significance and novelty, which makes Chassidus so unique. Perhaps in my next post I will elaborate on this last point.

Chassidus & Chakira

2010-07-05T00:46:00.000-07:00

This past week I have been reviewing the Shar Hayichud of Choves Ha'Levoves. Though the polemical discussion of Creationist theory is a topic that lies essentially beyond the parameters of Chassidus, belonging rather to the realm of Chakira, Jewish Philosophical Doctrine (a discipline that is complementary to but distinct from Chassidus), I will nevertheless take the opportunity to summarize the arguments presented therein (perokim 5-6). In Chassidus this Choves Ha'Levovos is cited tens if not hundreds of times, as the principle that אין דבר עושה את עצמו - "no being can create itself".

The fact that the world was created by a Divine being, who’s existence cannot be qualified by the limitations of earthly existence may be established by logical deduction:

(The following briefly paraphrases the general content of Choives HaLevovos, Chapters 5 and 6. For the sake of simplicity, clarity and time I didn't go into every detail and I also changed the order in which the points are presented.)

a) Earthly existence cannot have existed for ever, for measurable time (in whatever form) must itself have a beginning. If time itself extends backward into infinitude, we could never (in any span of time) have traversed an infinite divide to arrive at any particular point in time. Hence, earthly existence (or indeed any existence that is defined by some form of measurable time-span) must have began at some point, prior to which it did not exist.

b) Being that Earthly existence at one point did not exist, it must have been created. We may consider only two possibilities, either it created itself or some other being created it. On considering, the first possibility must be dismissed, for if created existence did not yet exist it could not have created itself. Hence it must have been created by some entity already in existence.

c) If we pursue this line of thought to its logical conclusion, we must deduce that ultimately there must exists a Super-Being, who’s existence cannot be measured in terms of the limited dimensions of time and space, but rather exists essentially and without qualification. It is this Super-Being (the Creator) who caused the existence of all subsequent beings (the creations).

[In general terms, we may describe the difference between Chakirah and Chassidus as follows: Chakira seeks to prove G-d’s existence within the confines of natural human logic. Similarly Chakira attempts to establish and explain our general relationship with G-d, the study of Torah, the performance of Mitzvot, etc. in rational, human terms. One's recognition of G-d's existence and one's entire of view reality is measured and defined in terms of the self and on the basis of one's own perception of existence. Chassidus picks up where Chakira leaves off, taking the conclusions presented by Chakira as given conclusions, unchallenged facts, and seeking to change the very way we think about that acknowledged reality, that acknowledged relationship between the Creator and the creations. Chassidus teaches us to define ourselves in terms of our relationship with G-d, rather than defining our relationship with G-d in terms of ourselves. Chassidus employs human logic as a gateway, as a means to open up the human mind to a super-rational worldview. While Chaikra is content to discover the Creator in the context of our physical reality, Chassidus wishes to discover G-d as he exists essentially.

For more on the difference between Chakirah and Chassidus see Hatomim Vol. 2, page 490 and onward.]

Reb Chaim Oizer on the Rebbe Rayatz's Efforts for Russian Jewry

2010-06-29T01:14:00.000-07:00

This letter was written in Tammuz 5688 [1928] less than a year following the Rebbe's release from soviet imprisonment and exile. At the time the Rebbe was living in Riga, Latvia.
Click on images to enlarge:

Moscow, 1927

2010-06-24T22:25:00.000-07:00

Note: The 12th of Tammuz is the anniversary of the liberation of the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn from his exile in Soviet Russia in 1927. The Rebbe was arrested in June of that year by agents of the Yevsektzia (the "Jewish Section" of the Communist party) and the GPU (forerunner of the KGB) because of his work to preserve Judaism throughout the Soviet Empire. The Rebbe was sentenced to death, for his "counter-revolutionary" activities, but a miraculous confluence of events forced the Soviets to commute it, and then to release him altogether.

The full account of the Rebbe's arrest and liberation can be found here.

The following is a translation of an excerpt from the Rebbe's diary (written several months before his arrest and printed as an appendix to "The Heroic Struggle"), in which he describes how (on an earlier occasion) he was saved by Divine Providence from the hands of four GPU thugs. While traveling by train to Moscow, in order to meet with various Rabbis and philanthropists to plan and budget further efforts for the upkeep of Yidishkeit in the face of soviet oppression, the Rebbe happened to meet a high ranking member of the Soviet Secret Police through whom his salvation would be effected mere days later.

11 Adar I, 5687 (February 13,1927)

2:00 pm.

…at one of the stations we stopped for an hour due to a major search of five cars in which 12 people were arrested-and instead of 9 o'clock, we would arrive in Moscow no earlier than 930. For about an hour and a quarter I wrote the ma'amar, and the attendant came again, sent by my neighbor, who was requesting permission to enter and make my acquaintance. Though I was greatly averse to the idea, I could not refuse him, and I said I would organize and stow my belongings. Then I would announce that he might enter.

The man entered and said, "My name is Mark Saminovitch Bashkov."

He was the chairman of the Sovnorkom in the city of Tsheliabinsky, and a member of the general U.G.P.O. What surprised me was that he entered with his hat on.

Me: My name isYosef Yitzchak Schneersohn.

He: Your title?

Me: Yid.

He: All Jews are "Yidden," what kind of a title is that?

Me: So it is, every Jew is a Jew, and that alone is their true title. It is never lost or replaced by others. If someone bearing an ordinary title commits a crime, he loses it. But even the sinner does not lose the title 'yew," as it says, "a Jew, although he has sinned, is still a Jew” since his essential spark of Jewishness is eternal. But there are various levels in this: there are some who merely love their nation, honor Jewish wisdom, honor the Jewish Torah, cherish G-d's commandments, and cherish Jewish customs; and there is also one who is prepared to literally sacrifice himself for the fulfillment of a single Jewish custom, and surely for a positive commandment or to prevent the violation of a negative commandment. All of this is a direct effect of the essential spark of Jewishness, but the person's education and various life experiences are crucial in revealing it.

The attendant announced that in several moments the train would arrive at the Moscow station.

He: I was born in Arsha in the Mohilev region. I would very much like to make your acquaintance more closely.

He said that for two or three days he would be very busy, and on the third day he would be freed from his work. If I would still be in Moscow he wished to visit me, and if I was travelling home to Leningrad he would come there specifically to meet with me, for he honored his parents' memory and his elderly father. They and their entire families were Lubavitcher chassidim, and the Lubavitcher Rebbes' names did not cease from their mouths, as was also true of his grandparents. His paternal grandfather's parents and his maternal grandfather were already travelling to Lubavitch one hundred years ago.

"Tell me," he finished, "in what hotel are you staying in Moscow?"

Me: Stara Varvarskaya.

He: Thank you. Be well, and much success.

The train arrived 35 minutes late. I was still impressed by the meeting with the chairman of the Tsheliabinsky Sovnovkom - especially because he was a member of U.G.P.O., which is feared by all citizens of the country, whatever their rank. Moreover, the executive officer of U.G.P.O. is Menzshinsky, who is known as a very serious person who demands truth, and he himself is from a chassidic family in Arsha. The Lubavitcher Rebbes' names also did not cease from their mouths or their forefathers, for they also went to Lubavitch 100 years ago.

My meeting with Bashkov was not mere chance-even a single straw blowing in the marketplace, as our Rebbe the Baal Shem Tov says, is by Divine Providence. G-d himself takes the wind from his "storehouse" to move the straw from side to side or from place to place. All of this is a link in the chain of G-d's blessed will, and how much more so in an event like this.

My wisdom is inadequate to understand the lesson of this Divine Providence, but the incident in general strengthens my assertion that it is only the Yevsektzia youth who disrupt religion and destroy religious institutions. It is all their doing...

After several close calls including a secretive escape in the middle of the night via the Hotel kitchen, the Rebbe prepared for his meeting with Bashkov:

...I left covertly, and I went to Novi Rodi, which is in Kremlin Square, and bought fruit. I went to the hotel and ordered hot water with tea and honey, and then I waited to receive the son and grandson of Chassidim: Mark Saminovitch Bashkov--chairman of the Tcheliabinsky Sovnorkom and member of U.G.P.O.--to chat about his memories. Moments after 7:30, Mark Saminovitch entered, hat in hand.

I asked him to sit and he inquired as to my health and said that if I had time for him, he would be free till 9:30. He would then have to leave for a meeting scheduled at ten, and the next day he would be travelling to Tcheliabinsk.

Me: I have arranged my schedule so that I will have adequate time.

It was very significant to me to hear his family recollections of years past, which were intertwined with my own family history and religious traditions that were then being uprooted from their source without logic or reason.

He spoke at length about his travels as a member of the G.P.U. to visit various cities until he was designated to a high position.

Suddenly the door opened, the official Kratov and three youths entered with him, one of them in a police uniform. All of them, aside from Kratov, had guns in their hands. Kratov, in a rage, called out: "Citizen Schneersohn, you are under arrest. Do not move from your place. If you do, they will shoot you and you will be to blame for you own death. Tell us where your luggage is so that we can search it. "Garshka," he said to one of his deputies, "close the door."

Bashkov sat staring; though his face reddened he did not utter a word. Already accustomed to searches and to the investigators constantly saying things designed to induce fear, I sat placidly and answered, "The small suitcase is there, and the large one is next to my bed behind the partition between the living room and the bedroom."

Kratov commanded his assistants to search, sat on one of the chairs, and related how he had beaten Jewish Rabbis and teachers, knocking out their teeth and destroying their eyes. In his birthplace, the city of Amitzlav in the region of Mohilev, there were two rabbis. One was 75 or 80 years old and the other one about 50. He had harnessed both of them to a wagon of refuse from the stable of Kuzma the shoemaker, ordering them to pull it. The older Rabbi stumbled, fell to the ground, breaking his hand and foot, and died on that very day. The other Rabbi pulled the wagon and threw up, falling to the ground. Kratov said, "I honored him with a kick, and he rolled over with an outcry of great pain. After two days he also died."

His comrades scattered my clothing about, searched in the pockets of the garments and shuffled the pages of my books. They placed the writings on the table, and Kratov commanded me to stand. He searched the pockets of my clothing, placing everything on the table, and said, "We atheists and communist youth will destroy the fanatic Jews, the Rabbis and teachers and those like them; we will totally eradicate them, leaving no trace. You, too, Citizen Schneersohn, will share their lot. There are two possibilities, either to the wall, that is to be shot by the firing squad, or to the exile region of Solovaki where you will rot!"

After concluding the search of my pockets, he turned to Bashkov saying: "And now, Comrade, stand and we will also search you. Perhaps--or certainly--you are an emissary of Citizen Schneersohn to build mikvaot (ritual baths) or to organize childrens Torah classes to support the counter-revolutionaries, the Rabbis, teachers, and their colleagues from the Black Hundreds."

Bashkov (coldly and deliberately): Comrades, it appears that Citizen Schneersohn is not knowledgeable in the law of the land, but you are most assuredly apprised of the legal requirements, (he cited the chapter and the section of the law:) Anyone who makes visits to conduct searches, whether from the police, the G.P.U. or U.G.P.O., must show his identification with his picture attesting to his identity. Moreover, he needs to show a more specific document--a Warrant--for his activity conducting searches in the dwelling of such-and-such a person, and if he finds something relevant to his search he can arrest whomever he wants; he has that permission. This document needs to be sealed with the stamp of the agency that assigned the search to him. And therefore, show me your documents, and I will know who you are.

Kratov exploded in rage and began to shout: "I am a member of the Yevsektzia appointed by ____ (he named one of the agencies, but I dont remember which one). I am responsible for the surveillance of this hotel, overseeing its officials, orderlies, guests and all those visiting. A nobody comes from the street, a glutton, look"--he pointed with his finger to the table of fruit--"a bourgeois glutton." He ridiculed Bashkov: "And this dog also demands to see my documents! Stand and let me search your pockets. If not, I will deal you a blow that will disfigure your face. Pig, son of a dog! Comrades, let us commence our task. It looks like we have caught a fat fish in our net." He placed his hand on Bashkovs shoulder, commenting, "We will find a place for you also in the dungeons of the clinic on Lubyanka Street."

Bashkov: I demand obedience to the law.

Kratov and his associates laughed derisively and approached Bashkov. Abruptly, Bashkov rose in anger, removed his hat from his head and said a single word in a loud voice, the meaning of which I did not know, taking his identification from his pocket.

Kratovs face turned white. They all recoiled and stood like blocks of wood, petrified as if thunderstruck.

Bashkov (to Kratov): Come here and show me your identification.

Kratov (in a trembling voice): It is in the desk of the hotel office.

Bashkov: Go and bring it.

He then commanded the others to approach in order and display their identification. He made a notation in his book and then inquired for the search warrant. They answered that they did not have one but that Kratov surely did. He informed them that they could leave and that tomorrow they were to appear in the U.G.P.O. office to see the investigator, Comrade Yarmulov.

Kratov presented his identification.

Bashkov: Where is the search warrant?

Kratov: I have no such document. I acted on my own judgement due to my responsibility over the hotel guests. I suspected Citizen Schneersohn of being a counter-revolutionary, and so I was allowed to conduct a search.

Bashkov: Fine, tomorrow morning come to the G.P.U. office to investigator Yarmulov. He will explain to you the laws regarding investigations and searches. He will also teach you the proper way to address people.

Kratov stood to plead for mercy.

Bashkov: I must conclude my conversation with Comrade Schneersohn. Do not detain me, for I must leave in a few minutes.

Bashkov apologized for the incident and said that it was caused by the wild youth, impetuous and displaying inadequate self-discipline. He assured me that they would never dare to do this again.

Me: This will not improve the situation; it is common knowledge that the harassment is from the Yevsektzia, overwhelmingly consisting of hot-headed youths, impulsive in their actions.

Bashkov requested of me that should this recur, I should contact him at his residence at the address he had given to me. He left. I closed the door of my room and recited the evening prayers. I reflected on Divine Providence, perceiving with my own eyes actual Divine intervention.

Rebbe: The Essential Definition

2010-06-15T02:06:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter written by the Lubavitcher Rebbe on the 3rd of Tammuz 5710 [1950] within a few months of the Friediker Rebbe's passing. Explanatory editions to the literal translation of the original text are enclosed in square brackets.

There are many seeking to define and explain the stature and greatness of the leaders of Chabad in general, and the leader of our generation – that is the Rebbe my father-in-law, may I be an atonement for his passing – specifically, in various ways: the optimization of self sacrifice, brilliant scholar, of refined character, righteous, possessive of Divine inspiration, a veteran miracle worker and many more [such descriptions of greatness].

These praises are even greater, in the light of the definitions [elucidated] in Chassidus, as to what self sacrifice is, what a brilliant scholar is, etc. [Chassidus adds great depth and dimension, explaining the import of each of these descriptions to be infinitely more subtle and profound than their simple connotation.]

Nevertheless, the main point is missing here. Added to the fact that this is essentially the main point, this point is even more important as it is the most pertinent, especially to us – the community of his Chassidim and those who are attached to him. This [most essential, important and pertinent point] is the fact that he is the leader, and [specifically] the leader of Chabad [as we will be explained below].

A leader [of the Jewish people] in general, is called “head of the thousands of Israel” [Tanya Chapter 2], being [metaphorically] the head and the brain relative to them [- the congregation of the Jewish people]. They derive their [spiritual] sustenance and livelihood from him. Through cleaving to him they are bound up and united with their source in the highest reaches. [Just as all parts of the body including the soles of one’s feet draw their sustenance according to the directives of one’s brain, so to even the simplest Jew is able to draw spiritual sustenance from G-d’s infinite greatness through connecting himself to a Tzaddik, a leader of the Jewish people. See Tanya Chapter 2 at length.]

There are many types of leaders: [in general terms they can be divided into] those who influence [those who associate with them] in an internal manner [so that their dependents may achieve an independent intellectual and emotional appreciation of G-dliness] or in a general manner [so that, for example, their dependents are inspired by the atmosphere created by the Tzaddik]. In these [two general categories] themselves there are variables: whether they [- the leaders] influenced [their dependents] via the revealed [aspects] Torah or via the hidden [aspect thereof], or via a unification of both; [whether they] taught the ways of [Divine] service [the inner, moral and devotional demands in addition to the practical demands of Judaism], drew down physical influence [such as the provision of health and livelihood] etc. etc.

There are such [leaders] who incorporated many of the above aspects, or all of them.

This has always been the hall-mark of the conduct of the leaders of Chabad, from the Alter Rebbe up until and including the Rebbe, my father-in-law – may I be an atonement for his passing, they incorporated all the types and all the variants: their influence was both internal and general; in [matters of] Torah, [Divine] service and good deeds; spiritually and physically. As a result their connection with those who where affiliated with them was in all 613 limbs [metaphorically] of the souls and bodies of those who are connected to them.

[In other words, the discipline taught by the Chabad Rabbeim was all encompassing, reaching into every aspect of human existence, both internally and externally, and binding the entirety of the individual with Divinity. On the one hand this places a heavy responsibility, a demand on the disciple – in order to consider oneself to be truly connected to all the Rebbe stood for, he must attempt to fully integrate all aspects of the Rebbe’s influence into his own life. On the other hand, this highlights the unique advantage and the essential greatness of the Chabad Rabbeim – through truly attaching oneself to the Rebbe one becomes wholly and completely united with G-d.]

It is incumbent on every man and women amongst us to know, that is to contemplate deeply and fix our thoughts upon this – that he is the leader and the head, from him and through him come all the influences physically and spiritually. Through connecting ourselves to him (and he already taught us how to connect to him [detailing the variant aspects of the Chabad discipline and their practical, contemporary application – the] “how” and [the] “what” – in his writings) we connect and unite [ourselves] with the source and the source of the source, until the Most High.

Menachem Schneerson

3rd of Tammuz 5710

Brooklyn, NY

The central thesis of this letter is that the purpose of any Rebbe or leader is to link his flock to G-d. Through attaching oneself to a Rebbe even an ordinary person is able to enter into a relationship with G-d. There are different types of Rabbeim and leaders of the Jewish people, however, in this they are all equal. They differ only in their method. The uniqueness of the Chabad method is that it is all encompassing, and therefore both more demanding and more desirable.

On a day like the 3rd of Tammuz we must take stock, and realize the tremendous privilege and responsibility that we must live up to if we are to consider ourselves Chassidim of the Rebbe.

The Great Debate in Minsk

2010-06-06T18:49:00.000-07:00

In the summer of (5543) 1783 the city of Minsk was the stage for a momentous meeting of minds. Orchestrated by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi – the Alter Rebbe and encouraged by the most influential Rabbinic authority of the time, Rabbi Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaon, “the great debate” attracted the greatest and most venerable Talmudic scholars of Lithuania, and was intended to resolve the ongoing conflict between the Chassidim and their opponents (“Misnagdim”).

After much deliberation the Goan Rabbi Eliyahu had decided that “if “the cult” [as the Chassidim where referred to] are to demand a debate then we are obligated to answer them”, and so Rabbi Schneur Zalman let it be known that he would be present in the city of Minsk on the Shabbos following the 9th of Av and would remain there for two or three weeks thereafter, so that he may answer “anyone with a query or a complaint against the Chassidim or their conduct”.

Hundreds of young men from the camp of the Misnagdim drawn by curiosity and anticipation, as well as many followers of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, flocked to Minsk to witness the awesome spectacle, a gathering of the great of rare occasion and momentous import to all concerned. Among the great throng was Reb Yitzchak Izik of Vitebsk, chosen to accompany his uncle and teacher, the great Talmudic scholar, Reb Zemil Ztutzker on the more than one hundred verst journey. The famous sage was then more than eighty years old and was determined to “rescue the Rabbi of “the cult” from mistaken heresy”.

All that he saw was absorbed and imprinted on his young mind and many years later Reb Yitzchak Izik was able to recall “the great debate of 1783” in astonishing detail:

When Rabbi Shneur Zalman came to meet with his opponents, accompanied by his two brothers and some of the elderly Chasidim, “I was amazed to see that not a single white hair could be seen in his beard”. Rabbi Shneur Zalman was at this time in his mid-thirties.

Having proven his great ability in the field of Talmudic and Halachik learning, dismaying the assembled sages with his superior knowledge and incisive analytical skill, Rabbi Shneur Zalman went on to describe and define “the basis of the theology of our teacher the Ball-Shem-Tov and the teaching of the Rebbe, the Maggid of Mezritch” declaring the theological underpinnings of the Chassidic movement to be “based on the first G-dly revelation to Moshe Rabeinu”. He repeated a teaching heard by the Magid of Mezritch from the Ball-Shem-Tov, and subsequently taught to himself, describing how G-d revealed Himself to Moshe at the burning bush:

“The verse states “an angel of G-d appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush.” Rashi comments: “in a flame of fire, the heart of the fire.” In other words G-d reveals himself in the heart of fire – in the intent, the inner, earnest and sincere warmth, which fills the heart in the service of G-d... Where is this flame of fire, the heart of fire? – Within the thorn-bush. Rashi comments: “[specifically the thorn-bush] and not any other tree...” This is a reference to the simple Jew’s who have hearts of fire, they pray with sincerity and simplicity, they say Tehilim with pure faith, though they do not even understand what they are saying. This comes from the heart of fire that burns with an unquenchable thirst for G-dliness, for Torah and Mitzves.

The verse continues “Moshe said I will depart from here” and approach the burning bush (Rashi). Moshe understood that this supernal vision was a display of the tremendous merit of the simple folk, compared to the sophisticated scholars of Torah. He realized that naturally the heart of fire is only revealed in the thorn bush. It is for the rest of us to do Teshuvah to remove ourselves from our present situation and try and try and achieve the sincerity and fiery heart of the simple folk. Even a complete Tzadik such as Moshe Rabeinu had to devote himself to this lofty pursuit saying, “I will depart from here to approach there”... '

Much of the available materiel concerning the debate has been collected and made available here see also here.

Reb Aryeh-Leib Sheinin הי"ד

2010-05-28T17:39:00.000-07:00

הגאון החסיד רבי ארי' לייב שיינין הי"ד זצ"ל

The Rov of the Chassidic Shtetel of Dokshitz, Reb Leib Sheinin learnt in Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim Lubavitch between the years 5668-5677 (1908-1917). Arriving there at a young age, from his home town of Babroisk, he grew to become one of the most outstanding student’s of the Yeshivah and was famous for the many hours he sent daily in prayer. In the words of Reb Yehudah Chitrik (Reshimos Devorim, in the New Edition P. 302) “the Temimim would often repeat in the name of the Rebbe Rashab that all his [the Rebbe’s] work, his efforts and self-sacrifice, [expended] in order to found Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim – is worth it in order to produce such a Talmid as Reb Leib Sheinin”. In the version recorded in Lubavitch Ve’chai’oleho, he added “all the rest are extra gain”. He was famed as an ‘Oivied’ [one who serves G-d, through lengthy prayer and contemplation] and it was said of him that he reached the level of Beinoni as described in Tanya (Ibid).

His classmate from an early age, Reb Avrohom Pariz – who also lived in Babroisk, related, “When I was a youngster I sat and learned in Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim in the town of Lubavitch. For the festivals I returned to my home in the town of Babroisk. One day I was walking in the street, and I was approached by a Jew who requested that I enter the Shul in order to complete a Minyan for Mincha. When I entered the Shul I found my friend the HaTomim Aryeh-Leib Sheinin sitting, crowned in Teffilin and Davening at great length. I realized that including Aryeh-Leib, there was already a complete Minyan without me. So I asked those present, ‘why don’t you also count my friend Aryeh Leib?’ They answered that this Yeshiva student had been sitting in the same place since the morning, and is completely oblivious to everything going on around him, therefore they thought that he was ‘out of his mind’ and unfit to be counted as part of the Minyan. It was then that I realized the great difference between myself and Aryeh-Leib. In the eyes of the laymen, I was considered ‘normal’…”

There are many descriptions of Reb Leib’s Davening and his complete immersion in the study and contemplation of Chassidus, which remained the defining features of his personality throughout his life. He lived his life not in the physical and limited world, but in the infinite world of Chassidus and Divine service. (See Chassidim Horishoinim Vol 2. Pages 243 -255 for a collection of sources describing Reb Leib.)

In 5682 (1922) Reb Leib was sent by the Friedike Rebbe to serve as the Rabbi of the town of Dokshitz. From the beginning he was met with great opposition, and would have left if not for the fact that the Rebbe had told him to remain at his post, promising him that all who opposed him would eventually become his friends. This promise fulfilled to the extent that Reb Leib was known and respect throughout the entire district. (See Di Yiddishe Heim, Vol. 1 page 212.) I came across an interesting piece in which the editor of this journal
tells us of Reb Chaim Oizer’s comments on being introduced to Reb Leib by himself.

[By the way if anyone has any information about the editor, Reb Chaim Chaikel Greenburg, please comment.]

While on the subject; another occasion when Reb Leib would have met Reb Chaim Oizer, was at the wedding of the Friedike Rebbe’s daughter Sheine to Reb Mendel Horenshtien, Sivan 5692 (1932). (See Reshimas Hayoman, page 241.)

A Jew from Dokshitz who witnessed the destruction of his community at the hands of the Nazis, but escaped to tell the tale, described the last minutes of Reb Leib’s life. “They gathered all the congregation into the main Shul. There they encountered Reb Leib and seeing his saintly countenance, wrapped in Talis and Teffilin were awed by him. They told him that they would spare his life, Reb Leib however refused, saying that he would go to his death together with his congregation. The Nazis gave him permission to speak to his people before they were killed and [as I remember Reb Yisroel Gorden telling the story, he explained to them the importance and great merit involved in fulfilling the Mitzveh of Misiras Nefesh Al Kidush Hashem, making a Brochoh “Asher Kidishonu... Vzivonu Al Kidush Hashem” to which everyone answered “Amen”, then] he began to sing a Chabad Nigun Hakofus for Simchas Torah… (See Shmues Vesipurim Vol 3. 242.)

When the news reached America there were those who commented that he was Arop Fun Zinen [out of his mind] literally “below” sanity, the response of the Chassidim who had known him well in Dokshitz responded, “no, he was Aruf Fun Zinen” – “above” sanity. Reb Leib was someone who had achieved a higher understanding of reality, that went far beyond the dictates of cold logic. (As heard from Reb Yisroel Gordon, whose father was the Shoichet in Dokshitz before he came to America, and a close friend and confident of Reb Leib. See also Chassidim Horishoinim.)

The Rebbe - The Berlin-Paris Years

2010-05-23T02:27:00.000-07:00

There has recently been a renewed interest in the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s activities and lifestyle during the period that he spent in Berlin and Paris between the years 1927-1940.

Apparently there has been some speculation "that [the future Rebbe] Menachem Schneerson… was never completely engaged by his chasidic upbringing, preferring instead the modernizing and secularizing influences that made such significant inroads among young Jewish intellectuals in early 20th-century Russia and Europe." As evidence they point to the fact that he chose “to trim his beard, wear modern suits, and distance himself from the chasidic community in Paris, where he and his wife, the daughter of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, lived after their marriage.”

I will not dispute the assertion that, though “there is no question he was an observant Jew... he lived in places where Chasidim didn’t live, and he did things they wouldn’t do.” Another point that I won’t dispute is that the Rebbe may never have thought of himself as a candidate for the position of Rebbe. However, if this is to lend credence to the author’s claim that the Rebbe veered away from the path of his forbearers and father-in-law and essentially lived the life of a modern orthodox Jew rather than that of a Chassidic Jew, the authors must have ignored a large swath of readily available information, which conclusively proves this thesis to be incorrect. While no one will argue that the Rebbe dressed like a Chossid during his years in Berlin and Paris, there is no doubt that he remained a Chossid in every sense of the word and was absolutely committed to the service of his revered father-in-law, the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, as we will demonstrate.

The first and the most accessible proof that the Rebbe remained a fully committed Chossid, despite his external appearance, are the many video interviews conducted with people who relate first-hand testimony of people who knew him personally during this period. Below is the content of some of these interviews which you can watch yourselves. [Although the interviews were conducted by Chabad, the interviewees themselves are generally not Chabad, and there is no reason to suspect them of bias.]

See here for the account by Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, president of the RCA and student of Rabbi J. B. Solivietchik (“the Rav”) for approximately fifty years, of the Rav’s testimony that the Rebbe “never missed going to the Mikvah, a single day during the time he was in Berlin”. The Rav’s exact words were, “Ich ken mei’id zein, az er hot nisht farfelt kein ein tog Mikveh”.

See here were Rabbi Yechezkel Besser recalls the testimony of Reb Yitzchok Meir Ferstenberg, described as “a critic” from whom “one rarely heard… praise about someone”. Regarding the Rebbe, however, “he was full of praise”. He testified that “the Rebbe never changed”, he always wore a hat or a beret, and never went without a head covering, despite the fact that this sometimes clashed with the social conformity of the times. Regarding the discussion relating to the Rebbe’s beard he testified, “He had a beard, uncut, untouched”. Rabbi Besser goes on to say that these are only trivial examples, which fail to do justice to the true greatness that Ferstenburg discerned in the Rebbe’s personality.

Another interesting episode he related: when the Belzer Rebbe, the Kedushas Ahron visited Berlin for medical reasons, Ferstenburg accompanied the Rebbe to visit the Belzer Rebbe. The Belzer Rebbe stood with closed eyes with his hand wrapped in a towel and shook people’s hands through the towel. However when the Rebbe came, he picked up his eyes and took of the towel, giving him his bare hand.

[Regarding the issue of the Rebbe’s beard, this has already been discussed here and here. The testimony quoted in the first source that refers to the Rebbe as “the rather modern-dressed young man with the neatly trimmed beard who stood at the back of the shiur room and who would talk in learning after almost every shiur with Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg z"l” can be dismissed as a statement based on the general impression made on the mind of someone who did not know the Rebbe well and merely observed him from afar or at best had a very casual relationship with him. Obviously such testimony doesn’t stand up against that of people who shared a close relationship with him, especially considering the many other sources (brought above and below) which inform us of his staunch adherence to the Chassid way of life in all other areas. Also see the letter dated 21 adar-1 5592 (1932), written by the Rebbe to his father-in-law “…it is clear that he [the Tzemach Tzedek] holds that even with scissors it is forbidden (even those that are not “like a razor”), and not only due to [the prohibition of] Lo Silbash Gever…”. (Igres Kodesh Vol. 1 page 2.)]

See here where Rabbi Sholom Kovalski recalls the Rav’s testimony that the Rebbe fasted Ba’hab during his time in Berlin, but due to the Rebbe’s tremendous humility the Rav only became aware of it by chance. “He was extremely quiet; very few people knew who he was or where he came from.” It would seem, in fact, that this entire misconception that the Rebbe veered away from the Chassidic way of life, is a direct result of the Rebbe deliberately attempting to hide his true nature from the world. [There is also a published letter from the Rebbe’s father, in which he begs his son to desist from fasting.]

Some of the many other video testimonials regarding this period have been collected here, in which the Rebbe’s commitment, not only to his own observance of Yidishkeit, but also to the support and furtherance of Yiddishkeit in general, is described in detail. As an aside, the beginnings of his tremendous efforts to further Jewish education in America can be seen in his activates during his time in Paris, where he taught a daily Gemorah Shuir and established Torah classes for Jewish children.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the Rebbe’s personal journals from this period have been published, filling five volumes mainly with Chudishim ranging across Kabbalah, Gemorah, Chassidus and Halacha, in a brilliant display of broad knowledge and incisive depth(they are available on hebrewbooks.org, the first volume is here). Reshimos HaMenorah written in 5699 (1939), fills a separate volume and deals with “the [variant] opinions regarding the order of the lighting of the Menorah in the Temple and their reasoning’s, and the significance according to Drush founded on the explanations in Chassidus”. This large body of published information combined with the Rebbe’s published letters, and those which his father wrote to him provide ample evidence of the tremendous degree to which he was steeped in Torah learning and Chassidic thought even as he attended the lectures of the secular professors in the universities of Europe. Ignorance of this gold mine, which opens a broad window of invaluable insight into exactly what was preoccupying the Rebbe’s mind during the period under discussion, equals an automatic disqualification from passing comment on the Rebbe's inner life.

Even a cursory glance at some of this material shows that apart from being “completely engaged by his chasidic upbringing”, the concept of Moshiach was already high up in the Rebbe’s area of interest. This refutes the suggestion that Moshiach was an idea that gradually developed after the Rebbe decided to pursue “a new career goal”, indeed on his 54th birthday in 1956 the Rebbe himself wrote in a letter that “From the time that I was a child attending cheder, and even before, there began to take form in my mind a picture of the future redemption -- the redemption of Israel from its last exile, a redemption such as would explicate the suffering, the decrees and the massacres of the galut...” The fundamentals which he absorbed as young child, which he was educated in by his father and the Chassidic Melamdim who taught him, remained with him throughout his life and were in no way eroded during the time he spent in the “modern” atmosphere of Berlin and Paris.

Let us not overlook too the active connection, which the Rebbe kept up with his father-in-law during this period. Even when he was physically separated from his father-in-law they remained in constant communication, and the Rebbe continued to work on various projects on his father-in-laws behalf. Notably, the Rebbe acted as an editor for the periodical “Hatomim”, sorting through the many letters penned by his father-in-law, copies of which were forwarded to Berlin and later Paris, and selecting for publication those that were relevant to Chassidim in general as well there original recipients. The Rebbe’s work in this area is detailed in the introduction to the Igros Kodesh of the Friediker Rebbe Vol. 3. Another example of a more specific project which the Friediker Rebbe charged his son-in-law with, is the writing of Reshimas HaMenorah as described above.

As evidenced from the Reshimos and other sources the Friediker Rebbe was present in Berlin together with his son-in-law at the beginning of Av 5690 (1930) [where he stopped on his back to Riga after his trip to America]. The Rebbe traveled to Riga to spend the entire Tishrei 5691 [1930] with his father-in-law, and again before the festival of Pesach of the same year [1931] staying till after Shavuos. He was again together with his father-in-law for Tishrei 5692, which was spent in Otvotzk, a suburb of Warsaw, where the main branch of Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim had been established, returning to Riga together with him where he stayed till the end of Cheshvan before traveling back to Berlin. He returned to Riga for Pesach and remained together with his father-in-law through the Marriage of his sister-in-law Shaineh, after Shavuos, after which he accompanied him to Poland, where they remained for much of the Summer before returning to Riga for Tishrei 5693 [1932] where he remained till after Chanukah...

I won’t bore you with too many details, but suffice it to say that the Rebbe spent large parts of the year away from Berlin and Paris, in order to be in the company of his father-in-law, and was visited in turn by the Friediker Rebbe in those cities. As is clear from his personal journals, the Rebbe relished these opportunities and meticulously recorded everything he heard and saw, his deep interest in Chassidic customs and stories is self evident. These are not the journals of a “westernized / modernized thinker” but the journals of a Chossid deeply attached to his Chassidic roots and his Rebbe, and constantly preoccupied with the infinite truth of G-d’s Torah.

Did the Rebbe want to become an engineer? Perhaps. Did he view that as his goal in life? Ciratinly not. Did he veer away from the Chassidic path only to return after accepting “the undeniable facts that he was a forty-something immigrant with little English and less chance of making significant inroads as a successful secular professional.” Whereupon “he reluctantly accepted that a career as a chasidic Rebbe would have to do”? Certainly not. It is clear from the information available that the Rebbe was completely committed to the Chassidic ideal, revered his father-in-law and followed his every directive unquestioningly. A mere glance at the relevant sources reveals that at every step of the way, the Rebbe was a servant who did what had to be done conscientiously and quietly, serving G-d with complete selflessness, while trying to keep as low a profile as possible. Reluctant though he was, when his father-in-law passed away, he did not shirk the responsibility thrust on him, and accepting the demands of the Chassidim led them with unparalleled self-sacrifice to confront the new challenges faced by post-holocaust American Jewry.

“Maamer Matan Torah”

2010-05-18T00:31:00.000-07:00

Amongst Chassidim, Shavuos – “the time of the giving of our Torah” and the Yortzeit of the Baal Shem Tov, was a very special time. This unique occasion was marked primarily by the special Maamorim – Chassidic discourses, referred to as Divrei Elokim Chaim [“the word of the living G-d”], which were said by the Rabbeim. Much of the forty eight hours of Yom Tov was spent hearing the Maamorim, studying them and reviewing them. The entire atmosphere was permeated by anticipation, excitement and a palpable enthusiasm that centered on the study and repetition of the Maamorim. (All of the accounts detailed below are quoted and cited in Oitzer Minhogai Chabad, Vol. 2.)

The Alter Rebbe usually said two Maamorim (presumably one on each night) each year. However, there were occasions when he said three or four, and we actually have five Maamorim which were all said in the year 5564 (1804).

The Mitteler Rebbe, who was known for his lengthy and very explanatory Discourses, would often say several Maamorim even on a regular Shabbos. One Shavous he said a total of eleven Maamorim, each of them very lengthy. His uncle Reh Yehudah Leib (the Alter Rebbe’s brother, known as the Maharil) gently chided him, saying, “Nit aleh hobin dein kop!” [“Not everyone has a head like yours!”] (Beis Rebbi, Vol. 2 pp 3a.)

One year after Shacharis the Mitteler Rebbe began to say a Maamer, explaining the concepts at great length as was his custom. When he finished the Maamer, the Chassidim began to disperse but quickly relised that the Rebbe was about to begin a second Maamer. Again, the Rebbe spoke at great length and when he finished it was apparent that he was preparing himself to begin a third. Seeing this, Reb Hillel Paritcher ran to the house of the Tzemach Tzedek [who did not always attend, his father-in-law – the Mitteler Rebbe’s, Maamorim], unable to restrain himself he grabbed the Tzemach Tzedek by the beard and cried, “Mendel Mendel! Kum her on zeh vi es gist zich chassidus in gass!” [“Mendel Mendel! Come, hear and see how Chassidus is pouring out in the street!”] (Migdal Oiz, pp 187)

The Tzemach Tzedek

In the year 5607 (1847) many Chassidim came to spend Shavuos [with the Tzemach Tzedek] amongst them the most famous, Reb Hillel Paritcher and Reb Betzalel Mai’azaritz, as well as many others. After coming from the Mikveh on Eruv Shavuos, the Rebbe said a Maamer beginning “Anoichi Havyeh Eloikechoh” [“I am Heshem your G-d” the first of the Ten Commandments]. The son’s of the Rebbe spent the entire evening and night, each in his own house, reviewing the Maamer [before the guests] and before dawn Reb Bezalel repeated the entire Maamer from memory.

After Davening there was a festive meal and all the great Chassidim and Rabbonim, as well as the sons of the Rebbe, were invited… those who were not invited stood…. When all the invitees were seated the Rebbe came out of his room and sat at the table… he poured some wine into his cup, made a brocho and said L’Chaim to his sons and the other invitees, nodding his holy head to all those who stood. He began to sing and his sons – not the invitees – sang with him. It was extremely gratifying to hear their melody. Then the Rebbe rose from his chair and began to dance alone where he stood, he held a handkerchief in his hand [it was the custom of the Rabbeim to wrap their hand in a handkerchief while sayin a Maamer]. The sons of the Rebbe – but not the invitees – clapped their hands in accompaniment…

Afterwards the Tzemach Tzedek began to sing the famous nigun of the Alter Rebbe (the one of “four stanzas”) and again his sons – but not the invitees – joined him. The Rebbe cried very much and then began to say [the Maamer] Chassidus. This Maamer was an explanation of the one beginning “Anoichi Havayeh Elokechoh”, which he had said on the previous day. (As told to the Friedker Rebbe by an elderly Chossid who was present.)

The Rebbe Rashab

Reb Elyeh Simpson related that in [Yeshivas Toimchei Temimim] Lubavitch after hearing the Maamer on the eve of Shavuos, they [the bochurim in the Yeshivah] would conduct a review of the Maamer, and when day dawned they would pause to say Birchas HaShachar [the morning Brochos].

Reb Yehudah Chitrik related: In Lubavitch there was no time to be joyous all the Chassidim were very serious throughout those two days, entirely focused on reviewing the three Maamorei Chassidus that were heard from the Rebbe Rashab… Shavuos was different from all other festivals for most of the Chassidim who came for this Yom Tov were Rabbonim, Dayonim or Shochtim…

In the year 5674 (1914), Shavuos fell out on Sunday and Monday… after Minchah on Shabbos, they began to prepare to hear the Maamer from the Rebbe. They set up tables in the form of a large hollow square, which formed a barrier around the Rebbe’s seat at a table on the south side of the hall. All the Chassidim gathered around the barrier formed by the tables, just as the Jewish people gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and they sang Chabad Nigunim for a long while as they awaited the arrival of the Rebbe. The Rebbe’s only son the Rebbe Rayatz also came a while before his father, and while the Rebbe said the Maamer, his son stood face to face opposite him. We saw how the Rebbe’s son cherished and carefully assimilated each syllable and each movement of the Rebbe into the essence of his soul with a sense of humble acceptance.

The Rebbe

Between the years 5712-5730, the Rebbe would enter the Beis Hamedresh at about three o’clock am, and say a Maamer Chassidus. This was different to any other occasion, there was no talk or nigumim beforehand; the Rebbe would enter with quick steps and sit down at the head of a table on a prepared platform. After a few moments of complete and utter silence the Rebbe would begin to recite the Maamer, in the year 5725 (1965) for example he began with the words of the Medresh, “Beshoh She’olah Moshe Le’Moroim…” [“at the time when Moses went up on high… “]. When he finished he would stand, leaving quickly and without another sound. The Chassidim, young and old, would then gather to review the Maamer, which they had just heard from the Rebbe’s mouth.

בברכת קבלת התורה בשמחה ובפנמיות!

Eighteen days between Lag B’Omer and Shavuos

2010-05-12T20:10:00.000-07:00

The following is a continuation of an abridged excerpt from the diary of the Freidike Rebbe dated Sunday, 2o Iyar, 5656. For part 1 see here. Text enclosed in square parentheses has been added either by the Translator or myself. I have also changed the order in which some of the stories are recorded.

After [the morning] davenen, when most of the worshipers had gone home and only a few remained, three elder chassidim sat together in the room adjoining the zal and exchanged narratives -- my teacher R. Shmuel Betzalel, R. Abba Persohn, and R. Shmuel Gurevitch.

[Reb Avrohom Abba Persohn’s father was a Chossid of the Mitteler Rebbe and later the Tzemach Tzedek, as well as being a respected Chossid, he was also one of the most respected philanthropists in the region. He had his son, Avrohom Abba, educated by Chassidim of the old-school.

His was a very emotional personality, but at the same time well balanced, he was moderate in his speech and his conduct. From his youth he would interest himself in the stories of the Chassidic elders and he collected them one by one like a collector of pearls, reviewing them with great precision. When he would relate these stories, he would add lengthy introductions, describing the era, the place and the character of the various personalities. (From the periodical “Hatomim”, Vol. 6, pp 92-93.)]

From among the things that R. Abba Persohn recollected on that occasion:

An aged chassid by the name of R. Chaim Shmuel of Kreslava: Five times he visited the Maggid of Mezritch, who gave him his blessing that he should live to see a fourth and a fifth generation engaged in Torah and Chassidus. After he brought his grandson's grandson to the local cheder to begin his schooling, he passed away at the age of 116.

The following account is from among the things that this R. Chaim Shmuel of Kreslava heard during his visits to Mezritch:

For six years the Baal Shem Tov refused to become revealed; for this, six years were deducted from his lifetime. He passed away on a Wednesday; a mnemonic of this is to be found in the phrase referring to the fourth day of Creation [as yom shenitlu ham'oros -- "the day on which the luminaries were suspended (in the heavens)," which the Alter Rebbe once paraphrased in this context] as nitlu ham'oros -- "the luminaries were taken away." He passed away on the First Day of Shavuos in the year 5520 (1760), at the age of 61 years, eight months, and eighteen days.

At the extremely joyful festive meal on Lag BaOmer of that year, the Baal Shem Tov expounded the verse, ve'ahavta eis Hashem Elokecha -- "And you shall love the L-rd your G-d." He explained that the numerical value of ve'ahavta ("And you shall love") is twice the value of ohr ("light"). This in turn is the numerical equivalent of raz ("secret"), whose mirror image is zar ("a stranger"). I.e., the spiritual task of tzaddikim is to reveal the secret [Divine spark] which is present even in a [seeming] stranger [to Divinity]. This revelation generates light -- through the fulfillment of ve'ahavta ("And you shall love"), which is twice the value of ohr ("light"), alluding to the two modes of [Divine] revelation: ohr yashar ["direct" revelation, the Divine revelation achieved by the Tzadik, through his direct relationship with G-d] and ohr chozeir ["reflected" or indirect revelation, achieved when the Divine spark is revealed even in the “stranger” to Divinity. This relates to the concept of Teshuvah, through which “one’s sins became merits”]. When regarded as units (mispar katan), the three digits that indicate the numerical value of the three Hebrew letters that spell ohr ("light") total nine. Twice this equivalent of ohr [corresponding to the two forms of Divine revelation described above] comes to eighteen.

"And in eighteen days," he concluded, "I will behold the sublime ohr chozeir [though an indirect revelation, it actually reveals a deeper level of G-d’s true greatness, revealing that G-d’s truth even permeates that which seems to be a “stranger” to Divinity]; as it is written, v'haruach tashuv el haElokim asher n'sanah -- 'And the spirit will return to G-d, Who gave it.' [in Hebrew both chozeir – the term used to refer to the indirect revelation of Divinity – and the word tashuv mean return. Thus this verse can be interpreted to be a reference to the spirit attaining a revelation of the deepest source of the indirect revelation of Divinity] Moreover, ruach aysei ruach v'amshich ruach -- 'The spirit evokes spirit and draws forth spirit,' with a new revelation that will shine until the coming of Moshiach."

He passed away eighteen days after Lag B’Omer, on the First Day of Shavuos of that year.

The Maggid of Mezritch remarked that the 26 years of the Baal Shem Tov's leadership correspond to the numerical value of the Four-Letter Divine Name Havayah, and to twice the numerical value of echad -- "One" [as in the verse, “Hear O Israel… the Lord is One”].

I hope the semantics weren’t too complex, but to be sure I’ll try and put the general point into more simple words:

It is the Tzaddik’s mission to reveal G-dliness in this physical world, there are two general modes via which he achieves this. 1) Through direct service of G-d the fulfillment of Mitzvos and the study of Torah, unimpeded by the various tribulations that confront the ordinary man. The Tzaddik is not plagued by the self-centered wills of the Evil-Inclination or the Animal Soul and is free to commit himself entirely to the service G-d. 2) The Tzaddik not only serves G-d himself but inspires others to do so too. This is achieved (in the Chabad system) by teaching the ordinary people about G-d and the special relationship that we share with him, and which we can reveal through his service; or (in the Chagas system) by actively revealing G-d’s special relationship with us through working miracles and (in both systems, to a greater or lesser degree,) providing a living example of a physical being on this earth who has a tangible connection with the A-mighty. In inspiring the ordinary man to struggle against the natural inclination of the Animal-Soul, that he may commit himself to the service of G-d, the Tzaddik reveals the spark of G-dliness which is hidden even in those who naturally appear to be “strangers” to Divinity. The Divine service and dissemination of G-dliness that is achieved through the struggle of the ordinary man has the “advantage of light in a dark place” – it burns all the brighter, revealing that G-d is not only manifest in the naturally “holy” or “spiritual”, but also in the mundane and the physical. Indeed this is the primary mission for which the Tzaddik’s soul descends into this physical world.

If any specifics remain unclear, I will endeavor to clarify them in the comments below.

The Great Merit of Learning Tanya By-Heart

2010-05-10T02:30:00.000-07:00

From a talk of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zatza”l delivered on Shabbos Parshas Mishpotim 5714:

Translators note: the following story describes events that took place in spiritual realms, belonging to a dimension beyond human conception or description. Not having the words to describe such sublimity we must resort to a description, which does not do justice and is to a great extent incongruent, with the true nature of the spiritual realms described.

Due to a certain matter which the Rebbe Rashab achieved, his father, the Rebbe Maharash, took him into the supernal realms, till a particular place to which the Rebbe Rashab was able to accompany the rebbe Maharash. From there the Rebbe Maharash continued on by himself. In the meantime, the Rebbe Rashab noticed a chamber where a particularly brilliant Divine revelation was manifest. There sat a Jew who relative to his level of Divine service, apparently did not belong in such a lofty realm.

When the Rebbe Maharash returned, the Rebbe Rashab asked him, “How did come about that this Jew reached such an exalted realm?” The Rebbe Maharash answered, “Though he is, indeed, a simple Jew, he was nevertheless fluent in Tanya and was accustomed to repeating Tanya by-heart.”

The lesson from this story [explained the Rebbe Zatza”l] is that even an individual who is lacking in understanding and intellectual assimilation, nevertheless merits a great revelation. However, in order not to sit in that lofty realm with “closed eyes” seeing without comprehending, hearing and not understanding that which one hears – one must study and understand with comprehension and intellectual assimilation. Then one will be in a situation of open eyes and ears [having a proper appreciation for the exalted and wondrous revelation].

The way to understanding and comprehension is first and foremost through effort, simply to toil in one’s study of Chassidus for “one who claims that he did not toil, but nevertheless succeeded, is not to be believed.” (see Megilah 6b)

Added to this is the recommendation that one give charity, physical charity and who much more so spiritual charity, through which “ones heart and mind become purified a thousand fold.” (see Torah Ohr, 1a)

May these words provide some measure of comfort as we mourn the untimely loss of HaTomim Nosson Notte ben Reb Zalman Yuda A”H Dietsch.

A picture of Nosson listening to the in depth Shuirim of Reb Yoel Kahn on Tanya, in the summer of 5769

Hatomim Nosson Dietsch OBM

2010-05-04T23:02:00.000-07:00

הת' נתן נטע בן ר' זלמן יודא ע"ה דייטש

http://rememberingnosson.blogspot.com/

A bochur who I knew personally. He knew the fifty-three perokim of Tanya and Igeres HaTeshuvah by heart, word-by-word. He had a heart of Gold and was always smiling. In his presence everyone was comfortable, everyone was smiling. The void he leaves behind him will never be filled.