Isaiah Berlin and his wife Aline, Oxford, 1969; photograph by Dominique Nabokov
Last month Aline de Gunzbourg, the wife of Isaiah Berlin, passed away at the age of 99 (see obituaries here and here). Both Aline and Isaiah were scions of the Jewish philanthropic aristocracy of 19th century Russia. Aline's grandfather, Baron Horace de Gunzbourg (aka Ginzberg or Günzburg), was the most prominent backer of the Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment Among the Jews of Russia. In other words, a leading proponent of acculturation and secularization. Originally Isaiah's family name was Zuckerman, but his father Mendel took the surname of his great uncle and patron, the prominent Chabad industrialist and philanthropist Yeshayeh (Isaiah) Berlin, whose first name Mendel later gave to his son.
Yeshayeh Berlin was not only a follower of Chabad chassidism and a leading backer of the fifth rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shalom DovBer Schneersohn (Rashab), in his battle to combat acculturation and preserve traditional Jewish life. Yeshayeh Berlin was also married to the Rebbe's first cousin, Chayetta. Both were grandchildren of the third rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn (the Tzemach Tzedek). Chayetta's sister Frumma was Isaiah Berlin's great grandmother.
In short, the Berlins of Oxford were descendants of two opposing ideological factions within the uppermost the philanthropic Jewish aristocracy of Tsarist Russia. Despite the ideological opposition the Schneersohns and Berlins maintained cordial relationships with the de Gunzbourg family, and worked together with them on economic and humanitarian projects of mutual interest. One example, which I wrote about here, was the Chinese matzah campaign of 1905. Although Baron Horace de Gunzbourg initially declined Rabbi Shalom DovBer's plea for help in this endeavor, the latter latter suggested that the former's son, Baron David de Gunzbourg be invited to chair the campaign committee.
Isaiah Berlin was well aware of his illustrious chassidic lineage, but not at all acquainted with the intellectual and cultural riches of his chassidic heritage. His father, Mendel, fled to London following the communist takeover of Russia, but remained well connected with the Chabad leadership until his parents and inlaws were murdered following the Nazi conquest of Riga, circa 1941.
Berlin himself appears to have met the sixth Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, while in Marienbad in the Summer of 1933 (see Isaiah Berlin,Letters Vol 1. [1928-1946], page 56, and Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, Igrot Kodesh Vol. 3, page 43). In the aftermath of World War Two and the holocaust the family connection was eroded, and Isaiah's impressions of chassidism were too distant and superficial for him to pursue any remaining ties. But Mendel still looked back to the heyday of the Berlin family with nostalgia. In an eighty-six page manuscript dating from 1946 (held today by the Bodleian Library at Oxford, MS. Berlin 819 and MS. Berlin 820) he transcribed his own history, and the history of his chassidic forebearers. He also called upon his son to renew his connection with his roots, apparently to little avail.
For more on the history of the Berlin family see the first chapters of Isaiah Berlin: A Life by Michael Ignatieff.
The following is an abstract of my related article, reflecting a dialogue between Berlin's essay The Hedgehog and the Fox and Chabad thought, as recently published in Hakirah:
Identity and meaning hang upon the balance that must be struck between the two poles of unity and multiplicity. According to Isaiah Berlin this existential dilemma lies at the heart of Tolstoy’s great epic, War and Peace. All people that are not superficial believe in some kind of cohesive vision. But when the threads of life start to unravel even the wisest of men may be rendered mute. In The Gate of Unity and Faith Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi expands the quintessence of faith into the circle of reason, and fits the square of dissonance into the circle of life.
If the deity is infinite and omnipotent, can the deity simultaneously combine two mutually-exclusive events?
The true nature of the divine self is difficult to conceptualize or explain. I do not wish to embroil myself or the reader in an abstract and convoluted philosophical discussion. Instead, I will focus on two illustrative text samples, drawn from the vast corpus of Chabad Chasidic thought.
The first statement is from Hemshech Samach Vov (Vayolech Hashem Et Ha-yom, P.223), by Rabbi Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch.
"The concept of infinitude (ain sof), literally without limitation, is that no property can be ascribed to the deity, and the deity cannot be defined with any description at all... Even the most wonderful and lofty description cannot be applied - even the description "without limit." Conversely, one cannot preclude anything from the deity, for the deity carries all things (potentially but not actually...) and the deity is precluded from everything. This is the concept of infinitude (ain sof): the preclusion of any description; the preclusion of limitation; the preclusion of any affirmation and the preclusion of any negation; the inclusion of all by default. All this is only possible for the very essentially of the divine self (bechinat ho-atzmut mamash), whose being is of its own self, and who is the true being whose being transcends actual being (aino be'bechinat metzi'ut nimazah)."
The second selection is from Kuntras Mai Chanukah (P. 24), a compilation by Rabbi Yoel Kahn from the talks of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The context here is the famous question of the Beit Yosef as to why eight days of Chanukah are celebrated; if there was actually enough oil for one day apparently no miracle occurred on the first day? The following answer is offered:
"Since the miracle was made in order that the lighting of the menorah could be done in the finest possible way (for according to the law they were entitled to light using impure oil, [and a miracle was unnecessary, accept to allow them to avoid any legal lope-holes]), it makes sense to say that the miracle occurred in a form that allowed the oil to remain completely natural oil [as prescribed by law], without any quantitative or qualitative addition.
In other words: When the Beit Yosef writes "that they found the lamps filled," the intention is not that the oil was first burned up, and afterwards new oil was created ("miracle oil"), but that the miracle was that the oil had never been burnt up at all, just like the burning bush about which the verse says, "behold the bush burnt in fire, and the bush was not consumed." Accordingly, they fulfilled the commandment to light the menorah with completely natural oil, which remained utterly unchanged (not quantitatively or qualitatively).
According to this explanation, the combination of the natural and the miraculous is further highlighted. It transpires that the very fact that they had natural oil specifically was achieved via a wondrous miracle that completely transcends the limitations even of a regular miracle. The light of the lamps must come from the oil, and the oil must be turned [by combustion] into fire and light. If the oil is not consumed it follows, however, that the light did not come from the oil. If so, we must say that the miracle was such that although the oil was turned into fire and light, it nevertheless remained untouched. This is a most transcendent miracle, simultaneously embodying two mutually-exclusive events. It transpires that through a completely transcendent miracle specifically they were able to light the oil with completely natural oil."
For a fun, humorous, entertaining, deeply illustrative and thoughtful re-imagining of how this miracle occurred see The Menorah Files by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman.
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:
[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.
A story: The fifth Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn
was once asked, “it is known that all earthly realities stem from a Divine
archetype, what then is the Divine source of atheism?” Rabbi Sholom DovBer
replied, “The atheist does not believe that God exists as empirical realities
exist, 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 of
physical 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 inChoives 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.
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…
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.
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?”
This Monday, the 26th 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.
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 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
While documenting the efforts of the Rebbe Rashab to provide Matzah for Jewish Soldiers in the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905), we came a across an interesting letter, dealing with the role of Toimchei Temimim in this area. In this letter the Rebbe Rashab replies to a suggestion made by his son and successor, Rabbi Yosef Yitchok, that the offices of Toimchei Temimim be utilized in the efforts to gain support. In reply, the Rebbe Rashab sets out to explain the purpose for which Toimchei Temimim was founded, and clearly defines the limitations of its field of activity. As we will demonstrate, this letter is not merely of localized significance, but rather carries multifaceted ramifications that are relevant to this day.
Writing from Petersburg on the 18th of Teves 5665 (1905), the Rebbe Rashab briefly summarizes the general situation relating to the efforts to acquire government approval, before continuing:
Your proposal in this regard that the letters should be sent from Toimchai Temimim, doesn’t resonate with me and I don’t advise it all… This is a matter that relates to the individual and doesn’t enter into [the agenda of] a general matter such as Toimchai Temimim and the like…
The primary underlying purpose of Toimchei Temimim is to fortify the youngsters and guard them from any damaging entity… with G-d’s help, to plant within in them fear of G-d and love of G-d. Similarly in any place [not only within the established Yeshives of Toimchai Temimim] where they [the faculty of Toimchei Temimim] have the ability to strengthen hands [that are] weak in Torah and service [of Hashem], for instance to establish shuirim to learn with the youngsters in the villages… too draw them to Torah and to try and plant fear of heaven in their hearts, that they will separate themselves from forbidden things, and desire to fulfill Mitzves in practice. This is the certified purpose of Toimchei Temimim.
However its purpose is not to worry about the fulfillment of specific Mitzves or [to] guard against specific things, for instance its [Toimchei Temimim’s] purpose is not to ensure that there should be supervisors on the Kashrus of meat (which is one of the issues which are extremely pressing… and if we had a “committee for the strengthening of Yidishkeit” this would be one of its primary functions…) Similarly regarding the keeping of Shabboss and the like, and Sukkah and Lulev etc. Similarly its purpose is not to worry about the matter of the Matzah – it is self understood that each and every Jew, being that he is a Jew, must worry about this, and actively invest effort in this [endeavor] as much as he is able, however this is not the its [Toimchei Temimim’s] purpose and in this matter it [the faculty of Toimchei Temimim] is like each and every private individual of our Jewish brethren.
This letter provides far reaching insight into the problems confronting Russian Jewry at the time and the primary methods which the Rebbe Rashab employed to resolve them. In those days Yidishkiet and the practical observance of Torah and Mitzvos, came under the threat of the increasing influence of the Haskaleh (“enlightenment”) movement in general and various political and Zionistic elements, which promoted a cultural and ideological version of Judaism, rather than Torah true Yiddishkiet. Two possible avenues where open to the leaders of Torah true Jewry at the time, 1) to fight the Haskaleh head on with a campaign promoting Yiddishkiet on a very practical level, encouraging people and helping them to raise their standards of Yiddishkiet, 2) to instill the younger generation with the inspiration and fortitude necessary to withstand the attacks of the Haskalah, motivating hundreds of young men to themselves become proactive bastions for the promotion of Torah true Yidishkeit in whatever the situation and wherever they may be found.
While the first option may yield faster and more visible results, the Rebbe Rashab realized that in the long run the cultural and social appeal of the Haskalah movement would prove more popular than Torah true Yidishkiet. The only real solution would be to deal with the root of the problem, carefully grooming the younger generation to be impervious to the attraction of the Hakalah. In other words, rather than dealing with the issue on an external (and solely practical) level, the Rebbe Rashab set out to create a new type of individual, impervious to any damaging entity and inculcated with a sense of privilege and responsibility to act for the sake of heaven. Individuals, whose very presence in a particular locale would inspire an atmosphere of love and fear of G-d, and automatically encourage the furtherance of Torah true Yidishkeit on all levels. By establishing Toimchei Temimim, the Rebbe ensured that there would always be private individuals who would be ready to dedicate themselves to the needs of Yidden and Yiddishkiet whatever they may be.
The points made above are born out from many sources, however this letter adds an added dimension in that it describes the limitations of Toimchei Temimim’s function as well as its purpose: A clear distinction is made between the general purpose for which Toimchei Temimim was founded – a purpose to which its efforts are to be devoted to exclusively – and specific “projects” – which while worthy of attention in their own right, are not within the field of activities that Toimchei Temimim was set up to attend to. While the faculty are duty-bound as private individuals to invest their efforts in all areas of Yidishkiet without distinction, these activities must remain private and do not enter under the banner of Toimchei Temimim. Furthermore (as explained earlier) the success of Toimchei Temimim would automatically produce a large base of individuals who would themselves be instilled with a sense of duty to invest their efforts in all areas of Yidishkeit without distinction.
Apart from anything else, this letter provides us with important lessons in the conduct of communal affairs: 1) No matter how valid a particular cause, for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness each organization must stick to the particular field it was set up to address. 2) This certainly does not mean that an individual who has already committed himself to the efforts of one organization is relieved of his responsibilities elsewhere. Rather if a new issue presents itself a new committee or organization must be formed to deal with it and it is incumbent on every private individual to consider what he or she can do to further the efforts of that organization. 3) Obviously, no private individual can do everything all at once; one must therefore commit oneself more fully to the area where the individuals particular capabilities can be used to maximum effect and delegate in other areas, offering moral and monetary support according to one’s means.
Indeed, the vast majority of the original Temimim became Rabbonim, Shochtim and Melamdim throughout Russia (and later in America and Eretz Yisroel) who where Moiser Nefesh for Yidishkeit at every level, promoting Chinuch, Mikaveh and Kashrus at a very practical level. When the Friedike Rebbe came to America, his first step was to reestablish Toimchei Temimim. Although he later went on to found Merkoz L’Inyonai Chinuch and other organizations for the promotion of basic Yidishkeit, Toimchei Temimim remained the foundation upon which the future of Lubavitch would be built. To this day, this remains the basic model on which Lubavitch is set up to operate: the Yeshiva system is meant to cultivate and educate its Talmidim to be Temimim. As spelled out in the letter above, the purpose of Toimchei Temimim is (not to send Bochurim on Mivtzoim or to manufacture Shluchim, but) to create Temimim who live with an inner sense of אהבת ה' ותורתו– a sense of the responsibility and privilege of being a Torah and Mitzvah observant Yid. That sense of responsibility and privilege, automatically obligates the individual to invest all his efforts into the furtherance of Yiddishkeit in any way that he is can, helping his fellow Yidden to fulfill the will of Hashem, wherever they be found and whatever their situation.
Perhaps the most striking point which comes across is the simplicity with which the Rebbe Rashab treats the general issue of promoting such basic Mitzves as Kashrus, Shabbos, Sukkah, Lulev and Matzah. This is not in any-way seen as something unique to Chassidim or Lubavitch, but rather the natural responsibility and reaction of any every Torah Jew. In other words, the obligation of a Lubavitcher to be involved in activities referred to today as Mivtzoim should not be seen to stem from his identification with Lubavitch ideology specifically, rather, in this regard a Lubavitcher “is like each and every private individual of our Jewish brethren”. Indeed Mivtzoim was never instituted as an official part of the “curriculum” in Lubavitch Yeshivas, rather each Bochur as an individual takes it upon himself to spend his own free time on Friday afternoon taking care of his obvious responsibility to further the cause of Yidishkeit in whatever way he can.
ויהי רצון שע"י מעשינו ועבודתינו כל משך זמן הגלות נזכה להגאולה האמיתית והשלימה ע"י משיח צדקינו בקרוב ממש!
