Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of Chabad Hasidism

By Immanuel Etkes and Jeffrey M. Green

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745–1812), in imperial Russia, was the founder and first rebbe of Chabad, a branch of Hasidic Judaism that flourishes to the present day. The Chabad-Lubavitch movement he founded in the region now known as Belarus played, and continues to play, an important part in the modernization processes and postwar revitalization of Orthodox Jewry. Drawing on historical source materials that include Shneur Zalman’s own works and correspondence, as well as documents concerning his imprisonment and interrogation by the Russian authorities, Etkes focuses on Zalman’s performance as a Hasidic leader, his unique personal qualities and achievements, and the role he played in the conflict between Hasidim and its opponents. In addition, Etkes draws a vivid picture of the entire generation that came under Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s influence. This comprehensive biography will appeal to scholars and students of the history of Hasidism, East European Jewry, and Jewish spirituality.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Brandeis University Press
• Release date: Dec 2, 2014
• ISBN: 9781611686791

Book preview

THE TAUBER INSTITUTE SERIES

for the Study of European Jewry

JEHUDA REINHARZ, General Editor

SYLVIA FUKS FRIED, Associate Editor

EUGENE R. SHEPPARD, Associate Editor

The Tauber Institute Series is dedicated to publishing compelling and innovative approaches to the study of modern European Jewish history, thought, culture, and society. The series features scholarly works related to the Enlightenment, modern Judaism and the struggle for emancipation, the rise of nationalism and the spread of antisemitism, the Holocaust and its aftermath, as well as the contemporary Jewish experience. The series is published under the auspices of the Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry—established by a gift to Brandeis University from Dr. Laszlo N. Tauber—and is supported, in part, by the Tauber Foundation and the Valya and Robert Shapiro Endowment.

For the complete list of books that are available in this series, please see www.upne.com

Immanuel Etkes

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of Chabad Hasidism

*Robert Nemes and Daniel Unowsky, editors

Sites of European Antisemitism in the Age of Mass Politics, 1880–1918

Sven-Erik Rose

Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany, 1789–1848

ChaeRan Y. Freeze and Jay M. Harris, editors

Everyday Jewish Life in Imperial Russia: Select Documents, 1772–1914

David N. Myers and Alexander Kaye, editors

The Faith of Fallen Jews:

Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi and the Writing of Jewish History

Federica K. Clementi

Holocaust Mothers and Daughters: Family, History, and Trauma

*Ulrich Sieg

Germany’s Prophet:

Paul de Lagarde and the Origins of Modern Antisemitism

David G. Roskies and Naomi Diamant

Holocaust Literature:

A History and Guide

*Mordechai Altshuler

Religion and Jewish Identity in the Soviet Union, 1941–1964

Robert Liberles

Jews Welcome Coffee: Tradition and Innovation in Early Modern Germany

*A Sarnat Library Book

RABBI SHNEUR ZALMAN of LIADY

The ORIGINS of CHABAD HASIDISM

IMMANUEL ETKES

Translated by JEFFREY M. GREEN

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY PRESS

Waltham, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY PRESS

An imprint of University Press of New England

www.upne.com

© 2015 Brandeis University

All rights reserved

For permission to reproduce any of the material in this book, contact Permissions, University Press of New England, One Court Street, Suite 250, Lebanon NH 03766; or visit www.upne.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Etkes, I.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: the origins of Chabad Hasidism / Immanuel Etkes.

pages cm.—(Tauber Institute series for the study of European Jewry)

Summary: The history of Hasidism and East European Jewry through the biography of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady—Provided by publisher.

ISBN 978-1-61168-677-7 (cloth: alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-61168-679-1 (ebook)

1. Shneur Zalman, of Lyady, 1745–1813.

2. Rabbis—Belarus—Biography.

3. Hasidim—Belarus—Biography.

4. Habad—History. I. Title.

BM755.S525E855 2014

296.8'332092—dc23

[B] 2014017838

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction

CHAPTER 1 | Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s Rise to Leadership

CHAPTER 2 | A Leader of Hasidim

CHAPTER 3 | Between Center and Periphery

CHAPTER 4 | Sefer Shel Beinonim: The Book of Average Men

CHAPTER 5 | On the Front Line against the Mitnagdim: Excommunications and Prohibitions

CHAPTER 6 | At the Front versus the Mitnagdim: The First Imprisonment

CHAPTER 7 | At the Front against the Mitnagdim: The Second Arrest

CHAPTER 8 | Zaddikim as Human Beings: The Conflict with Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk

CHAPTER 9 | Between Napoleon and Alexander

Conclusion

Notes

Bibliography

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Hebrew original of this book was published by the Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History in 2012. The writing of the book and the research that underlies it extended over several years. Twice during those years I was privileged to be a guest of the Center for Jewish Studies at Harvard University. I am grateful to Jay Harris and Shaye Cohen, who were then the heads of the center, for their generous hospitality and their collegial relationship, which helped me move the research forward. I spent the last three years of my tenure as a full professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem as a fellow in the research group on religion and education, which met under the aegis of Scholion, the Interdisciplinary Research Center in the Humanities and Jewish Studies. My colleagues in the group, Tamar Elor, the late Michael Heyd, and Baruch Schwarz, enriched and taught me, both during the joint seminars and in our many conversations. Yisrael Yuval, the academic head of the center, and the staff of the center, spared no effort to place everything we needed at our disposal for productive and enjoyable work. I am deeply grateful to them all.

I also wish to thank Michael Heyd, Yisrael Yuval, Uriel Gellman, and Ilia Lurie, who read chapters of the manuscript and offered intelligent comments; David Assaf and Yehoshua Mondshein, who never refused to offer me advice and insight when I asked them questions; and Chava Turniansky, who helped me translate concepts from Yiddish to Hebrew. I owe special thanks to Ada Rapoport-Albert, who read most of the chapters of the book and commented on them. Ada also showed great generosity and patience in agreeing to discuss certain questions yet again, when they arose in the course of the research. Her wise and well-chosen words were extremely helpful.

Sylvia Fuks Fried, the executive director of Brandeis University’s Tauber Institute, assisted in preparing the English version of the book from the start and contributed generously with her experience and good judgment. The assistance and support of Phyllis Deutsch, the editor in chief of University Press of New England, was invaluable in transforming the book from its Hebrew original to the well-produced English version now in your hands. Jeanne Ferris edited the translation meticulously and thoroughly. I am grateful to them all. Finally, special thanks are in order to Dr. Jeffrey M. Green, for his intelligent and readable translation.

INTRODUCTION

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady began to lead the group of Hasidim, which eventually came to be called Chabad, in White Russia in the mid-1780s. This was a time of flourishing and expansion for early Hasidism, which took its first steps as a movement soon after the death of the Baal Shem Tov (the Besht), in 1760, when some of his associates and disciples began to disseminate the Hasidic way of worshiping God. Around the mid-1760s Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezritch, established the first Hasidic court, and within a few years his disciples had founded more courts in the same pattern. These courts served as centers for conversion to Hasidism. Propagandists on behalf of the court sought to attract men with a Torah education to visit the court and stay there for a Sabbath or holiday. The visitors to the court were exposed to the Hasidic ethos, which was expressed in enthusiastic prayer; sharing meals; singing and dancing; and, of course, the Zaddik’s sermon, which was the vehicle for spreading Hasidic ideas. The extraordinary experience they underwent while visiting the court led many of them to adopt the Hasidic way of worshiping God and to become attached to one of the movement’s leaders.

In the 1780s, when Shneur Zalman began to function as a leader, Hasidism had already succeeded in gaining a foothold in most of the regions of the former kingdom of Poland-Lithuania.¹ At that time Rabbi Levi Yitshaq of Berdichev and Rabbi Nachum of Chernobyl were active in the Ukraine. In Lithuania Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin and Rabbi Chaim Chaikel of Amdur were the leaders of the Hasidim. Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk had gained fame in Galicia, and in Poland many followers of Hasidism were attracted to Rabbi Ya‘aqov Yitshaq, the Seer of Lublin. In White Russia, Shneur Zalman was preceded as a Hasidic leader by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk. These two rabbis led a large group of Hasidim to the Land of Israel in 1777 and became the heads of the Hasidic community in the Galilee. This brief survey, which includes only the most prominent Hasidic leaders of the 1780s, is sufficient to demonstrate the extent of the movement’s expansion at that time.

Although all of these leaders saw themselves as following the trail blazed by the Besht, and although most of them were disciples of the Maggid of Mezritch, it was only natural that each one adopted his own particular style of leadership and placed his personal stamp on the sect of Hasidim he headed. Therefore, not surprisingly, these Hasidic sects were not uniform, and each had its own particular character. Nevertheless, it is no exaggeration to state that Chabad Hasidism stood out in its uniqueness, in comparison to the other trends of Hasidism in this period.

How was the uniqueness of Chabad Hasidism expressed under the leadership of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady? First, it was the largest group of Hasidim in Eastern Europe at the time. An anecdote preserved in the tradition of the Bratslav Hasidim, which centers on a meeting between Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav and Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, conveys the image of Chabad Hasidism that was then prevalent among the Hasidim themselves: Our Master [R. Nahman] may the memory of that righteous and holy man be for blessing, said to his people concerning the Rabbi [Shneur Zalman]: Show honor to ‘a ruler of thousand’ [see Exod. 18:21]. And our master [Rabbi Nahman], asked the Rabbi [Shneur Zalman]: ‘Is it true as they say about you, that you have eighty thousand Hasidim?!’"² In Russian government circles it was widely estimated that the number of Hasidim following Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady came to around 40,000.³ However, the number of Hasidim connected to Shneur Zalman certainly was nowhere near 80,000, and even the figure of 40,000 seems exaggerated. Nevertheless, from various accounts it is clear that there were definitely several thousand Chabad Hasidim at that time.

Chabad Hasidism was also unique in its patterns of organization, with a degree of organization that, as far as we know, was unparalleled in other Hasidic sects. Among these patterns, we might mention the regulations that regulated the visits of Hasidim to the court and their personal meetings (yehidut) with Shneur Zalman. Another example is the system of emissaries and local leaders, through whom Shneur Zalman could supervise and influence the religious life in Hasidic prayer groups throughout White Russia. But most of all, Chabad was unique in its spiritual-religious ethos, which was marked by the teachings of Shneur Zalman. Among the outstanding characteristics of this ethos, we can mention a significant exposure to the Kabbalah, contemplative prayer as a framework supposed to lead to the experience of devequt (mystical cleaving to God), and the great emphasis placed on Torah study. Moreover, the Hasidim who were connected to Shneur Zalman possessed a canonical text that he wrote: the Tanya. This book, unique in the Hasidic literature of its day, served as a comprehensive and detailed guide to the ways of serving God.⁴

Without doubt Shneur Zalman of Liady played a decisive role in forming the special character of Chabad Hasidism during the many years that he was its head (1786–1812). Thus Shneur Zalman should be regarded as the founding father of Chabad Hasidism in his generation and for generations to come. Indeed, the central purpose of this book is to describe and characterize Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s particular path as a Hasidic leader. The first chapter seeks to answer the question of how he became the leader of the Hasidim of White Russia. We find that his rise to a leadership position was a complex process that can teach us several lessons about the character of the Hasidic movement at its beginning. The second chapter offers a comprehensive description of the management of Shneur Zalman’s court. Among other points, it discusses the institution of yehidut; the sermons, which were anchored in the Kabbalah; the patterns of organization of the court; and the way it was financed. In the course of this chapter we treat the tensions and dilemmas with which Shneur Zalman was required to cope because of the multitude of Hasidim who crowded into his court, and the ways he chose to resolve them.

The connection between the court and the Hasidic prayer groups in the periphery is one of the topics discussed in chapter 3. Since he placed the main responsibility for elevation in worship of God on the shoulders of the Hasidim, Shneur Zalman had a deep interest in what was done in the prayer groups that were dispersed throughout White Russia. This chapter also deals with two episodes in which Shneur Zalman was involved in the general affairs of the Jews of the Russian Empire. His actions in these cases demonstrate the room for maneuvering that was enjoyed by a Hasidic leader who showed initiative and vision in a period when community organization had weakened. The final part of the chapter is devoted to the fundraising of the Hasidim in White Russia on behalf of their brethren in the Land of Israel. This was a popular project on a broad scale, headed and inspired by none other than Shneur Zalman. However, this important project reached a crisis after a fierce controversy broke out in 1797 between Shneur Zalman and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk, the leader of the Hasidim in the Galilee.

The central subject of chapter 4 is Sefer Shel Beinonim (The book of average men), which is the principal part of the Tanya. In the Tanya, Shneur Zalman sought to offer the reader detailed, comprehensive, and systematic instructions in the ways of worshiping God. Thus a work that is unparalleled in the history of Hasidism, certainly at the beginning, came into being. The book is unique because Shneur Zalman imbued it with Kabbalistic and Hasidic elements, combining them into a new systematic structure. The Tanya therefore embodies the Hasidic way of worshiping God, with its Kabbalistic foundations—in the manner that Shneur Zalman saw fit to present it to the Hasidim. The questions discussed in this chapter are: What is the nature of the worship that Shneur Zalman sought to inculcate in his Hasidim? And who were the readers that the book was intended to address? To answer these questions, the chapter follows the discussion in the chapters of Sefer Shel Beinonim one after the other, as the Hasidim who read the book were exposed to it.

For more than three decades, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady stood at the forefront of the struggle against the opponents of Hasidism (mitnagdim), to which three chapters of this book are devoted. Chapter 5 traces Shneur Zalman’s intervention at various stages of this conflict, from his abortive visit—with Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk—to the home of the Vilna Gaon in the winter of 1772 to the exacerbation of the conflict in the 1790s. Among other things, the chapter examines how Shneur Zalman coped with the positions taken by the Vilna Gaon and his use of Halakhic arguments to counter the opponents of Hasidism. Another issue discussed in this chapter is the effort made by Shneur Zalman to instruct his Hasidim to act with restraint and moderation in response to the persecution.

The denunciations against Shneur Zalman to the Russian authorities, his two arrests (in 1798 and 1800), and the interrogation that came in their wake are at the center of the sixth and seventh chapters. The discussion of these episodes also reveals the Russian government’s evaluation of and response to the controversy between the Hasidim and the mitnagdim. Among other things, it becomes clear that to the Russian government, Shneur Zalman appeared to be the leader of all the Hasidim in the Russian Empire. Shneur Zalman’s written answers to the questions asked by his interrogators are of special interest. Although they were composed in order to placate the authorities, they are an authentic expression of Shneur Zalman’s self-image as the leader of the Hasidim and of his conception of the place and purpose of Hasidism in a broad historical context.

After decades of close collaboration between Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk, the leader of the Hasidim in the Galilee, a bitter and prolonged controversy broke out between them. The motivations and considerations underlying this controversy, as well as a detailed account of its unfolding and consequences, are at the center of chapter 8. The apparent bone of contention between them was ideological in nature: Rabbi Abraham challenged Shneur Zalman’s opinion that one should reveal the secrets of the Kaballah to the Hasidim. However, as an examination of the course of events shows, the ideological controversy was merely a secondary cause of the dispute, which is overshadowed by various interests and considerations of influence and prestige. The title of this chapter is Zaddikim as Human Beings, suggesting that when a dispute breaks out between Hasidic leaders, it is not free of the instincts and emotions typical of any dispute between ordinary people. Indeed, each party in this dispute leveled harsh accusations against his adversary. The final part of this chapter is an effort to determine which one was speaking the truth.

Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 confronted the Jewish leaders in the Russian Empire with a fateful dilemma: should they support Napoleon or Alexander? Shneur Zalman’s struggle with this dilemma is the subject of chapter 9. The chapter is based on the detailed testimony of Dov Ber, Shneur Zalman’s son, about the positions his father took toward the two embattled emperors and also about his flight into the Russian interior, along with members of his family, as the French army advanced. In the light of this testimony, Shneur Zalman emerges as a leader whose support of Alexander, including involvement in espionage for the Russian army, was anchored in sober, long-range considerations of the welfare of the Russian Jews after the war.

The historical reconstruction proposed here is mainly based on letters written by people of the time. Many of these letters were written by Shneur Zalman himself. Some of them were sent to individuals, but most were meant for wide circulation, either among the Hasidim living in a certain community or among all Hasidim. These letters are combined with others sent to Shneur Zalman or referring to him. The book is also based on letters sent by Hasidim in the Land of Israel to their brethren back in Russia. Most of these letters were written by the Hasidic leaders in the Land of Israel, but a few of them were written by individual Hasidim in the Galilee. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of contemporary letters as a historical source, especially since most of them were written by the protagonists of the story that this book tells.

However, it should be pointed out that many of these letters have come down to us without the date of their composition, and in a few cases without any indication of the addressee or addressees to whom they were sent. In the eyes of the Hasidim who copied the letters and preserved them for following generations, they were not viewed as a historical source but as valuable documents whose messages did not depend on the circumstances of time or place. For this reason, some of the letters have not reached us in their entirety, since the copyists omitted what seemed unimportant to them. Moreover, the letters in question were usually delivered by messengers, who, in addition to the letters that they bore, also conveyed oral commentary. Hence, the authors of the letters sometimes permitted themselves to write allusively, assuming the matter would be explained in full by the messenger. Despite these limitations, the many letters that are extant and available to us are a treasure trove for the historian who seeks to describe the life and work of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady. It is doubtful whether there is a similarly abundant source of contemporary letters relating to any other Hasidic leader of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

In the light of the foregoing, it is fitting to praise the work of the scholars who collected these letters, established their texts, commented on them, and added clarifications as to the date of their composition and their addressees, when that information was not explicitly mentioned in the manuscripts or printed editions which were the scholars’ sources. First of all was David Zvi Hilman, whose Igrot Ba‘al Hatanya Uvenei Doro (The letters of the author of the Tanya and his contemporaries) appeared in 1953. In the introduction, the author writes: "In this book were collected all the letters, responses, and documents pertaining to the Old Rebbe, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, the author of the Tanya and Shulhan ‘Arukh, both those written by him and those written to him or about him by his contemporaries."⁵

In 1980 the collection Igrot Kodesh Meet Kevod Kedushat Admor Hazaken, Kevod Kedushat Admor Haemtsa‘i, Kevod Kedushat Admor Ha˝Tsemah Tsedeq,˝ (Holy letters by His Holy Honor the Old Admor, His Holy Honor the Middle Admor, His Holy Honor, the Tsemah Tsedeq), edited by Shalom Dober Levin, was published in Brooklyn. The second part of this collection, a supplemental volume, was published in 1993, also in Brooklyn. Unlike Hilman, who included letters sent to Shneur Zalman and letters about him in his volume, the collections edited by Levin contain only the letters of the rabbis of Chabad. However, Levin was able to consult many manuscripts, and thus he was able to correct scribes’ errors, fill in passages that had been omitted from earlier printed editions, and publish some letters for the first time. Levin added an appendix titled Sources and Comments, in which he stated where the letters were first printed and which manuscripts had been available to him. He also added important clarifications regarding the dates of the letters, their addressees, and their backgrounds.

An invaluable contribution to research on the struggle between the Hasidim and the mitnagdim, including Shneur Zalman’s involvement in the struggle, was made by Mordechai Wilensky in his two-volume work Hasidim Umitnagdim, which was published in 1970. Wilensky added important clarifications to the documents that he published, and in his introductions to them he gave information about historical episodes to which the documents refer. We should also mention Wilensky’s book on the Hasidic settlement in Tiberias, which includes previously unpublished letters accompanied by important explanations.

Regarding the letters of the Hasidim in the Land of Israel, in 1957 Israel Halpern published Ha‘aliyot Harishonot Shel Hahasidim Leerets Yisrael (The first immigrations of Hasidim in the Land of Israel), where he included a list of these letters with short explanations. Ya‘aqov Barnai collected the letters and published them in 1980 with commentary and an introduction in Igrot Hasidim Meerets Yisrael, Min Hamahatsit Hashniya Shel Hameah Ha18 Umereshit Hameah Ha19 (Hasidic letters from Eretz-Israel, from the second part of the eighteenth century and the first part of the nineteenth century). A more comprehensive collection of the letters of Hasidim from the Land of Israel was included in the second volume of Aharon Soraski’s Yesod Hama‘ala (The foundation of ascent). However, this volume, published in Bnei-Braq, Israel, in 1991, was edited according to considerations inconsistent with the principles of critical research.⁶

This book is also based on another body of sources: the collections of documents related to the two incarcerations of Shneur Zalman and the investigations that came in their wake. These documents were kept in the archives of the prosecutor general in St. Petersburg. Some of them were copied and translated into Hebrew some time ago, while others were copied and translated into Hebrew only recently. Yehoshu‘a Mundshein contributed greatly to this work, having published the first Hebrew translations of the documents relating to Shneur Zalman’s first imprisonment. He was also the first to publish the answers composed by Shneur Zalman to the accusations of Rabbi Avigdor Ben Haim of Pinsk at the time of his second imprisonment. From the same archive Mundshein also copied the Mikhtavei Qabalot (Letters of receipts) of the Hasidim in the Land of Israel, which shed light on the funds raised for them by the Hasidim of White Russia. All of these documents, as well as several letters that relate to the struggle between the Hasidim and the mitnagdim, were published in the two volumes of Kerem Habad (The vineyard of Chabad), published in Kfar Chabad in 1992. Mundshein published other important documents in a collection titled Migdal ‘Oz (Tower of strength), published in Kfar Chabad in 1980.

In sum, this volume could not have been written if these collections had not been available to the author.

Considerable scholarship has been devoted to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, but most of it deals with his ideas instead of his life and activity as a Hasidic leader.⁷ Among the works that deal with Shneur Zalman’s doctrine, some focus on a specific aspect of it,⁸ while others aim at comprehensiveness.⁹ Some examine Shneur Zalman’s teaching in comparison to other streams of Hasidism,¹⁰ and others compare it to non-Hasidic thought, such as that of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin.¹¹ In addition, a comprehensive work has been published that examined the thought of Shneur Zalman in comparison to that of Christian and Hindu mystics.¹²

As noted above, only a few studies have been published about the life and work of Shneur Zalman as a Hasidic leader. The first important effort in this direction was made in the early twentieth century by Mordechai Teit­el­baum.¹³ Teitelbaum sought to cover both the story of Shneur Zalman’s life and his teaching, based on—among other things—the letters of Shneur Zalman that were available to him and documents from Russian archives.¹⁴ However, since the publication of Teitelbaum’s book, immense progress has been made in the historical study of Hasidism, and many additional sources have been discovered that shed light on the life and work of Shneur Zalman. In the second half of the twentieth century, only a few articles appeared that discussed aspects of his life and work.¹⁵ However, scholars who discussed the struggle between the Hasidim and mitnagdim have paid attention to the role played by Shneur Zalman in this struggle.¹⁶ Important information regarding the cooperation between Shneur Zalman and the leaders of the Hasidim in the Land of Israel can be found in the book by Mordechai Wilensky on the Hasidic settlement in Tiberias.¹⁷ Of special interest is Naftali Loewenthal’s book, which covers the first two generations of Chabad leadership.¹⁸ Loewenthal includes both historical and ideological aspects, but most of his attention is devoted to the ethos of Chabad as a movement that sought to disseminate Hasidic messages to the general public.

 Yours is not to finish the task.¹⁹ The present book does not pretend to cover every aspect of Shneur Zalman’s accomplishments. As the foregoing summary has shown, the main concern of the book is his activities as a Hasidic leader. The chapter dealing with his thought was written from this point of view, and thus certain important theoretical questions were not discussed.²⁰ Moreover, Shneur Zalman’s Halakhic work also remains beyond the area of discussion here, and it is a fertile field that invites cultivation on the part of experts in the matter.²¹ Still, this book seeks to present, for the first time in more than a century, a comprehensive survey of Shneur Zalman’s life and work from the time that he became a Hasidic leader until his death.

CHAPTER 1

RABBI SHNEUR ZALMAN OF LIADY’S

RISE TO LEADERSHIP

Leadership from a Distance: A Failed Effort

How did Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady became the leader of the Hasidim in White Russia? How did the youngest student of Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezritch, became a Zaddik venerated by thousands of Hasidim, who crowded into his court, yearning to hear his teachings? Shneur Zalman’s rise to leadership did not fit the pattern that Hasidic tales wove around the figure of the Besht: the Zaddik who conceals his powers and mission from the public until the proper time comes, when he reveals himself suddenly in his full majesty, and the members of a sect of Hasidim crown him as their leader.¹ Unlike other Hasidic leaders of his generation, Shneur Zalman did not rise to the position of leadership because of his ancestry. Moreover, in contrast to most of his colleagues, Hasidic leaders who were disciples of the Maggid of Mezritch, Shneur Zalman did not regard himself as destined to serve as a leader, and for that reason he made no effort to attract a community of Hasidim to him. In fact, he became a Hasidic leader only after acceding to the repeated requests of Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk, two Hasidic leaders in White Russia who had emigrated to the Land of Israel in 1777.

The Chabad tradition connects Shneur Zalman’s rise to leadership to the immigration of the Hasidim to the Land of Israel, and it presents the connection between these two events as direct and immediate. According to this tradition, when Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk made their way to the Land of Israel at the head of hundreds of Hasidim, Shneur Zalman and his household were among the immigrants. However, when they reached Mohilev on the Dniester, the border between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, both the Hasidim of White Russia and the leaders of the Hasidic immigrants pleaded with Shneur Zalman that he should stay in our country and be eyes for us, and he was constrained to fulfill their request.² This implies that even before leaving for the Land of Israel, the immigrant Hasidic leaders had chosen Shneur Zalman to take their place, and for that reason they prevailed on him to give up his intention of moving to the Land of Israel with the members of his household. The weakness of this tradition lies in the gap of many years that separates the Hasidic immigration to the Land of Israel in 1777 and Shneur Zalman’s first activities as a leader, which took place around 1786. Moreover, the sources available to us do not support the claim that Shneur Zalman intended to emigrate in 1777. Thus it appears that the Chabad tradition applied a conclusion from later events to earlier ones: although Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk did prevail on Shneur Zalman to lead the Hasidim in White Russia, this took place only several years after 1777. By predating this turn of events, the Chabad tradition also justifies Shneur Zalman’s absence from among the immigrants to the Land of Israel.

As noted, Shneur Zalman’s rise to a leadership position was connected to the immigration of Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk to the Land of Israel and to the vacuum they left behind them in White Russia. However, as we shall show below, his rise was an extended process, gradual and full of doubts and obstacles.

After their arrival in the Land of Israel, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk were determined to continue leading their flock in White Russia. The first of Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s extant statements on this matter is included in a letter from 1781 to the Hasidim of White Russia. This letter contains a kind of declaration of intention, which Rabbi Menachem Mendel was to repeat, though with changes in tone and emphasis, in letters that he wrote in the following years. Central to this declaration is Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s aspiration to continue leading the Hasidim in White Russia and his statement that he is capable of doing so. The spiritual bond that connects him with every one of them would be able to bridge the geographical distance that separated them. Moreover, by virtue of his dwelling in the Land of Israel, he could look deeply into the bodily and spiritual needs of the Hasidim, and thus he could have a greater influence in meeting those needs.³

Not surprisingly Rabbi Menachem Mendel repeatedly emphasized the advantages of the prayers that he offered in the Land of Israel on behalf of the Hasidim in White Russia. The Land of Israel stood at the gate of heaven, and the prayers that came from it were more influential. Nevertheless, Rabbi Menachem Mendel left no doubt among his Hasidim that he yearned to guide them in every aspect of divine worship.⁴

Indeed, a major part of the letters that Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vi­tebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk sent to Hasidim in White Russia was devoted to detailed discussions of various questions regarding divine worship. Among other things, the letters discussed the following subjects: the mussar books that should be studied daily; Torah study as a means of cleaving to God; and stratagems for improving one’s moral qualities, freeing oneself from corporality, and coping with the obstacle of strange and distracting thoughts.

In trying to continue leading the Hasidim in White Russia even after moving to the Land of Israel, these two leaders sought to create a new model of Hasidic leadership based on sending letters to the Hasidim as a group as well as to certain communities or individuals. Oral messages were added to these letters, delivered by the emissaries who arrived in the Hasidic prayer communities in White Russia to collect financial contributions and take them back to the Land of Israel. Doubtless Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham were aware of the difficulty involved in this model of leadership, a difficulty most obvious in the lack of direct contact between the Hasidim and their leaders. In trying to compensate the Hasidim for this lack, the rabbis emphasized the advantages inherent in their dwelling in the Land of Israel. At the same time, they strove to maintain some of the intimacy of personal contact by repeated declarations that their souls were bound to the souls of the Hasidim, and that the Hasidim always stood before their eyes, wherever they looked.

Why did Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk want to continue serving as the leaders of the Hasidim of White Russia even after they had settled in the Galilee? What considerations and desires underlay their decision not to be content with leading the Hasidim who had accompanied them on their journey to the Land of Israel? The first answer that comes to mind is their dependence on the contributions of the Hasidim living abroad. Indeed, from the start it was clear that the immigrant Hasidim could not survive in the Land of Israel without constant financial support from the Hasidim who had remained in White Russia. Maintaining the close connection between those Hasidim and their leaders in the Land of Israel was therefore vital to ensuring their continued support. In spite of the importance of this consideration, we cannot rule out the possibility that the two rabbis wanted to continue bearing the yoke of leadership for other reasons. After all, they had worked for years to disseminate the ways of Hasidism in White Russia. Thus it is only natural that they should wish to continue influencing their flock. Furthermore, had they given up the effort to continue guiding the Hasidim, this would have left a leadership vacuum and an opening to spiritual degeneration. In addition to the foregoing, we must add the reason that Rabbi Menachem Mendel cited in his letters: the experience of spiritual elevation undergone by the Hasidic leaders in the Land of Israel aroused an awareness in their hearts that now, more than ever, they were capable of leading their flock in the ways of Hasidic worship of God.

Be that as it may, the efforts of these two rabbis to continue to lead the Hasidim in White Russia while living in the Land of Israel were unsuccessful. In the early 1780s the Hasidim in White Russia began to travel to Hasidic courts in Vohlynia and Lithuania. This trend, which continued and increased in following years, is a strong indication that the no longer direct bonds with the leaders in the Land of Israel did not satisfy the expectations of the Hasidim who remained abroad. Neither the number nor the percentage of Hasidim who traveled to the courts of other Zaddikim is known. Nevertheless, they were doubtless a considerable minority. Proof of this can be found in the strength of the reaction on the part of Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham.

In the letters they sent to the Hasidim in White Russia from the beginning of the 1780s, the two rabbis strenuously opposed travel to Vohlynia and Lithuania. They made various arguments to explain this opposition, arguments that grew in vehemence as the phenomenon continued. In a letter of 1782, Rabbi Menachem Mendel argued that traveling to other Zaddikim caused suspension of Torah study and prayer. In 1783 he linked travel to other Zaddikim with the events of the time: in the wake of complaints by Hasidim in White Russia against the renewal of persecution by the mitnagdim, Rabbi Menachem Mendel replied that if the Hasidim had listened to his advice and refrained from traveling, they would have spared themselves the persecution, because travel to other Zaddikim aroused the envy of the mitnagdim.⁵

Starting in 1782, Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham were not content with protesting against traveling to foreign Zaddikim, and they proposed an alternative: instead of traveling to Zaddikim in other countries, the Hasidim of White Russia should seek advice and guidance from three important men among them. The three were Rabbi Israel of Polotsk, Rabbi Issachar Ber of Lubavitch, and Shneur Zalman.⁶ Rabbi Israel of Polotsk was one of the most prominent of the Hasidim who immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1777.⁷ Soon after arriving at their destination, the leaders of the immigrants sent Rabbi Israel back to White Russia to raise funds to support the Hasidic community in the Galilee. Rabbi Issachar Ber was a preacher in the community of Lubavitch and had been Shneur Zalman’s teacher in his youth. These three men collaborated in the early 1780s in organizing financial support for the Hasidim in the Land of Israel.⁸

On the function that Rabbi Menachem Mendel entrusted to these three men, he wrote: To illuminate their eyes and bring them to life. Their advice is trustworthy, and their action is truth. But all the things we said before you, may they not turn away from you.⁹ That is to say, the three men were to assist people with advice and instruction, but on no account were they to be seen as leaders in their own right. Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham retained the authority of leadership, and the three other men were meant to serve only as local counselors acting under their aegis and on the strength of the authority delegated to them.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s determination to keep the reins of leadership in his own hands and those of Rabbi Abraham appears again in a letter he sent to the Hasidim in 1783, where he again expresses opposition to their traveling to foreign Zaddikim. He mentions Shneur Zalman as someone who could be asked for advice in time of need. However, he cautions: Do not become habituated to this, but only occasionally by chance.¹⁰ He explains this reservation by stating that too many appeals to Shneur Zalman might arouse feelings of envy. However, the principal consideration that guided him was probably concern that the strengthening of Shneur Zalman’s status would erode his own authority and that of his colleague, Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk.

Toward 1784 a new initiative arose among the Hasidim in White Russia: instead of traveling to Zaddikim who lived in Vohlynia and Lithuania, the Hasidim wanted to invite one of those Zaddikim to settle among them. Perhaps they hoped in this way to avoid the risks connected with travel to foreign Zaddikim, against which Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham had warned. In any event, Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s reaction to this initiative was entirely negative. Although, as he wrote, I love all the Zaddikim in the countries of Vohlynia and Lithuania, and none of them is suspect in my eyes, perish the thought, none of them was as capable as he was of leading the Hasidim of White Russia. Moreover, consulting a foreign leader would not only be useless, it might also lead to spiritual degeneration.¹¹

In trying to convince the Hasidim to set aside the new initiative, Rabbi Menachem Mendel again called on them to find spiritual satisfaction in the letters that he sent them from time to time. These letters contained guidance that suited their spiritual needs and were intended to fill the vacuum left by his emigration to the Land of Israel. Solely as a supplement and complement to the guidance found in his letters, Rabbi Menachem Mendel suggested that the Hasidim could consult the three men who lived among them. He justified the loyalty that he demanded of the Hasidim by his intimate acquaintance with them.¹²

The tone of Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s words leaves no room for doubt that he truly feared that the Hasidim of White Russia might install a foreign Zaddik. This fear need not surprise us, because such an act was liable to erode his authority even more than occasional travel by the Hasidim to Zaddikim living in Vohlynia and Lithuania. At the same time, Rabbi Menachem Mendel most probably responded as he did not only out of fear that he would lose power over his Hasidim, and of course their financial support. Having led the Hasidim for years in a certain path of Hasidic worship of God, he worried that a foreign Zaddik might divert them from the right path. In any case, the initiative to invite one of the Zaddikim of Vohlynia or Lithuania to settle in White Russia was abandoned, apparently because of Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s determined opposition. However, the Hasidim continued to travel to foreign Zaddikim. The letters of Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham of 1783 and 1784 did not succeed in stopping the travel, though they implored the Hasidim to be content with addressing the great ones among them.¹³

The Appointment of Shneur Zalman as a Local Leader

A significant turning point in Shneur Zalman’s rise to leadership took place in 1785–86. In 1785 Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk implored him to lead the Hasidim in White Russia. Shneur Zalman answered that he was afraid to accept the task. However, the two leaders did not relent, and matters reached such a point that Shneur Zalman considered moving to the Land of Israel to free himself of their pressure.¹⁴ In 1786 the two rabbis again wrote letters to Shneur Zalman in response to his apprehensions and hesitations. In these letters they no longer spoke of sharing the burden between Shneur Zalman and others: Rabbi Israel of Polotsk was no longer alive, and they did not mention Rabbi Issachar Ber of Lubavitch at all. Moreover, the letters of Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham clearly show that they expected Shneur Zalman to act as a spiritual leader with extensive authority and no longer only as an adviser in urgent situations. Implicitly the appeal to Shneur Zalman reflects acknowledgment on the part of the two Hasidic leaders in the Land of Israel that they could no longer ensure the loyalty of the Hasidim in White Russia by means of letters and the assistance of local men who served as advisers from time to time. To guarantee this loyalty, a well-known local leader was needed, an influential man who would act with their inspiration and the authority they delegated to him. Shneur Zalman was chosen to do the job.¹⁵

Why Shneur Zalman? Several of his characteristics evidently influenced the choice. Shneur Zalman was a respected Torah scholar. Special importance was given to the fact that he had learned the teachings of Hasidism from Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezritch. Moreover, his relations with Rabbi Menachem Mendel, his teacher and colleague, were very close. His loyalty to the Hasidic leaders in the Land of Israel was also expressed in his management of fundraising for them. The years when he was active in fundraising brought his organizational abilities to the fore. Furthermore, during the time when he acted as a counselor in divine worship, Shneur Zalman also showed outstanding ability in that area. In sum, Shneur Zalman possessed scholarly acumen, a direct connection with the school of the Maggid of Mezritch, skills in spiritual leadership, organizational ability, and loyalty to the leaders in the Land of Israel.

However, Shneur Zalman was not eager to accept the yoke of leadership. The reason for his reluctance emerges from the arguments employed by Rabbi Menachem Mendel and Rabbi Abraham when they tried to convince him to overcome his hesitations.¹⁶ One of Shneur Zalman’s arguments was apparently that he was incapable of guiding the Hasidim in the ways of worshiping God. One might easily interpret this argument as an expression of his modesty as well as of his awareness of the weight of the responsibility that anyone who tried to lead a community in that area would have to bear. Rabbi Menachem Mendel rejected this argument dismissively, saying that Shneur Zalman had already proved his abilities as a spiritual leader when he served as an adviser in divine worship.

Most of Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s words refer to Shneur Zalman’s apprehensions lest he fail to satisfy the expectations of the Hasidim in connection to milei de‘alma (Aramaic: matters of the world)—in other words, taking care of their mundane difficulties. Shneur Zalman stated that he was not a visionary prophet, meaning that he had no supernatural powers of the kind that other Hasidic leaders attributed to themselves. Therefore he did not have the power to meet the needs of the Hasidim in connection with their livelihood, health, and the like. Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s response was that he himself was not a visionary prophet, and the main purpose of the leaders of Hasidism was to guide the Hasidim in divine worship.¹⁷

We have just seen Shneur Zalman’s apprehensions as reflected in the letter sent to him by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. An entirely different picture arises from a letter written to him by Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk.¹⁸ The latter’s efforts at persuasion focus on the tension between individual elevation and a mission whose purpose was to benefit the public. If Shneur Zalman was reluctant to serve as a leader, lest he might be forced to forgo his efforts to improve himself, Rabbi Abraham wanted him to know that the spiritual level he would reach from benefiting the public would be immeasurably higher.¹⁹

We thus find that three considerations underlay Shneur Zalman’s reluctance to accept leadership of the Hasidim in White Russia: apprehension lest he were unworthy of guiding the Hasidim in divine worship, recognition that he could not fulfill the expectations of the Hasidim on the practical level, and fear of the personal price entailed by