Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady

The Origins of Chabad Hasidism

Immanuel Etkes, Jeffrey M. Green, Jeffrey M. Green

• Publisher: Brandeis University Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781611686791
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

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.

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 ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• 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