Habad (Lubavitch) is among the best known Hasidic communities in

the world. One is indeed likely to encounter a “Lubavitcher” at a wide

HABAD in the Twentieth Century

range of occasions, from Hanukkah menorah lightings on the main
squares of countless towns and cities to of�icial Jewish ceremonies
hosted by non-Jewish public �igures and, naturally, at one of the
thousands of Habad Houses, where “emissaries” cater to the religious
needs of Jews. However, readers wishing to expand their knowledge
of Habad’s special nature would be hard-pressed to �ind an accessible,
up-to-date, and balanced scholarly exposition on this topic.
The present anthology, which consists of four articles on Lubavitch from
the turn of and through the end of the twentieth century, endeavors
to address this lacuna. The authors of the articles are leading scholars
of Habad who study the movement from the perspectives of history,
theology, sociology, and politics. Habad perpetuated its theological,
organizational, and political characteristics during its entire history.
This collection offers informed perspectives on Habad as a whole.

ISBN 978-965-227-349-9 ISBN 978-965-227-351-2

Jonatan Meir is a professor of modern Jewish thought at Ben-
Gurion University of the Negev. He has published monographs and
many articles on the Jewish Enlightenment, Hasidism and modern
kabbalah. He is the author of Imagined Hasidism: The Anti-Hasidic
Writings of Joseph Perl (2013), Kabbalistic
9 789652 273499
Circles in Jerusalem (2016);
9 789652 273512
Literary Hasidism: The Life and Works of Michael Levi Rodkinson (2016).

Gadi Sagiv is senior lecturer at the Open University of Israel. He is

the author of Dynasty: The Chernobyl Hasidic Dynasty and Its Place HABAD in the
Twentieth Century
in the History of Hasidism (2014) and a co-author of Hasidism:
A New History (2017).

Cover Illustration: Tomkhei Tmimim Yeshiva Students in Otwock (Poland), Spirituality, Politics, Outreach
Summer 1939; Photo: With permission of the Lubavitch Archives, New York

Edited by
ISBN 978-965-227-350-5 ISBN 978-965-227-352-9 Jonatan Meir | Gadi Sagiv

9 789652 273505 9 789652 273529

25.00 USD ₪ 81.90 :‫מחיר מומלץ‬

2018 ‫ פברואר‬:‫תאריך הופעה‬
Habad in the Twentieth Century
Spirituality, Politics, Outreach

Edited by

Jonatan Meir • Gadi Sagiv

The Zalman Shazar Center for the Study of the History

of the Jewish People
Jerusalem
 Contents

Efraim Halevy Preface 9

Gadi Sagiv and

Jonatan Meir Foreword 17

Naftali Loewenthal “The Thickening of the Light”: The

Kabbalistic-Hasidic Teachings of Rabbi
Shalom Dovber Schneersohn in Their Social
Context 25

Elliot R. Wolfson Achronic Time, Messianic Expectation, and

the Secret of the Leap in Habad 63
Alon Dahan Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s
Outlook on the Land of Israel, Zionism,
and the State of Israel 105
Samuel Heilman Lubavitch and How and Why It Is Taking
Over the Jewish World 137
 Foreword

Gadi Sagiv and Jonatan Meir

Habad (Lubavitch) is among the best known Hasidic movements in the

world. In the eyes of many, Jews and non-Jews alike, it has become the most
conspicuous representative of Orthodox Jewry. One is indeed likely to come
across a “Lubavitcher” (a member of the group) at a wide range of
occasions: Hanukkah menorah lightings on the main squares of countless
towns and cities; official Jewish ceremonies hosted by non-Jewish public
figures; and at one of the thousands of Habad Houses (the Hasidism’s
far-flung outreach centers around the world), where “emissaries” cater to the
religious needs of Jews. The ecumenical Jewish image that Lubavitch has
acquired camouflages the fact that the movement possesses unique attributes
not only compared with other Orthodox Jewish groups, but other Hasidic
factions as well. However, readers wishing to expand their knowledge of
Habad’s special nature would be hard-pressed to find an accessible,
comprehensive, up-to-date, and balanced scholarly exposition on this topic.
For the most part, we are currently forced to make do with research on the
group’s luminaries or biased works by its members and admirers. The
present anthology, which consists of four articles on Lubavitch in the
twentieth century (as well as the end of the nineteenth century), endeavors
to chip away at this scarcity of information. In this foreword, we will lay
the groundwork for the topic at hand with a brief history of Habad before
the twentieth century.
The emergence of Habad should be understood against the backdrop of
the Partitions of Poland – the division of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth among the three surrounding empires of Russia, Prussia,
and Austria. In 1772, during the first of the three partitions, a swath of land,
which is today part of Belarus (“White Russia”), was transferred to Tsarist
Russia. This area was indeed home to many Hasidim (followers of the

17
 G a d i S a g iv an d Jo n a ta n Me ir

Hasidic movement), who were led by Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and

Avraham of Kalisk. Both were influential disciples of the Maggid of
Mezertich (a prominent disciple of the Baal Shem Tov, who is perceived to
be the founder of Hasidism) and each became a Hasidic leader (tsaddik in
Hebrew or rebbe in Yiddish, among other titles) in his own right. Five years
later, Menachem Mendel and Avraham relocated to the Land of Israel for
reasons that are not entirely clear (these motives are indeed the object of
scholarly debate). The two Hasidic leaders planned to continue their
leadership from afar by guiding their flock via epistles. However, their
followers wanted a living, approachable leader in somewhat close
proximity. To this end, the Hasidim in that area began traveling beyond the
borders of White Russia to tsaddikim in Volhynia (a region in what is now
northwestern Ukraine) and central Poland. In an effort to preserve their
crumbling assembly, Menachem Mendel and Avraham turned to Shneur
Zalman of Liady (1745–1812), a fellow disciple of the Maggid, entreating
him to preside over their followers in White Russia. Shneur Zalman’s
acceptance of this offer in 1786 can be seen as the beginning of Habad. The
community would be headed by the Schneerson dynasty for more than two
centuries. Since the passing of Menachem Mendel Schneerson in 1994,
Lubavitch has forged ahead in the absence of a leader as before and like
other dynasties.
Habad historiography presents its upper echelons as an unbroken dynasty
of seven nesi’im (presidents) who seamlessly passed the scepter down the
line of succession. In reality, there were inheritance battles, schisms, and
even power vacuums along the way. What is more, this tableau of seven
leaders only pertains to the main branch of Habad that was named after
Lubavitch, their town of residence during the nineteenth century. However,
there were also long stretches in which multiple courts vied for primacy or
independence.
The passing of Shneur Zalman in 1812 triggered a succession struggle
between his son Dov Ber (1773–1827), and the late rebbe’s close disciple
Aharon HaLevi of Staroselye (1776–1829), in which the former ultimately
prevailed. As in other Hasidic groups, Dov Ber essentially molded Habad
into a familial dynasty. Furthermore, he established the “capital” in

18
 Foreword

Lubavitch, a town that the movement – or, more precisely, its main faction
– is strongly identified with to this day. Following his death, the second
rebbe was replaced by his son-in-law, Menachem Mendel Schneersohn
(1789–1866), who is also known as Tsemach Tsedek – after a collection of
halakhic works under this authorship. Another feud erupted after Menachem
Mendel’s demise. His youngest son, Shmuel (1834–1882) took over the
court in Lubavitch, whereas his older brothers founded independent courts
in other towns. These alternative centers indeed functioned for several
decades, but the dynasty later reunited under the court in Lubavitch. Once
again, the passing of the movement’s head, Shmuel, was met by a pause in
succession. Though the circumstances are vague, his eldest son, Zalman
Aharon, eschewed the helm. After having already moved to Vitebsk,
Shmuel’s second son, Shalom Dovber (1860–1920), returned to Lubavitch
and became the heir. Until the end of the Tsarist era, he was the most
prominent Hasidic figure throughout the empire. The next in line was his
son, Yosef Yitshak Schneersohn (1880–1950), who was succeeded by his
son-in-law Menachem Mendel (1902–1994) – the seventh and last leader of
Habad.
Whereas the majority of Hasidic rebbes sufficed with tending to their own
community, Lubavitch’s eminences viewed themselves and acted as though
they were the heads of the entire Jewish people. For instance, in the early
nineteenth century, it appeared as though the Tsarist government was going
to curtail the residency rights of village-dwelling Jews. Consequently,
Shneur Zalman embarked on a fund-raising trip that took him well beyond
Habad’s area of distribution. Most notably, Shalom Dovber filled a key role
in the Orthodox Jewish establishment from the end of the nineteenth century
to the initial stages of Bolshevik rule. Within this framework, he cooperated
and competed with prominent non-Hasidic rabbis. Likewise, Yosef Yitshak
deemed himself to be the savior of Russian Jewry under the communist
regime. This ecumenical ideology and the aforementioned developments
shaped the worldview and enterprise of the last rebbe, Menachem Mendel
Schneerson.
These pretensions of leading the Jewish world were tied to another
defining attribute of Habad – the complex mutual relations between the

19
 G a d i S a g iv an d Jo n a ta n Me ir

leadership and the non-Jewish authorities. These connections began

inadvertently. Informants, perhaps mitnagdim (opponents of Hasidism),
reported to the authorities on Shneur Zalman, who was detained in 1798 and
1800 on charges of subversion. After a series of investigations, Shneur
Zalman was cleared of all suspicion. His release, though, was followed by
instances of Lubavitch collaboration with the regime. For instance, Shneur
Zalman supported Russia during the Napoleonic Wars (as a spy!), thereby
earning accolades from the Romanovs. His son and successor, Dov Ber,
backed government initiatives for Jewish agricultural settlements. Moreover,
the third rebbe (the Tsemah Tsedek) sat on a committee established by the
authorities with the aim to standardize Jewish education. That said, it was
this very prominence that impelled the regime to surveil and investigate the
movement’s senior ranks. At any rate, Lubavitch is considered a “Russian”
Hasidic court to this day, not only because it was the first to be taken under
the wing of the Tsarist government, but also because of its relationship with
the Russian authorities. In these relationships it stood out from all the other
Hasidic groups in the empire.
Habad also excelled from an organizational and administrative standpoint.
From as early as Shneur Zalman’s reign, a system was implemented to help
the leadership keep tabs on its far-flung devotees. Emissaries were
appointed to visit affiliated communities where they conveyed the rebbe’s
messages and assembled information for the court about the lives of the
Hasidim. Moreover, the court ran various institutions such as a philanthropic
arm, which financially supported members in the Land of Israel. And from
1897, the court cultivated a network of yeshivot called Tomkhei Tmimim (lit.
Benefactors of the Pure).
Habad is perhaps the Hasidic group with the most extensive literary
tradition, manifested in printing and circulating books. In all likelihood, this
characteristic is tied to the movement’s organizational prowess. The most
famous Habad work is the Tanya. Penned by Shneur Zalman, the core of
this book explicates how an “average” (beinoni) Hasid can attain spiritual
heights. In fact, all of Habad’s seven leaders are attributed with numerous
teachings, which were later collected in books. This output consists
primarily of various Hasidic theological-ethical teachings. On rare occasions,

20
 Foreword

the rebbes also produced halakhic literature. Furthermore, the Igrot Kodesh
(lit. “Holy Epistles”) – a collection of letters that the leaders wrote to
various correspondents – were meticulously assembled by devotees.
Over the course of its existence, Habad has also put out a wide range of
historiographic works, foremost among them are Haim Meir Heilman’s Beit
Rabbi (1902), as well as Yosef Yitshak Schneersohn’s literary enterprise
during the first half of the twentieth century. Targeting an internal audience,
this corpus advances a variety of myths that revamped the movement’s
chronicles. Furthermore, this body of work was intended to serve as a
quasi-alternative to both maskilic and research literature. In the words of the
scholar Ada Rapoport-Albert, this is “hagiography with footnotes” – a
fictional literature under the guise of history. These works evolved into an
airbrushed version of reality that was accepted by many Lubavitchers.
Similarly, Habad adopted the “Kherson repository” – a collection of
fabricated epistles that are “dated” to the movement’s inception. The tension
and discrepancies between this hagiography and the research literature still
pervade quite a few contemporary works on Lubavitch.
Against this backdrop, what did the movement’s leaders wish to convey
to their followers? Given the voluminous amount of Habad writing, a
comprehensive description is beyond the confines of this volume. However,
we can have a glimpse of the ethos of Habad by comparing the image of
“the Habad way” to the approaches of other Hasidic groups. In fact, Habad
members have long understood themselves by contrasting their own
movement’s ideology to that of other Hasidic courts.
According to this binary image of Habad vis-à-vis other groups, Habad
champions an exoteric ethos that strives to reveal secrets of divinity to the
entire flock. In addition, every member of Habad, regardless of his lot in
life, is encouraged to contemplate the Godhead. Therefore, it is the job of
the Hasidic leader to provide spiritual guidance that will allow his followers
to pursue these goals on their own. This outlook indeed explains why the
leaders of Habad were inclined to deliver Hasidic teachings at great length.
Conversely, in other Hasidic groups, which Lubavitch dubbed “Hasidisms of
Poland” (apparently in contrast to its own “Russian” nature), spiritual
responsibility was transferred from the member to the leader. On the

21
 G a d i S a g iv an d Jo n a ta n Me ir

premise that the “simple Jew” lacks the independent means for spiritual
endeavor, the “Polish” courts gradually reached the conclusion that the rank
and file should be instructed to distance themselves from such pursuits.
Instead, they should focus on cultivating their pure faith in the Almighty
and his worldly representative – the tsaddik. As such, a weighty burden is
thrust on the Polish tsaddik’s shoulders; besides offering guidance to the
flock, he must see to their spiritual and material needs. For this reason, his
most influential public undertakings are to conduct mystical prayers and
perform miracles. Moreover, the Polish rebbe usually did not deliver lengthy
theoretical Hasidic teachings; they were more attenuated to the practical
implications of the ethical message and sometimes also wanted to conceal
esoteric kabbalistic knowledge. To borrow a Hasidic metaphor that was
formulated in this particular context, the Habad leader who guides his
followers “shepherds the flock,” whereas his counterparts in “the Hasidisms
of Poland,” who remove the responsibility from their followers’ shoulders,
also “carry the sheep.”
A common way of formulating this difference is to categorize the
Lubavitcher ethos as intellectual worship. This ideology is manifest in the
three kabbalistic imperatives that form the acronym HaBaD: Hokhma
(wisdom), Binah (understanding), and Da’at (knowledge). In contrast, the
ethos of “Poland” is presented as the Hasid working on his or her middot
(attributes), namely the emotional and instinctual dimensions of one’s
character. For the most part, these divergent outlooks are brought up in the
Habad discourse, where they express and reinforce the flock’s
self-awareness as a group that has intellectually outshone the rest of the
Hasidic world. Put differently, in the Habad sources one can sometimes
discern a belief in the Habad Hasidim’s superiority to occupy themselves
with spiritual enterprise compared to followers of other Hasidic groups.
The intellectualist nature of Lubavitch is manifest, to a large extent, in
the seven leaders’ concerted efforts to impart to their followers a Lurianic
strain of kabbalistic knowledge. Likewise, the rank and file are taught to
predicate their religious belief on the contemplation of the Godhead. This
exoteric approach ran counter to other Hasidic groups in the Russian

22
 Foreword

expanse, which objected to the average Hasid’s study of kabbalah and

preached for “simple faith” instead.
All these eighteenth- and nineteenth-century lineaments of Habad – its
leaders’ belief that they were the heads of the entire Jewish people; the
leadership’s close relations with government authorities; the movement’s
administrative prowess; prolific literary output; and intellectualist ethos –
basically endured into the 1900s, the temporal focus of this anthology. Elliot
Wolfson’s article showcases the intellectual range and depth of Lubavitch
philosophy. In the second chapter, Naftali Loewenthal demonstrates how
this thought has been passed down to the faithful. Moreover, he opens a
window onto the movement’s literary vigor. Samuel Heilman delves into
organizational aspects of Habad. From Alon Dahan’s article, one gets a
sense of Habad’s pan-Jewish aspirations and its attendant political
involvement.
From philosophical, organizational, and political standpoints, Habad has
essentially perpetuated the doctrines the group embraced during the first two
centuries of its existence. In consequence, even though this collection
focuses on the twentieth century, in certain respects, the authors explore
issues that have long defined the Habad movement.

23