Rebbe

Rabbi
SCHNEUR
ZALMAN
Of Liadi
A BIOGRAPHY
by
NISSAN MINDEL
‫חועתק ו חו מ ס לאינטרנט‬
vmw.hebrewbooks.org
‫ע״י חיי ם תשסייז‬
C habad Research C enter

Kehot Publication Society
770 Eastern Parkway / Brooklyn, NY 11213
R abbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi
A B iography
Published and C opyright © !969

Fifth Printing 2002
By
K ehot P ublication Society

770 Eastern Parkway • Brooklyn, New York 11213
(718) 7744000‫ • ־‬FAX (718) 774-2718
Order Department:
291 Kingston Avenue • Brooklyn, New York 11213
(718) 778-0226 • FAX (718) 778-4148
www.kehotonline.com
All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof, in
any form without prior permission, in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer
who wishes to quote brief passages.
ISBN 0-8266-0416-1
C ontents
Prefatory N ote VII

Foreword, by Lubavitcher Rebbe IX
Introduction XI
C hapter I Birth and C hildhood 1
C h a pter II “C onversion ” to C hasidut 13
C h a pter III First C risis 21
C hapter IV C hasm W idens 40
C hapter V Entrenchment U nder Fire 51
C hapter VI Internal C risis 73
C hapter V II Liozna , C enter of C habad 82
C hapter V III First Encounter W ith H askalah 95
C ha pter IX Publication of T anya 120
C ha pter X Imprisonment and V indication 130
C hapter XI S econd C risis 161
C hapter X II Final Years 187
C h a pter X III Last J ourney 216
N ot es
Introduction 237 C hapter VII 250

C hapter I 240 C hapter VIII 251
C hapter II 243 C hapter IX 252
C hapter III 244 C hapter X 253
C hapter IV 247 C hapter XI 256
C hapter V 248 C hapter XII 260
C hapter V 1249 C hapter XIII 262
Index 265
S upplement 283
Prefatory N ote
I1he present volume is the first of two volumes which deal
T ;
with the life and thought, respectively, of Rabhi Schneur
Zalman, known among Chasidim as the “Alter Rebbe”
(“Old Rabbi”) and to others as the Rav of Liadi, author of the
(Rau’s) Shulchan Aruch and the Tanya, and founder of the Chabad
philosophical system and way of life.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s contribution to Jewish thought will
be dealt with more fully in the forthcoming volume.
The present volume is concerned with the story of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s life and the dual historical role which he
played; Leader of Russian Jewry in the second half of the 18th
century and for more than a decade of the 19 th century, while at
the same time being the founder and head of the Chabad-
Chasidic school during the formative years of the Chasidic
movement in general; both roles harmoniously and inseparably
merging into one.
This biography should be of interest not only to the student
of Jewish history, but also to the contemporary lay reader who
has often asked: What is it that moves and motivates the
Chabadniks, more popularly known as Lubavitchers, in their
dynamic activity to revitalize Jewish life in all parts of the world,
often at great personal sacrifice, and— in countries behind the
Iron Curtain— with complete disregard to adverse circum‫׳‬
stances?
A clue to this phenomenon will be found in this biography,
bearing in mind that Rabbi Schneur Zalman was the progenitor
VII
R abbi S c h n e u r Z a l ma n
of the Chabad'Lubavitch dynasty of Jewish leaders, setting the

pattern, by example and precept, for both the leaders and fob
lowers of the Chabad school of thought and way of life.
In presenting this biography, the author has endeavored to
avoid embellishment, and to use a minimum of personal com
mentary, letting the events speak for themselves.
The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to the
Chabad Research Center for making available to him manu
scripts and material from the archives of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s
library. Grateful acknowledgment is extended also to his associ
ates, whose helpful cooperation has made his task much easier.
N issan Mindel
24th of Tevet, 5729
VIII
Foreword
by
Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson
‫זזיוקללה״ה נכ>'פ ז<״ע‬
the Lubavitcher Rebbe
(to first edition)
T • he moral person must strive to bring his personal life and

daily conduct in full harmony with his convictions; to
live up to the standards of morality and ethics which he
would like others also to adhere to. This is particularly true of the
Jewish religious person, since the Jewish religion is a way of
everyday life, and considers the deed— the actual conduct in the
daily life— as the essential thing and the ultimate purpose of
knowledge. The Chasidic philosophy goes a step further. While
considering the deed essential, it demands that the deed be per
meated with vitality and inwardness. Insisting that there can be
no substitute for the actual fulfillment of duty, Chasidus insists at
the same time that such action be animated; that the act have a
“soul.” It is only on this level that a person can achieve true
harmony in every aspect of his daily life, physical, emotional and
intellectual; harmony of all his “components”— his Divine soul,
animal soul and physical body, as well as harmony with the world
in which he lives.
As one studies the biography of the Alter Rebbe, the expo
nent of the Chasidic teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and the
founder of the Chabad school of Chasidus, one cannot but mar‫׳‬
vel at the complete accord between his personal life and his phi‫׳‬
losophy and teachings. Indeed, he was the living embodiment of
all that he taught, and more. It is for this reason also that we find
him to be a person of many accomplishments, down to small
detail. He strove to develop himself in every way. From his very
early youth he was known to recite his daily prayers with the
kavanot of the saintly SheLoH (Rabbi Isaiah Hurwitz), based on
the Kabbala of the Ari HaKadosh (Rabbi Yitzcbok Luria), and all
his daily activities were deeply probed and carefully measured.
IX
R abbi S c h n e u r Z a l man
Making Ahavat Yisrael— in its immediate application in actual prac-

tice— a cornerstone of his ethical system, he misses no opportU'
nity of applying it in his own life. Thus, no sooner does he come
in possession of a sum of money (quite substantial in those days),
than he dedicates all of it, in accordance with a prior stipulation,
as a fund for constructive economic help to needy families. He
was the Baal Kore’, reading the Torah in his congregation, with
particular attention to pronunciation and grammatical rules; he
was also the Baal Toke'a, sounding the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.
In composing his Shulchan Aruch, he personally checked and
counterchecked weights and measures defined by Jewish Law. He
studied algebra, geometry and astronomy in order not to have to
rely on others in making calculations essential to the study of the
Talmud and the making of legal decisions. Knowing the value of
neginah in the attainment of devekut, he himself composed nigU'
nim and sang them with soulful ecstasy. Meticulous in all his
ways, he sifted scores of prayer books (according to one tradi
tion— no less than sixty different versions) to produce a prayer
book punctilious in version and grammar.
The English reader is now fortunate in having been given
access to both the philosophy and biography of the Alter Rebbe,
in whom, as already mentioned, the former is fully reflected in
the latter, for his life was a living example of what he taught; and
both complemented each other. In regard to the philosophy, the
student of Chabad is no longer dependent upon secondary
sources (which are in any case very scarce). He can study the
basic work of Chabad, the Likutei Amarim (Tanya) in English
translation. As for the life-story of the author, the present vol
ume fills a longfelt need, for it is the first comprehensive biogra
phy of the Alter Rebbe in the English language.
Dr. N issan Mindel, who has the distinction and the zechut of
being the first to introduce the classic of Chabad philosophy, the
Likutei Amarim (Tanya) of the Alter Rebbe, to the serious mind
ed student who finds its easier to study it in English than in the
Hebrew original, has now followed it up with another “first,” the
present biographical volume. Eor this noteworthy contribution
the author and the Chabad Research Center are to be highly
commended.
Menachem Schneerson
Yud-Tet Kislev, 5729
X
Introduction
(H istorical Background)
G
eneral Chasidut,' as we will call the parent movement in
• distinction from Chabad^ Chasidut, its offshoot, arose in
the second quarter of the 18th century,^ and became one
of the outstanding developments in the history of Jewish reli
gious thought in modern times. It was founded by Rabbi Israel
Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760), a native of Podolia, at present a
part of the Ukraine, but at that time belonging to Poland. From
Podolia, where the Baal Shem Tov (popularly known by the
abbreviation BeShT, or Besht) first began to preach his doctrine,
the movement rapidly spread to the neighboring provinces of
Wolhynia, the Ukraine, Galicia, and other parts of Poland.
Thence it branched out to White Russia, Lithuania, Rumania
and Hungary. In due course, through the mass emigration of
Eastern European Jews to the West during the period of 1881
1914, the Chasidic movement established itself in virtually all
parts of the world. Today, two hundred years after the death of its
founder, it continues to constitute a vigorous religious and social
force in Jewish life.
The phenomenal growth of the Chasidic movement, which
within a century from its inception embraced half of the Jewish
population of Eastern Europe,'* was induced by various factors,
which had their roots in the social, cultural and economic con
ditions of Eastern European Jewry in the period under discussion.
These will be briefly reviewed in due course. A t the same time
some of the basic doctrines of the Baal Shem Tov, with their
XI
R abbi S c h n e u r Z al man
intrinsic appeal to the masses, contributed in no small measure

to their widespread popularity. Yet some of the factors which
contributed towards the rapid expansion of the Chasidic move'
ment were also partly responsible for the early opposition to the
movement. A detailed analysis of the relative role which each of
the pertinent factors played in the early history of Chasidut
would take us beyond our task. But whatever weight one may be
inclined to attach to any particular factor, it is as a religious
philosophical movement that Chasidut must be viewed above all
else. Needless to say, the early history of the movement could not
he understood without reference to the position of Eastern
European Jewry in the period under review, and this must now be
briefly outlined.
The calamitous year ot 1648 may well serve as a starting
point. In that year, exactly half a century before the birth of the
Baal Shem Tov, the Cossack insurrection under Hetman Bogdan
Chmielnicki broke out in all its savagery against the Poles and
the Jews. From the Ukraine the Cossack and Tatar hordes swept
through Poland, leaving a horrible train of death and desolation
behind them. For several years these massacres and atrocities
went almost unchecked, before the hordes were finally turned
hack to the steppes whence they came. Yet the surviving Jews
were given no respite. They were soon overwhelmed by the rav'
ages of war in the wake of the Russian and Swedish invasions
into Poland. Many areas which had escaped the Chmielnicki
holocaust found themselves in the path of invading armies. As if
the cup of woe for the Jews of Poland had not been filled to over
flowing, there ensued a period of the so-called “tumults” and out
breaks against the Jews of Poland, fanned by religious intoler
ance, which lasted to the end of the seventeenth century.
These tragic upheavals throughout the second half of the
seventeenth century left the Jewish population of Poland fear
fully decimated, economically ruined, and spiritually quite dazed.
Nor was Poland the only place where Jews had suffered. The
Thirty Years War (1618-48) had devastated many a prosperous
community in Central Europe; religious persecution was ram
pant in Austria, and the position of Jews in other countries was
extremely precarious.
XI1
Introduction
Under these circumstances, it is small wonder that the self-

styled Messiah, Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676), found the time
opportune for his pseudo-Messianic movement. He declared the
Chmielnicki massacres as the “birth-pangs of the Messiah,” and
himself as the Messiah. He gained many adherents, and excite
ment ran high among Jews in various parts of the world. In the
beginning of his career, even some prominent rabbis were
impressed with Shabbatai Tzvi. However, before long the rabbis
realized that Shabbatai Tzvi and his movement constituted a
grave danger to the Jewish people, and they began to oppose
him. But numerous Jews were prepared to follow him blindly.
The Messianic expectations had taken such firm hold on the
imagination of many Jews that not even the downfall of
Shabbatai Tzvi and his conversion to Islam could eradicate
them. Despite an all-out effort on the part of leading rabbis to
suppress the movement, it continued to hold sway over many
Shabbatian followers, especially in Poland, where it erupted
again, half a century later, in the form of the notorious Frankist
sect. Its leader, Jacob Frank, was a contemporary of the Besht and
also a native of Podolia. Eventually, he and most of his sect con
verted to Christianity.
Although these abortive pseudo-Messianic movements died
a natural, if not very peaceful, death, their after-effects lingered
on in the suspicion and mistrust which they had aroused within
the ranks of the Rabbinate. The tragic experience of Rabbi
Moses Chaim Luzzato (1707-1746) accused of pseudo-Messianic
doctrines, the controversy around Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz
(1690-1764) accused of Shabbatian leanings, and other major
and minor controversies among the leading rabbis of the period,
are all symptomatic of the Shabbatian aftermath. In all these
cases, the delving into the mysticism of the Kabbala was blamed
for the trouble.
As was to be expected, Kabbala fell into disrepute as a result
of the above-mentioned events, and its study, which had previ
ously been quite popular among many rabbis and in leading
Talmudic academies in Poland and elsewhere,^ became well nigh
proscribed.^
A direct result of the material impoverishment of the Jewish
XIII
R abbj S c h n e u r Z a l m a n
communities of Poland was, of course, the general deterioration

of the cultural level of the masses, which accentuated a social
problem of long standing. This was an important factor in the
early history of the Chasidic movement, a point that must be fur
ther elaborated.
Traditionally, the pursuit of knowledge was placed above
that of material riches in Jewish life. Poverty did not constitute
as serious a social stigma as ignorance. As far hack as Talmudic
times there was a marked social distinction between the chaver or
talmid'chacham (scholar) and the am ha’aretz (ignoramus).^ The
contempt of the former for the latter became a calculated atti
tude after the destruction of the Second Temple, when the study
of the Torah and religious observances assumed additional
importance as the main factors of national unity and survival.“
Realizing that the Jewish people, deprived as it was of its soil and
political independence, could not survive among the nations of
the world except through the preservati<)n of its cultural her
itage, the rabbis sought all means of disseminating the study of
the Torah and of discouraging ignorance through contempt and
shunning of the ignorant. This attitude naturally evoked a recip
rocal feeling of hostility on the part of the am ha’aretz towards
the scholar.’ However, with the passing of the centuries, as the
general standards of Jewish education attained relatively high
proportions, this mutual antagonism tended to fade. While
poverty was always rampant, poverty did not necessarily mean
ignorance when Jewish communal life was well organized, since
some provision was usually made for the support of the poor stu
dent. Moreover, the common practice by families of moderate
means to take learned sons‫ ׳‬in-law and to support the young cou‫׳‬
pie for a number of years after marriage, in order to enable the
student to devote his time exclusively to his studies, further
tended to ameliorate the mutual attitude between the learned
and the unlearned.'“
However, things changed radically during the period under
discussion. The communities (kahals) were too impoverished to
provide free education for the masses. Only in the larger com‫׳‬
munities were there yeshivot (Talmudic academies), but atten
dance was necessarily limited. The vast majority of Jewish chil‫׳‬
XIV
Introduction
dren and youth remained uneducated, and the gulf between the
unlearned masses and the learned minority widened consider
ably. This cleavage extended to every facet of the social and reli
gious life, which greatly added to the miseries of the masses. Thus
from every point of view, economic, cultural and social, Jewish
life in the Polish provinces had reached a very low ebb in the
aftermath of the tragic second half of the seventeenth century. A
pall of gloom had descended upon the Jewish population, and
the people yearned for spiritual guidance and uplifting.
Such was the general setting when Rabbi Israel Baal Shem
Tov appeared on the scene.
Being acutely conscious of the educational problem of the
young and of the widespread spiritual depression among the
adults, the Besht set out to help his co-religionists through a two
pronged campaign, directed at both the young and the old.
However, mindful of the prevailing climate, he did not begin his
work openly. Himself a follower of another “Baal Shem,” name
ly. Rabbi Adam Baal Shem of Ropshitz,'! a disciple of Rabbi Joel
Baal Shem of Zamosc (Zamoshtz),‘^ the Besht first began his
activities underground. As a young man of eighteen, while he
was a member of a group of “secret servicemen,” itinerant mys
tics (nistarim), followers of Rabbi Adam Baal Shem, whose mis
sion was to wander through the towns and villages to bring cheer
to the Jewish people and help uplift their religious and moral
standards, the Besht became closely acquainted with conditions
of Jewish life and with the need for more widespread education
of the young. He himself became an assistant teacher for a peri
od of time, dedicating himself to the education of the very young
children.*‫ נ‬After the death of Rabbi Adam Baal Shem, the Besht
became the leader of the nistarim, who spread his doctrines
among the masses. When, at the age of thirty-six, the Besht
revealed himself as the leader of the new Chasidic movement, he
already had a number of nuclei of followers in various communi
ties in Poland, who had prepared the ground for the movement
to a considerable extent. These included a number of outstand
ing scholars, but the Besht remained a popular teacher, never los
ing contact with the masses. For this reason he made ample use
of parables, metaphors and aphorisms, whereby he was able to
XV
convey many a profound doctrine in simple terms.

We must now review some of the Beshtian doctrines which,
as we mentioned earlier, were in themselves a potent factor in
the popularity of the movement.
The Besht taught that it was everyone’s duty to serve the
Creator, and that this duty embraced every aspect of the daily life
and was not confined to the study of the Talmud exclusively. He
emphasized the importance of prayer and obedience to the Law,
above the study of the Law, where such study tended to degener
ate into nothing more than intellectual exercise.
Contrary to some of the classical Jewish philosophers who
made Divine Providence commensurate with the knowledge of
G'd, the Besht insisted that Divine Providence extends not only
to every individual, but to every particular, even in the inani
mate world. “A leaf torn from a tree and swept by the wind from
place to place reflects the Divine Will and Providence.”‘“' This is
a corollary' of his doctrine of Continuous Creation, which he
explains by the principle that “G-d is A ll and all is G-d,”’’ there
being no other Reality but G-d. The true reality of all things is
the “word” of G-d which brought all things into being, and
which continually keeps them in existence. Without this ere-
ative and active principle which is the “soul” of every particle of
matter, all things would revert to their previous state of nonexis
tence.'*’
In the tradition of the Kabbala, the Besht taught that the
goal of Divine worship is attachment to G-d (devekut), which is
essentially a service of the heart rather than the mind. For, ulti
mately, G-d cannot be apprehended rationally, and it is by means
of emotional commitment and obedience to the Divine will,
rather than by intellectual speculation, that the human being
can come closest to his Creator. Hence his emphasis on the
maxim, “G-d desires the heart,” i.e., the intention of the heart
(kavanah) in the performance of the Divine precepts. Here the
Besht took the notion of kavanah out of its mystical context and
placed it in the simple frame of devoutness and self-surrender to
G-d. To attain devekut, the Besht preached, it is not necessary to
dwell on the meaning of the prayers and psalms, or the signifi
cance of the religious precepts; the sincere recitation of the holy
XVI
Introduction
words and the simple performance of the precepts are in them‫׳‬

selves sufficient to establish contact with G-d, provided this
desire for communion was the object of the worship. This was a
concession to the most illiterate, the am ha’aretz, as the Besht
taught that none is excluded from Divine service.
But the Besht went even further than that, teaching that in
some respects the simple, unlearned worshipper, unaware of the
esoteric or even elementary functions of the precepts, has a two
fold advantage over the scholar. In the first place, the unlearned
Jew possesses a greater measure of natural humility and, in the
second place, it is possible for him to attain the very heights of
passionate worship, often beyond the reach of the cool, intellec
tual, and sophisticated scholar. For, whereas the scholar finds an
outlet for his religious feelings through his prayers and the study
of the Torah which he is able to understand, the non‫׳‬scholar
continues to be consumed by the fire of his passionate yearning
to cleave to G ‫׳‬d, like a “burning bush which is not consumed.”‫״‬
It is out of this humble bush that G ‫׳‬d first spoke to Moses, indi‫׳‬
eating— so the Besht taught— that it is among the humble but
sincere folk that the presence of G ‫׳‬d is most evident.‘®
Let no one feel slighted, the Besht pointed out, at being
called am ha’aretz (lit. “people of the land”). This epithet which
had become so derogatory in reference to the common people
was not originally intended to be used in that sense. On the con‫׳‬
trary, in the Holy Scriptures we find nothing derogatory about it,
and the whole Jewish people were referred to affectionately in
similar terms, viz., “For you shall be a land of delight.”‘^ The
Besht went on to explain the metaphor: The earth is trodden
upon, yet it contains the greatest treasures; so does every Jew,
even the humblest of the humble, contain great spiritual treas‫׳‬
ures, which only have to be brought to the surface.^‫ ״‬Foremost
among these spiritual treasures the Besht placed the simple
virtues which he found inherent in the common people: faith,
sincerity, humility, love and benevolence. He urged the cultiva‫׳‬
tion and exercise of these traits, by word and deed. A whole life’s
mission may depend on a single good act. “A soul may descend
from its heavenly abode to live in this material world for seven‫׳‬
ty/eighty years,^‘ for the sole purpose of doing a good turn to a fel‫׳‬
XVII
R abbi S chneuf ^ Z a l man
low'jew, materially or spiritually,” was one of his characteristic

maximsZ^
Above all, the Besht endeavored to instill the quality of joy
in Divine service. To “serve G-d with joy”^’ is a biblical precept
which the Besht made a cornerstone of his popular religious phi
losophy. Indeed, being conscious of the proximity of the Creator
everywhere and at all times, being aware that G-d is the essence
of goodness, whose benevolent Providence extends to every
individual and every particular, and having the opportunity to
serve the Creator in so many ways in everyday life, the Besht
could not see how any Jew sharing these feelings could experi
ence anything but a perpetually happy frame of mind.
Finally, a word about his Messianic concept. The Baal Shem
Tov had no personal Messianic aspirations,”^'' nor did he lay
claim to having discovered a shortcut to the advent of the
Messiah. One might venture to suggest that he consciously rele
gated the Messianic idea to the background, mindful of the per‫׳‬
version of this ideal by Shabbatai Tzvi and Frank. The Besht did
not believe that the advent of the Messiah should be hastened by
any artificial (i.e., kabbalistic) means. Rather did he postulate a
gradual process of personal redemption as the sine qua non of the
Messianic Redemption, except that he understood “personal
redemption” in terms of his own teachings. A Chasidic tradition
has it that the Messianic Era will he ushered in “when the foun‫׳‬
tains of the Baal Shem Tov will have been diffused abroad,”“
that is, when his teachings will be accepted and put into practice
by the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora.
So much for the Baal Shem Tov’s basic doctrines, which are
scattered in various books of his disciples, as he himself did not
leave any written works.“ We shall have occasion to see how
some of the Beshtian doctrines received a systematic and homog
enous, though sometimes modified, exposition in the system of
Chabad.
At any rate, from all that has been said about the Baal Shem
Tov’s teachings it is clear that they did not contain any hetero
dox doctrines to which objection might be raised from the point
of view of Jewish Law. Indeed, with the exception of his doctrine
of Continuous Creation and the related concepts of Divine
xvm
I ntroducti on
Immanence and Providence, in which the Besht steers a new

course in Jewish philosophy, there are virtually no basic doctri
nal innovations in the Besht’s system. His philosophy rests oth
erwise on a shift of emphases, primarily intended to raise the
moral and ethical standards of the illiterate Jew and to enrich his
daily religious experience. His doctrinal innovations, too, far
from shaking the foundations of the orthodox beliefs, could only
have the effect of deepening and strengthening the old faith.
Nor did the Besht conceive of his movement in terms of a
“sect” in the strict sense of the term. On the contrary, from its
very inception it was envisaged by him as a mass movement
which, necessarily starting with individuals and groups, hopeful
ly intended to include all classes of the Jewish people.
Nevertheless, it was inevitable that the Chasidic movement
should assume certain sectarian characteristics, partly because of
some tenets germane to it, and largely because of the intolerance
of the opposition.
As already mentioned, the climate which had been induced
by Shabbatai Tzvi and Frank was saturated with suspicion and
fear of any new movement that was even remotely connected
with the Kabbala, or smacked of sectarianism. Besides, some of
the Besht’s doctrines, such as tended to erase the distinction
between scholar and layman, or the emphasis on the emotional
rather than the intellectual, were considered quite radical
notions. Such doctrines, the opposition claimed, could consti
tute a threat to the established communal order and indirectly,
even to the authority of the Rabbinate itself. Finally, some
Beshtian doctrines appeared grossly pantheistic to the uninitiat
ed, and provided additional grounds for objection to the move
ment as a whole.
The fight against the Baal Shem Tov and his movement
broke out while the Baal Shem Tov was still alive. The first
assault on the new “sect” (kat)— the epithet itself imputing to it
Shabbatian leanings— was made in 1755,^^ and two years later a
ban (cKerem) was pronounced against it in Vilna in conjunction
with representatives of the Rabbinates of Slutzk and Shklov.^®
However, the opposition gained momentum only after the death
of the Baal Shem Tov (1760), when his scholarly disciples, par-
XIX
ticularly his successor, Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritch, began to dis‫׳‬

seminate Chasidism on a wider scale, eventually also by means of
the printed word. In 1772, coincidental with the death of Rahhi
Dov Ber, the ban against the Chasidim was reiterated in Vilna.
Still stricter was the han pronounced against the Chasidim at a
rahbinic convocation in Zelva, in 1781. The opponents (mit-
rmgdim) were particularly incensed hy the Chasidic book, Toldot
Ya’acov Yosef, by Rabbi Jacob Joseph HaKohen of Polonnoye, a
disciple of the Besht, which had appeared in that year. The hook
was highly polemical, contrasting the barrenness of contempo
rary non-Chasidic life with the quickening vitality of the
Chasidic doctrine. It fanned the flame of opposition, which now
resorted to more radical sanctions against the “sect.” The
Chasidim were branded as heretics; their meat and wine were
outlawed; intermarriage with them was prohibited. These strin
gent measures were not effective, however, to suppress the move
ment or stem its tide. The Rabbinates found it necessary to reaT
firm their stringent opposition to the movement in 1784, in
Mohilev, and in 1796, in Vilna. In the meantime. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman had, reluctantly at first but later boldly, assumed the
leadership of the Chasidic movement, while at the head of the
opposition stood the celebrated Gaon of Vilna, Rabbi Elijah
(1720-1797). Concurrently, the center of the struggle had shift
ed to Czarist Russia, since the former Polish territories of
Lithuania and White Russia had been ceded to Russia after the
partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795. The real crisis for
the Chasidic movement came when Rabbi Schneur Zalman was
denounced to the Czar as a dangerous rebel in 1798 (after the
appearance of the Tanya) and again in 1800. We will have more
to say about these events later. However, with the exoneration of
the Chasidic leader and his movement by the Russian govern
ment, the opposition gave up all further concerted efforts against
the Chasidic movement. As the mitnagdim began to realize that
their suspicion of the new movement was unfounded, and their
hostility to it unjustified, opposition soon gave way to a mutual
rapprochement. Already about the year 1808, we find leaders of
both sides as joint signatories on a haskamah (approbation) on
the printing of the Talmud in Kopust, something which would
XX
INTRODUCTION
have been unthinkable a decade earlier. The breach was healed

at last. The Chasidim were accepted as full-fledged co-religion
ists, and the movement was likewise accepted as an integral part
of traditional Judaism. Moreover, the Chasidim came to be
regarded as representatives of the ultra-orthodox position in
Jewry. As such, they became the object of a renewed frontal
attack, this time from the direction of the Haskalah movement.
But this development largely lies beyond the limits of our histor
ical review.®
Thus, the history of the Chasidic movement, in the course of
only several generations, evolved from suspected heterodoxy to
co-existent orthodoxy to accepted ultra-orthodoxy— a unique
phenomenon in Jewish history.
What has been said of the Chasidic movement as a whole is
equally true of the history of the Chabad movement in particu
lar. Its founder. Rabbi Schneur Zalman, did not consider his sys-
tern as a branch of Chasidut, or a version of it. To him it was
Chasidut par excellence, just as Chasidut itself was to the Besht
Judaism par excellence. This is not surprising in view of the fact
that Rabbi Schneur Zalman regarded himself as the spiritual
legatee of the Baal Shem Tov.ô Indeed, for a time at least. Rabbi
Schneur Zalman was regarded by both the Chasidim and their
opponents as the leader and spokesman for the Chasidic move
ment as a whole, before the latter fragmented into a number of
dynastic groups, each headed by a direct descendant of the Baal
Shem Tov, or of one of his disciples. Owing to this position.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman bore the brunt of the attack against
Chasidut in its most violent outbreaks, and, as already noted, his
victory over the opposition was not only a triumph for Chabad,
but for Chasidut in general.
XXI
C h apter I
R abbi Schneur Zalman’s

B irth A nd Childhood
s chneur Zalman (Boruchovitch)* was bom on the 18th day

of Elul,^ in the year 5505, corresponding to September,
1745.‫ נ‬He was bom in Liozna, a small Polish town in the
province of Mohilev, lying some 50 miles from the county town
of Orsha, on the highway from Smolensk to Vitebsk. His parents,
Baruch and Rivkah,■* had three other sons, all of whom became
outstanding Talmudic scholars and held rabbinic posts.’ Schneur
Zalman spent his earliest childhood in the lap of nature, on a
fair-sized estate in the vicinity of Liozna, operated by his father.
Schneur Zalman’s father was apparently a man of some
means. He was a member of, and contributor to, the Chevrah
Kadisha (Burial Association)* of Liozna. Moreover, he was an
imaginative philanthropist, helping a number of Jewish refugee
families from Bohemia to settle on the land in the vicinity of
Liozna. Bamch himself was bom in a family that had originally
lived in Bohemia, tracing its ancestry to the famous rabbi and
kabbalist, Yehuda Lowe of Prague (1512-1609).’
As in the case of many other great personages in Jewish his
tory, the birth of Schneur Zalman is surrounded with an aura of
auspicious omens, reaching into the realm of the mystical and
supernatural.
Chasidic tradition and family records have the following to
say about Schneur Zalman’s parents and the circumstances sur
rounding the birth of the founder of Chabad.
Baruch was a member of the society of the followers of the

Baal Shem Tov, who, at that time, carried on their “missionary”
activities among their fellow-Jews in secret, as already referred to
earlier.® So secretive was the work of these nistarim in the early
period of the Besht’s leadership, that their identity was concealed
even from each other. Only the Besht and, later, Baruch’s wife
Rivkah, knew of Baruch’s membership in the Nistarim society.''
Baruch’s wife Rivkah was a learned woman, who had daily
study-periods, which was quite unusual for women of those days.
She was the daughter of Abraham, a learned and pious Jew of
Liozna, who had declined the career of a rabbi in order to earn
his livelihood by the “toil of his hands,” as a gardener. A t one
time Baruch was employed by Abraham as a watchman. The
earnest and quiet youth had made an impression on his employ
er, and, at the latter’s suggestion, Baruch accepted the proposal
that he marry his daughter.‫י‬°
Baruch and Rivkah were married on a Friday, the 17th of
Elul, 5503 (1743). When a year had passed by and the young
couple were not blessed with a child, Baruch and his wife went
to see the Baal Shem Tov, to ask him for his blessing.
It was the Besht’s custom to celebrate his birthday every year
(on the 18th of Elul). At the repast on that auspicious day, the
Besht blessed them and promised them that, exactly a year later,
they would become the parents of a boy. Not even the Besht
knew at that time that the soul which was destined to descend
into Baruch’s son was a new and unblemished soul which had
never yet been on earth. Such ,souls are rare, since most souls
descending to earth are reincarnations, sent down to make
amends for wrongs or omissions in a life which had once, or even
more than once, been spent on earth.
The Besht, for whom the celestial halls (hechalot) were open,
had known for some time that a new soul was to descend to
earth, since such a soul undergoes a three-year period of prepara
tion prior to its descent (while all other souls require only one
year’s preparation). However, the identity of that soul had not
been revealed to him, and he did not know that it was to be
Baruch’s son.
On Rosh Hashanah of that year (5505/1745) the Besht’s dis-
B i rth a n d C h i l d h o o d
ciples noticed a radical change in the manner of their master.

Usually, the “Period of Awe” began with the Besht from the first
day of Elul, and lasted through Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement,
10th of Tishrei). This period corresponds to the third period of
forty days which Moses spent on Mount Sinai, when he evoked
the “Thirteen Attributes of Mercy,” and attained Divine forgive
ness for the Israelites for the sin of the Golden Calf. It was on the
10th of Tishrei that Moses came down from Sinai, carrying the
second Tablets with the Decalogue.
These were solemn days for the Besht, when his Divine serv
ice was solemn and awe-inspiring. However, from the termina
tion of the Day of Atonement until after Simchat Torah (the
Day of Rejoicing with the Torah), it was the “Season of
Rejoicing”— a period of sublime joy, when his Divine service was
manifestly joyous. It was therefore most unusual to see the mas
ter in a state of obvious rejoicing during that particular Rosh
Hashanah. This was evident when he wished everyone the tra
ditional blessing of Shanah Tovah— “to be inscribed unto a good
year,” and during his Torah discourse at the repast, as also during
the Tekiot and Mussa/. His joy grew in intensity from the termi
nation of Yom Kippur through Succot (Feast of Tabernacles).
The Besht’s disciples wondered what the cause of that extraordi
nary joy was, but could find no explanation.
Baruch and Rivkah spent the entire period of Holy Days in
Miedzibosz. Before departing for home they saw the Besht again.
Their faces were beaming with joy, and when the Besht repeated
his blessing, Rivkah fervently promised that she would conse
crate her son to the dissemination of Torah and the Chasidic
doctrine and way of life as taught by the Besht.
Rivkah, as has been mentioned previously, was well versed in
Jewish learning and devoted some time every day to the study of
Torah. She kept this, however, from her husband’s knowledge.
Now she decided to intensify her sacred studies, and she visited
her sister-in-law, her husband’s sister, who was married to the
rabbi of Vitebsk, to ask her for guidance as to prayer and study
during her anticipated pregnancy.
In due course Rivkah was able to tell her husband that she
had conceived. Though they were certain that the Besht knew
that his blessing was beginning to be fulfilled, they decided to let

the Besht know about it.
A t the beginning of the month of Adar-Sheni, Baruch went
to Miedzibosz again, to inform the Besht that his wife was preg‫׳‬
nant. The Besht wished him Ma3;al'T0v and gave him certain
instructions to convey to his wife. Baruch left for home in a bliss
ful frame of mind.
On the fourth day of the third week of Elul, on the 18th day
of the month, which was his birthday, the Besht displayed an
extraordinary elation. He personally led the prayers, which he
chanted in joyous melodies. It was clear that the Besht was
observing that day as a festive day. During the repast which fob
lowed the prayers, the Besht told his disciples:
On the fourth day of Creation the luminaries were set
in the sky. Today, the fourth day of the week, a week relat
ed to the haftorah, “Arise, shine forth” (Isa. 60), a new soul
descended on earth, a soul which will illuminate the world
with the revealed and esoteric teachings of the Torah, and
will successfully disseminate the Chasidic way with selfless
dedication, preparing the way for the arrival of the
Messiah.
The Besht proceeded to give a discourse on the verse “This
one will console us” (Gen. 5:29), taking his text from Midrash
Tanhuma.
The following Shabbat, on which the Torah reading was the
Sidrah Tavo (Deut. Chapts. 26-29:8), the Besht again gave a dis
course during the repast, the theme being the reading from the
Prophets, dwelling on the verse, “Arise, shine forth, for your
light has arrived, and G-d’s glory shines upon you” (Isa. 60:1).
On the 25th day of Elul (when the circumcision of Schneur
Zalman took place in Liozna), the Besht arranged a feast and
held a discourse on the verse “On the eighth day his uncircum
cised flesh shall be circumcised” (Lev. 12:3), and three days later,
on the Shabbat, when the Sidrah Nitzavim (Deut. Chap. 29:9-31)
was read, he again gave a discourse on the verse “1 shall surely
rejoice in G-d” (Isaiah 61:10— the Haftorah of the week), and he
was in a manifestly elated frame of mind. All of which presented
a mystery to his disciples and followers.
4
Many years later, when Schneur Zalman, as a young man,

came to Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Miezricz, the disciple and
successor of the Besht, the Maggid related to his son Rabbi
Abraham, the “Angel,”" the reasons for the extraordinary con
duct of the Besht on those occasions, as was revealed to him hy
the Besht himself.
What the Besht’s disciples witnessed in those days was noth
ing else but their master celebrating the hirth of Schneur
Zalman, his entrance into the “Covenant of Abraham,” and the
critical third day of circumcision. Moreover, the various dis
courses which the Besht delivered on those occasions were con‫׳‬
nected with the newborn’s destiny.
“ ‘The reason I am telling you all this,’ my master, the Besht,
told me, ‘is that he— Schneur Zalman— belongs to you’”; the
Maggid concluded his story to his son, the “Angel.”
For the Day of Atonement, 5506, Baruch came to Miedzibosz
to be with his master. He had been forewarned not to tell any
body about the birth of his son, nor the name which had been
given to him. Again, before leaving for home, he received from
the Besht a set of instructions as to the discipline which was to
surround the child, and the careful watch which was to be kept
over him at all times, keeping him away particularly from the
eyes and ears of idle gossipers.
The following year Baruch came, as usual, to the Besht for
the Solemn Days. The Besht inquired about the little boy in
great detail, and repeated his admonition about taking special
care of child.
After Succot, when Baruch was ready to leave for home, the
Besht again cautioned him to shelter the boy, and not to repeat
any of his clever acts or sayings, as some parents are fond of
boasting about their children.
Another year passed by. Once again Baruch made his annu‫׳‬
al pilgrimage to Miedzibosz. Baruch reported to the Besht that,
upon returning home from Miedzibosz after Succot, his wife told
him that there was a noticeable change in the boy on his second
birthday. His speech and vocabulary had considerably improved.
During the year, the parents discovered that the boy had an
extraordinary memory, and whatever he heard once, he never
5
forgot. The Besht gave Baruch further instructions concerning

the boy. Upon Baruch’s request for permission to bring the boy to
the Besht on his third birthday for the traditional “haircutting”
ceremony,'^ the Besht told him that the boy should be accompa‫״‬
nied by his mother, and his aunt Dvorah Leah, and they should
come to him on the 18th of Elul, after the Morning Prayers.
Arriving home, Baruch found that the boy had made further
strides in the two months of his absence from home. Little
Schneur Zalman could now recite many psalms by heart, and his
memory and mental grasp were astonishing.
According to plan, Rivkah and her sister-in-law, Dvorah
Leah, brought the boy on his third birthday to the Besht. The
Besht cut off a few locks of hair, leaving peyot (side locks) accord
ing to custom, and he blessed the boy with the three-fold Priestly
Blessing (Num. 6:24-26). He then sent the visitors home, with
his blessings for a safe journey and for the new year.
All the way home, little Schneur Zalman kept on asking his
mother who the old Jew was who had cut his hair. “That was
Zaida (‘grandfather’),” was her reply. Little did he then know that
some day he would come to regard the Besht as his “grandfather”
in a very real sense, namely, as the master of his master, the
Maggid of Miezricz, to whom he owed his spiritual fulfillment.‘‫י‬
n his fifth year, Schneur Zalman was enrolled as a junior mem

I ber in the Burial Association (Chevmh Kadisha). This honor
entailed an annual contribution of a certain quantity of wood
and money to the local synagogue for a period of eight years,
until the boy reached the age of Bar Mitzvah, when he would
become a full-fledged member. This was duly recorded in the
Pinkos (Register) of the Chevrah Kadisha of Liozna on the 15 th
day of Kislev, 5510.''*
From his fifth birthday, Schneur Zalman began to display a
phenomenal mental grasp in his advanced Torah studies.
Together with his insatiable thirst for knowledge, he experienced
a great love for people. He revered Torah scholars for their schol
arship, and he respected and loved ordinary folk for their simple
faith and piety.
Many years later, he once told his grandson Rabbi Menachem
Mendel (subsequently the famed author of the Responsa Tzemach

Tzedek and successor to the throne of Chabad): “All through my
youth 1 found my Torah studies very easy, without my having to
make any real effort. This was disconcerting to me, for the mitz-
vah of ‘toiling in the Torah’ eluded me. It was only when I reached
the age of fifteen that I learned who 1 was and what the purpose
of my soul’s descent to earth was.”'“’
A t first, little Schneur Zalman was tutored by local
melamdim (teachers). After several years, his father decided to
send him to study in nearby Lubavitch,'‫ ’׳‬under the tutelage of
Rahbi Yissachar Dov,*^ also known as Yissachar Dov Kobilniker,
a Torah scholar of note. Schneur Zalman studied under his guid
ance until he reached the age of eleven years. Then his teacher
brought him back home, informing the boy’s father that the boy
could continue studying on his own. Rabbi Yissachar Dov pre‫׳‬
pared a program of studies in Talmud and Kabbala for the boy,
and also a discipline of daily conduct.
Back home, in the country atmosphere of his father’s estate,
Schneur Zalman continued his studies. His father, and also his
grandfather, both of whom were profound Talmudic scholars,
took time out for Talmudic and Halachic sessions with young
Schneur Zalman. During the long summer days the young schol
ar spent most of his time studying under the shade of the fruit
trees in his father’s orchard. His grandfather asked him once
what he liked best in the orchard. “The pure, unpolluted air,”
was his reply.'®
His love for the fields and meadows expressed itself in a prac
tical way, in his efforts to encourage his brethren to engage in
agricultural pursuits. According to a chronicle by Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s son Moshe—who cites as his source an eye-witness
account of an aged Chasid, Shlomo Ivansker— Schneur Zalman
once stationed himself on a wagon and addressed a crowd of Jews
who had come to the fair at Liozna. The young “Liozna Prodigy,”
as Schneur Zalman was known, urged his brethren to abandon
their peddling and trading, and engage in farming and manual
occupations. Schneur Zalman was then eleven years old. The
impassioned plea of the young scholar had its effect. A number
of Jewish families, refugees from Prague and Posen, did in fact
7
settle on the estate of Schneur Zalman’s father Baruch, with the

latter’s help. Other Jewish refugees from Bohemia formed an
agricultural settlement in the vicinity of Byeli Rutchei (“White
Spring”), adjoining Baruch’s estate.‘‘'
Incidentally, the discovery of the “White Spring” was credit
ed to Schneur Zalman. According to a legend current in the
vicinity, the origin of the spring was as follows;
The well on the outskirts of Liozna, which had provided
water for man and beast, had suddenly become polluted and
unwholesome. A sorcerer named Akim was blamed for it, for it
was believed that he had cursed the water of that well. One day
Schneur Zalman was sitting in the orchard when his younger
brother, Yehuda Leib, came running up to ask him what blessing
of grace to recite after eating an apple. It was a new orchard, in
its fourth year, when the fruits are forbidden (Lev. 19:23'24).
Schneur Zalman told his younger brother never again to eat or
drink anything before making sure it was permitted. Then he
said to him that it would be well for him to cleanse himself with
pure spring water. Schneur Zalman explained to his brother the
importance of ritual immersion, which serves as an act of purifi
cation from spiritual contamination, and also as a symbolic tran
sition to a higher degree of holiness, as the case may be. Schneur
Zalman said he, too, would immerse himself in the water. He
then led him to the foot of a nearby hill near a quarry of white
limestone. The two boys began to dig. Soon, they uncovered a
spring of fresh water. The quarry was filled with the water of the
spring, and the two boys bathed in it. Eventually the spring
became known as the “White Spring,” and it was said to have
healing powers, having cured both humans and beasts affected by
the accursed well.™
During these early years, Schneur Zalman was introduced
also to mathematics, geometry, astronomy, and philosophy, by
two learned brothers, refugees from Bohemia, who had settled in
the vicinity of Liozna.^‘ One of the two brothers was a Kabbalist,
who was said to be in possession of manuscripts by Rabbi
Yitzchok Luria.™
When Schneur Zalman attained his Bar Mitzvah (the age of
thirteen) and, in accordance with custom, delivered his first pub-
lie discourse, he was acclaimed as an outstanding Talmudic

scholar. He was thereupon elected as an honorary member of the
local Chevrah Kadisha and entered in the pinkos of the commu
nity with titles and honors accorded only to ordained scholars of
exceptional merit.’^
Shortly after his Bar Mitzvah, Schneur Zalman went to
Vitebsk, to spend a few months with his uncle Rabbi Yosef
Yitzchak. Schneur Zalman, as he later related, was greatly
impressed and influenced by the extraordinary Talmudic knowl
edge and brilliant mental grasp of his uncle. Under his lucid tute
lage Schneur Zalman deepened his knowledge and enhanced his
methods of study. Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak opened new horizons for
the young Schneur Zalman in the interpretation of the text of
the Bible, and of the sayings of the Sages in the Aggadah and
Midrash. It was only later that Schneur Zalman discovered that
much of the brilliant interpretations and revelations which he
had heard from his uncle was actually derived from the teachings
of the Baal Shem Tov, who was, as yet, unknown to Schneur
Zalman.
The Besht, for reasons best known to himself, and much to
his regret, kept himself out of direct contact with Schneur
Zalman. He did not permit Baruch to take his son with him on
his visits to Miedzibosz, and he enjoined Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak
from telling his nephew anything about him, the Besht.
“Schneur Zalman is not destined to be my disciple,” the
Besht said. “He belongs to my successor.”
Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak used to visit the Besht once a year or
once in two years, on the occasion of the Festival of Shavuot.
Each time, the Besht inquired about Schneur Zalman, and reit
erated his admonition tc5 keep Schneur Zalman in ignorance of
the Chasidic way and of its leader. For the last time. Rabbi Yosef
Yitzchak visited the Besht in the year 5520 (1760), the year of
the Besht’s demise. On the Shabbat before Shavuot the Besht
said to the Maggid of Miezricz in the presence of Rabbi Yosef
Yitzchak:
From the day that the new soul was to descend from its
abode in the realm of Chochmah d’Atzilut (the highest
supernal sphere) to be clothed in a body on this earth, in
the person of the son of my saintly disciple Baruch and his

wife Rivkah, I staked my life for him. He is yours, but he
must come to you of his own volition, without external
influence. Eventually he will come to you, and you should
then realize what a “receptacle” he is. Be careful in guiding
him, in order that he should successfully accomplish his
destiny.‘“‫י‬
That year (5520) Schneur Zalman was as yet unaware of the
Besht. It was only in the month of Elul of that year (after the
demise of the Besht) that Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak told Schneur
Zalman of the Besht, and conveyed to him some of the teachings
of Chasidut and the Chasidic way.
The fame of the young ‘iluy’ (prodigy) reached Vitebsk,
where one of its most prominent Jews, Yehuda Leib Segal, a man
of considerable wealth and scholarship, wished to have him as
his son-in-law. He approached Schneur Zalman’s father and the
match was duly arranged.
chneur Zalman was fifteen years old when he married Sterna.

S She turned out to be a worthy mate, who stood by him
throughout a lifetime of many tribulations.
The marriage was solemnized on Friday, the eve of Shabbat
Nachamu, 5520. Schneur Zalman had made it a condition of his
consent to the marriage, that the amount of 5,000 gold coins,
which the father of the bride had promised by way of dowry,
should be placed entirely at his, Schneur Zalman’s, disposal, to
do with as he saw fit.
Within the first year of their marriage, Schneur Zalman,
with his wife’s consent, placed the entire amount in a fund to
help Jewish families settle on land and engage in agricultural
pursuits. They were aided in the acquisition of farmland and
farming implements, in flour milling, spinning and weaving wool
and linen, and in similar pursuits of a livelihood. Thanks to this
help many Jewish settlements sprang up in the vicinity of
Vitebsk, along the banks of the River Dvina. Schneur Zalman
continued to preach publicly, from time to time, to encourage
Jews to give up peddling and take up, instead, some agricultural
pursuit. He also visited the Jewish settlements and urged the
10
Jewish farmers to arrange periodic study groups for the adults for
the study of Chumash, Midrash and Aggadah on their own level.“
Schneur Zalman’s endeavors to encourage Jews to settle on
land were in line with the general policy of the government in
Poland and Lithuania. Facing the growing hostility of the urban
classes towards the Jews, whose competition in trade and com
merce they feared, the government offered various incentives to
induce more and more jews to settle in the country and villages.“
As a result, many Jews with no definite trade turned to
mixed farming and agriculture for their livelihood.
In Vitebsk, Schneur Zalman was in proximity to his distin‫׳‬
guished uncle Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak, and the latter introduced
him to the teachings of Chasidut and the Chasidic way of Divine
service, as taught by the founder of Chasidut, the Besht, and
continued by his disciple and successor, the Maggid of Miezricz.
Their sessions lasted over a period of two years.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s prominent father-in-law, who had
dealings with members of the landed nobility, introduced his
brilliant son-in-law to members of the nobility and high official
dom. Two episodes are related of Rabbi Schneur Zalman at that
time, which greatly enhanced his reputation as a scientist among
the local nobility. One was the occasion when Rabbi Schneur
Zalman solved the problem of a truant sundial which adorned
the garden of the governor of Vitebsk. The sundial, which had
been working perfectly, suddenly ceased to function during part
of the afternoon in cloudless skies. The governor, so it is related,
called in several scientists, but they failed to solve the mystery.
The young Rabbi Schneur Zalman was then called in and he sue-
ceeded in placing the cause of the malfunction in an obstruction
created by trees that had grown tall on a hill at a certain distance
away. The other episode concerned a mathematical problem
which the head of the local higher academy, a certain Prof.
Marcel, had been struggling with for a long time, and Rabbi
Schneur Zalman solved it for him.“ Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s rep
utation and acquaintance with the local nobility stood him in
good stead in his work in behalf of his brethren, and in the cm-
cial periods of his career.
By the time Schneur Zalman was eighteen years old, thanks
11
to his extraordinary assiduity and brilliance of mind, he had

become “proficient in the entire Talmudic literature, with all its
commentaries and early and late codifiers.”^®At the same time
he studied the classics of Jewish philosophy and Kabbala litera
ture, especially the Zoliar and the Shenei Luchot HaBerit
(ShaLoH) of Rabbi Isaiah Hurwitz.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman gathered around him a group of
young men of excellent scholarship, and led them in the study of
the Talmud as well as in the discipline of the Kabbala. They
organized a minyan (small congregation) and worshipped in the
manner of the saintly ShaLoH. For three years he led this group,
and Schneur Zalman’s reputation as a brilliant scholar and
teacher was further enhanced.
Schneur Zalman had already conceived a new system of
Divine service, based on the central principle that love of G-d
and fear of G-d must derive from an intellectual approach, with
a profound comprehension of the greatness of G-d. He also elab
orated the methods of attaining this end by the application of
the principle “from my flesh I see G'd” (Job 19:26), an inductive
method leading from the microcosm to the macrocosm, and from
the analogy of the soul powers in man to the Divine categories
of the En So/, using the attributes of the human soul as counter'
parts of the Divine categories. This system was eventually per
fected in his Likutei Amarim (Tanya).
12
C h a p t e r II
R abbi Schneur Zalman’s

“Conversion” T o Chasidut
T
Ihe vast knowledge which Schneur Zalman had acquired
gratified him intellectually, hut his sensitive soul still
yearned for fulfillment. He had yet to find a way to estah-
lish an equilibrium between the rational and emotional sides of
his nature. It was then, at the age of about twenty years, that
Rabbi Schneur Zalman decided to leave home for a period of
time in search of a teacher and guide. Two centers of learning
beckoned his attention. One was Vilna, the Lithuanian capital,
the center of Talmudic scholarship, with the famed Vilna Gaon'
at its head. The other was Miezricz, the seat of Rabbi Dov Ber,
the “Maggid of Miezricz,”^ heir to Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov,
the leader of the still young Chasidic movement. For Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, Miezricz was both geographically and intellec
tually the more distant place, but he had heard about the great
scholarship of Rabbi Dov Ber, and the new way of Divine service
which he was teaching. Rabbi Schneur Zalman had to make a
momentous choice. It is recorded that Rabbi Schneur Zalman
said, “I have already been exposed to Talmudic discipline; 1 have
yet to learn the discipline of prayer,”‫ י‬and he decided in favor of
Miezricz. The decision was, of course, the turning point of his life.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s decision to go to Miezricz aroused
his father-in-law’s vehement opposition, to the extent of depriv
ing his daughter and son-in-law of any further financial support.
But Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s wife stood by him, and agreed to his
13
R abbi S c h n eu r Z al man
going there, on condition that if he decided to stay, he would not

extend his stay beyond eighteen months. She raised a little sum
of money with which to buy a horse and cart. Soon after Pesach
(5525), Rabbi Schneur Zalman left for Miezricz, accompanied by
his brother Rabbi Yehuda Leib. Having made their way to Orsha,
a distance of some fifty miles, the horse collapsed. On learning
from his brother that the latter had left home without his wife’s
consent. Rabbi Schneur Zalman urged him to return, while he
himself continued his journey to Miezricz on foot.■*
His first impressions were not encouraging. Schneur Zalman
closely observed the Maggid of Miezricz and his senior disciples.
He discovered that they devoted considerable time to the daily
prayers and in preparation before the prayers, inevitably reduc‫״‬
ing the time left for Torah study. To the intellectual that he was,
this emphasis on prayer seemed extravagant. He decided that
Miezricz was not for him. Rabbi Dov Ber made no attempt to
detain him.
As Schneur Zalman left Miezricz, he remembered that he
had forgotten one of his belongings in the Beit Medrash of the
Maggid. Returning there, he found the Maggid engaged in the
examination of a Halachic question. The brilliant analysis by the
Maggid of all aspects of the question, which displayed his
extraordinary erudition in the realm of Halachah, made a pro
found impression on Schneur Zalman, and he decided to stay a
while longer in Miezricz. Thereupon, the Maggid told Schneur
Zalman that his saintly master, the Baal Shem Tov, had revealed
to him that one day the son of Rabbi Baruch would come to him
(the Maggid), would leave him, and then return again. Then he
(the Maggid) was to tell him about the great destiny that was
linked to Schneur Zalman’s soul. The Besht further predicted
that Schneur Zalman’s path in life would be hazardous, but that
he, the Besht, would intercede in his behalf, and in behalf of his
followers, so that “his end would be exceedingly great” (Job 8:7).
Schneur Zalman was deeply moved by what he heard, and he
decided to cast in his lot with the new Chasidic movement.‘’
Soon, new horizons began to unfold before him.
One particular episode, involving a brief discourse by Rabbi
Dov Ber, “converted” him. The episode is of sufficient impot'
14
“C o n v e r s i o n ” t o C h a s i d u t
tance to merit recounting here, in approximately the same terms

as the episode was described by Rabbi Schneur Zalman to his
brother Rabbi Yehuda Leib.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman once happened to witness an inti
mate discussion by the “Holy Society,” that is, the group of sen
ior disciples of Rabbi Dov Ber. The subject matter of the discus
sion was in the realm of the Kabbala. They spoke of the various
categories of the supreme angels, of the Divine Chariot, and of
the array of the hierarchy of Divine Emanation. The main topic
of the conversation centered on the perpetual state of love and
fear (awe), of advance and retreat, which those heavenly crea
tures experience in the presence of the Divine Majesty. As the
discussion progressed, it so fired the vivid imagination of the par
ticipants that they seemed to be carried away to those very sub
lime spheres which they were depicting, where but a thin veil
separates the pure spirits from the Infinite Light. They worked
themselves up into a state of rapturous ecstasy, where the desire
for the mystical union with the Infinite (En Sof) becomes so
overpowering as to bring one to the verge of soulful consumma
tion (Keht Hanefesh). Rabbi Schneur Zalman himself was deeply
touched and, as he related, for the first time felt the consuming
passion of this mystical experience. A t that very moment the
sound of the master’s footsteps brought them back to earth. They
came out of their reverie and rose to their feet in anticipation of
their master’s appearance. Presently Rabbi Dov Ber entered the
room, took his accustomed place at the head of the table and
began:‘’
[It is written] “I made the earth and man thereon ere-
ated” (Isa. 45:12). Anochi (“I”), He Who is the true “I,”
unknown and concealed even from the highest emana
tions, clothed His Blessed Essence through numerous con
tractions (tzimtzumim) in order to give rise to emanations
and creatures, the various categories of angels, and worlds
without number. Through countless condensations “I made
this physical world, and man thereon created.” Man is the
ultimate purpose of creation. Barati (“I have created”) is the
numerical equivalent of 613 [the number of biblical com
mandments], the end-purpose of man. As the [book of]
15
Pardes (Portal 22, ch.4) quotes from the book of Bahir,

“Said the attribute of Chesed (Kindness) before the Holy
One, ‘Master of the Universe, since the days of Abram on
earth I have had no work to do, because Abram is serving
in my place.’” Thus Abraham, a soul clothed in a body,
occupying himself with hospitality to wayfarers as a means
of disseminating the idea of G-d on earth, is higher in quah
ity and rank than the attribute of Kindness itself in its most
supernal state. The “complaint” of Kindness was the expres‫׳‬
sion of that attribute’s “envy” of our Patriarch Abraham.
Concluding his words. Rabbi Dov Ber retired to his quarters.
His brief discourse had a calming effect on his disciples, and gave
them food for thought. It contained the doctrines which form
the underlying basis of the theology and ethics of Chasidut,
which Rabbi Schneur Zalman was surely not slow in grasping,
namely: (1) The Divine “I” is unknowable even to the highest
supernal creatures. (2) The pure spirits and intellects, namely,
the supernal spheres and emanations, are not the end of
Creation, but a means to it. (3) The purpose of Creation is man,
a soul in a body, on this physical earth. (4) The purpose of man
is obedience to the Divine Law. (5) Man is superior to angels.
These doctrines eventually found an elaborate and systematic
exposition in the Tanya. But what mostly impressed Rabbi
Schneur Zalman on that occasion was Rabbi Dov Ber’s demon
stration of that perfect equilibrium and harmonious synthesis of
the mystic and rationalist which was the object of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s quest. To quote Rabbi Schneur Zalman: “Two
things I saw then: The sublime ecstasy of the Holy Society on
the one hand, and the remarkable composure of our master
Rabbi Dov Ber on the other, which enthralled me completely.
That is when I became a Chasid.”’
o: knee the young 'Titvak" (native of Lithuania) became

attached to Rabbi Dov Ber, the latter began to give him
special attention, though he was the youngest and newest of the
disciples. Rabbi Dov Ber arranged that his son, Abraham,‫( ״‬who
because of the saintliness of his character had earned the appel‫׳‬
lation Malach [“Angel”]), initiate the new disciple into the eso-
16
“C o n v e r s i o n ” t o C h a s i d u t
teric doctrines of the Kabbala and Chasidut, as had been taught

by the Besht and himself, in return for instruction in Talmudic
study. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s time was now equally divided
between the study of the Talmud and Chasidut, which he stud
ied with his customary diligence. He also closely observed the
master. Rabbi Dov Ber, and his distinguished disciples, in an
effort to emulate their day-to-day behavior and refinement of
character. Here was a group of scholarly mystics who exemplified
Chasidut at its best. This is what Rabbi Schneur Zalman had
been looking for.
Schneur Zalman found among the disciples of the Maggid
some two score elders who had been the Baal Shem Tov’s close
followers. Some of them knew the Besht even before he revealed
himself, and knew also his father. Rabbi Eliezer. These sages
related to Schneur Zalman many episodes and events about the
Besht, to which they had been witness.
Schneur Zalman found the nights too short to record all that
he heard during the day. His notes grew into many volumes of
manuscripts. Unfortunately, most of his manuscripts, including
those he had acquired while in Miezricz from members of the
Maggid’s “Holy Society”— altogether twenty-four bound vol
umes and numerous bundles of loose folios— were destroyed in
the fire which broke out in Liadi in 5570 (1810), when Rabbi
Schneur Zalman happened to be in Berditchev. In that fire the
major part of his Shulchan Aruch was also destroyed.^
Schneur Zalman considered himself very privileged when he
was included in the list of the senior disciples of the Maggid who
attended on their master. The Maggid, in turn, showed him
affectionate consideration. Occasionally, the Maggid consulted
his youngest disciple as to the level of scholarship on which to
preach to the followers who came to listen to him, and reviewed
with Schneur Zalman the intended lecture. On several occa
sions, as Schneur Zalman related to his grandson the Tzemach
Tzedek, the Maggid reduced the level of his lecture no less than
four times, when Schneur Zalman found it still too high for the
visitors, and only the fifth version of it received Schneur
Zalman’s approval.'®
Being the youngest of the Maggid’s disciples, and imbued
17
R abbi S c h n e u r Z a l m a n
with a goodly measure of humility, Schrteur Zalman attended

also on his senior colleagues, observing their conduct and emu
lating their ways. Soon, they realized that the new disciple
excelled them in scholarship and in the breadth of his grasp of
their master’s teachings. They called him, affectionately, the
“Young Sage.’’"
When Rabbi Schneur Zalman returned home, after the
eighteen months had elapsed, he was asked by his erstwhile col‫׳‬
leagues in Vitebsk whether he had found it worthwhile to go so
far away while Vilna was so much nearer. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
answered: “In Vilna you are taught how to master the Torah; in
Miezricz you are taught how to let the Torah master you!’’"
Upon his return to Vitebsk, Schneur Zalman immediately
set out to disseminate the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and of
the Maggid of Miezricz, with particular emphasis on prayer. He
also began to concern himself with the ordinary Jewish folk and
amei'ha’aretz in accordance with the Chasidic doctrine.
The “conversion” of the “Liozna Huy” to Chasidut created a
stir in the Jewish community of Vitebsk. Complaints were lodged
against him before the Beit Din. On his part, Schneur Zalman
informed the Beit Din that he was prepared to debate the issue
and defend the way of the Baal Shem Tov and of the Maggid of
Miezricz. Moreover, he challenged the validity of the bans and
excommunications against the Besht which had been made pub‫׳‬
lie in the year 5517 (1757).
The Beit Din, in conjunction with the leading scholars of
Vitebsk, decided to accept the challenge of Reb Yehuda Leib
Segal’s son‫ ׳‬in‫ ׳‬law, whose attitude they regarded as overbearing
and presumptuous.
The public debate lasted for about a week. It gave Schneur
Zalman an opportunity to expound the basic teachings of the
Baal Shem Tov and of his successor the Maggid, which resulted
in the winning over a number of young men of the scholarly set
to his side. On the other hand, many expressed open hostility to
the new Chasidim, and the community found itself divided.
Schneur Zalman’s “conversion” to Chasidut, his complete
preoccupation with intellectual problems, his extraordinary
assiduity, his devoutness in prayer and eccentric ways, aroused
“C o n v e r s i o n ” to C hasi dut
his father-in-law’s disappointment. The latter began to have seri

ous misgivings as to the mental soundness of his son-in-law. Both
father and mother pressed their daughter Sterna to divorce her
husband, on the ground of the latter’s “unbalanced mind.” The
young wife, however, remained loyal to her husband. Life
became difficult for the young couple in the home of her parents.
The latter often denied their son-in-law candles, so he would not
be able to study through the night, but Schneur Zalman contin
ued his studies by moonlight. In the long, wintry nights the
young couple suffered cold and privations, but the pressures
applied by his parents-in-law did not dampen Schneur Zalman’s
spirits, nor cause him to change his ways.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman did not remain in Vitebsk very long.
The atmosphere was charged with open hostility on the part of
his in-laws and other members of the community, though Rabbi
Schneur Zalman made a number of converts among the younger
scholars of his age. These, in turn, suffered the same treatment,
unless they succeeded in concealing their adherence to the
Chasidic way. Rabbi Schneur Zalman returned to Miezricz, and
he continued to visit his master from time to time, following him
also to Rovno and Anipoli, where Rabbi Dov Ber moved towards
the end of his life.
The years of privation and abuse for Rabbi Schneur Zalman
ended when in 1767 he was summoned to become his
home town Liozna. Rabbi Schneur Zalman accepted the post,
which he held for the next thirty years, until he moved to Liadi
(in 1801), following his second arrest and exoneration, as will be
recounted later.
In 1770, when Rabbi Schneur Zalman was barely twenty-
five years old. Rabbi Dov Ber assigned to him the task of re-edit
ing the code of Jewish Law, the Shulchan Aruch. It was almost
exactly two hundred years since Rabbi Yosef Caro had written
his famous masterpiece. During this time much halachic materi
al had been added in rabbinic literature, often giving rise to
divergent opinions as to the practical application of the Jewish
Law in given circumstances. It was Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s task
to examine and sift all the new material, make decisions where
necessary in the light of the earlier codifiers and Talmudic liter-
19
R ab b i S c h n e u r Z a l m a n
ature, and finally embody the results into his new edition of the
Shulchan Aruch, thus bringing it up to-date. Needless to say, it
was an enormous and responsible task, requiring extraordinary
erudition and mastery of the entire Talmudic and Halachic liter
ature as well as a boldness to arbitrate and make decisions in dis
puted cases involving the opinions of the greatest masters of
Jewish Law up to his time. Rabbi Schneur Zalman superbly
acquitted himself of this task, which at once immensely
enhanced his reputation in the rabbinic world, and gave him an
honored place among the great codifiers of Jewish Law, The work
became known as the “Rav’s” Shulchan Aruch, in distinction from
its forerunner.‘“‫י‬
Two years after he began his work on the Shulchan Aruch,
Rabbi Schneur Zalman began to work on his system of Chabad
philosophy, which was eventually embodied in his Likutei
Amarim or Tanya. He worked on it intermittently for twenty
years.’’
C h a pt e r III
T he First Crisis
T 1he Chasidic movement, under the leadership of the

Maggid of Miezricz, was generally not given to excesses.
The synthetic hlend of the inner rational and emotional
forces, as exemplified in the leader, kept the mystical suscepti
bilities of his followers more or less in check. There was one
exception, however, among the disciples of the Maggid of
Miezricz. He was Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk.‘ By nature a highly
temperamental individual, he was carried away by some of the
teachings of the Maggid. Rabbi Abraham Kalisker gathered
around him a group of brilliant young men, whom he inspired to
ecstatic states of Divine worship, which, as he taught, was
attainable only under extreme self-effacement. For about two
years he taught this group a rigorous discipline of austerity, self
mortification and saintliness. Their mode of prayer was ecstatic
and rapturous, often giving way to frenzy. During prayer they
were prone to paroxysms of dancing, gesticulation and boister
ousness. They were impatient of the opponents of Chasidut, par
ticularly the type of dispassionate Talmudists, who carried about
them an air of staidness and gravity, which, to these passionate
mystics, betrayed insensibility and arrogance. They took upon
themselves the task of exposing them to ridicule, in order to
rouse them out of their complacency, as they thought.
In the year 5530 (1770) the activity of this group reached its
height, when a young man, a member of the group, came to
Shklov and requested permission from the local rabbi to preach
in the synagogue. The rabbi engaged the stranger in a Talmudic
21
discussion and was satisfied with the visitor’s erudition and piety.
So, permission was granted.
The lecture was attended by the rabbi and lay leaders, as well
as a large gathering of the local community. The preacher held
the audience spellbound throughout his lecture. His scholarship
and eloquence were impressive indeed. However, towards the
end of his lecture, the preacher switched his theme in a subtle
manner and began to heap abuse upon certain rabbis and
Talmudists whose opposition to Chasidut in the name of piety
was, in his words, nothing but a ckiak covering their arrogance
and self-interest. His accusations were so thinly veiled as to leave
no doubt in the minds of his audience that he was attacking
some of the most prominent spiritual leaders who were in the
forefront of the assault upon the Chasidic movement. The young
preacher’s concluding remarks left the audience shocked and
dumbfounded. In the ensuing commotion the young man disap
peared, leaving the town agog.
The admiration of the audience for the eloquence and brih
liance of exposition of the urrknown preacher gave way to indig
nation at his audacity and brashness. A committee was at once
formed in Shklov to actively combat the spread of the Chasidic
movement, and delegates were dispatched to other centers such
as Minsk and Vilna to coordinate the combat forces against the
followers of the Besht and his successor, the Maggid of Miezricz.
A report of the episode, and the consequent intensification
of the opposition, reached the Maggid. He summoned all his dis
ciples, including Abraham of Kalisk, to a special conference. The
latter was severely rebuked, and a decision was adopted to put an
end to any extravagant mode of religious conduct such as had
been conceived by Rabbi Abraham Kalisker.'^
In order to evaluate the rise of the opposing forces, and to
counteract them in some measure, the Maggid of Miezricz sent
Rabbi Schneur Zalman on a secret mission to the centers of the
opposition. In the late autumn of 5531 (1771), we find Rabbi
Schneur Zalman in Shklov, appearing there as an itinerant
young scholar. Arriving in one of the local synagogues, weary
and cold from the journey, the stranger settled down near the
oven to warm up and rest. As in most other Lithuanian towns
F i r s t C ri s i s
and townlets— and Shklov was one of Lithuania’s most out

standing Torah centers— a daily Talmud class was in session. It
was led by the goon Rabbi Yosef Kolbo, whose fame extended far
and wide.
W hen the class was over, attention centered on the wayfar
er. A lively Talmudic discussion ensued, in which the stranger’s
erudition in the vast Talmudic literature amazed the goon and
the other scholars. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was persuaded to
extend his visit for several days, and he was invited by the Rosh-
A vSeit'D in of Shklov, Rabbi Henoch Schick, to give a lecture
in Talmud. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s logical exposition and
method of study made a profound impression upon all present.
When asked who he was, and what was his name. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman evaded direct answers and did not reveal his identity.
The mystery surrounding this visitor, his obvious scholar
ship, piety and humility, were the talk of the day for the people
of Shklov. It was only some days after Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
departure from Shklov that the community learned that he was
the Maggid of Liozna, and one of the youngest disciples of the
Maggid of Miezricz.^
Rabbi Schneur Zalman visited many other Jewish communi
ties, in some of them concealing his identity, in others openly
professing to be a disciple of the Maggid of Miezricz. Everywhere
he won personal admirers and, what was more important to him,
admirers for the Baal Shem Tov and the Chasidic movement
which he represented.
Upon completing his mission. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
reported to the Maggid and his Saintly Society on the high stan
dard of learning and piety in all the communities of Lithuania he
had visited. He further declared that wherever there was opposi
tion, it was primarily due to misunderstanding or sheer ignorance
of the Chasidic way. He advocated a policy of restraint and for
bearance towards the opposition, suggesting, also, that the way
to win over the opposition would be to match their level of
Talmudic learning.'*
In the meantime, the wave of opposition grew unabated. In
5532 (1772) a public debate on Chasidut was arranged in
Shklov. Rabbi Schneur Zalman and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk
23
R abbi S e n nbur Z alman
were designated by the Maggid of Miezricz to defend the

Chasidic movement at this public debate. The two Chasidic
emissaries successfully warded off all attacks against the new
movement. However, they had no defense against the complaint
centered on the Chasidic group of Kalisk, namely their frenzied
ways, including somersaulting in public, their brazen attitude
towards Torah scholars who did not join the ranks of the
Chasidim, and the scandalous conduct of one of them in the
town of Shklov two years previously, which had not been forgot‫׳‬
ten, nor forgiven.
Far from winning over the rabbinic authorities of Shklov, or
at least softening their opposition, the debate ended in their
downright condemnation of the Chasidic movement as a men‫׳‬
ace to the established order and norms of Orthodox Judaism. A
report to that effect was dispatched by the Beit‫ ׳‬Din of Shklov to
the Gaon of Vilna. The Chasidim were described in most repro‫׳‬
bate terms, as rebels and heretics with pagan tendencies. The
fact that the condemnation was really leveled against a small
group of Chasidim who were the exception rather than the rule,
was ignored. The Gaon of Vilna adjudged the whole Chasidic
movement as heretical, and therefore subject to proscription.
Accordingly, a ban against the Chasidim was published on the
8th day of Nissan of that year, 5532 (1772), over the signatures
of the Gaon of Vilna and the entire BeiC-Din of Vilna.’
About the same time, a virulent anti‫׳‬Chasidic pamphlet
entitled Zemir Aritîm® appeared, containing various manifestos
and bans against the Chasidim.
This was a very critical period for the fledgling Chasidic
movement, which was faced with a frontal assault, both from the
side of Orthodoxy as well as that of the Haskalah movement.
The latter already had begun to make serious inroads into the
larger Jewish communities.
One of the early casualties of the Mitnagdic attacks was the
saintly Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, who, at that time, was
the Rahbi and Av-Beit-Din of Pinsk. A strong opposition to him
developed in his community for his attachment to the Maggid of
Miezricz. His community was split, and embroiled in a heated
controversy. While he was visiting the Maggid, the opposition
24
F i rs t C ri s i s
got the upper hand. In his absence, he was ousted from his post,
and another rabbi— Avigdor^— was appointed in his place. The
new rabbi, as it turned out later, was an ambitious individual, and
not altogether scrupulous. In order to entrench himself firmly in
the community, and to preclude the former spiritual leader from
claiming his post, he applied all sorts of pressures against the wife
and children of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak to induce them to leave
town. The distressed family appealed to Rabbi Levi Yitzchak by
letter after letter to get them out of their predicament.
All these circumstances presented a very serious challenge to
the Maggid of Miezricz and his disciples. The leading disciples
gathered together to weigh the situation, in order to decide upon
ways and means of counteraction. They decided to counter the
ban against them by pronouncing a ban against those who issued
the ban against them, especially against the new rabbi of Pinsk
who had usurped the position, contrary to the din (Jewish Law).
Chasidic tradition has it that the Maggid of Miezricz, on
learning of the action taken by his disciples, said that it had
shortened his life. Nevertheless, he predicted that the cause of
Chasidut would triumph.®
The Maggid of Miezricz felt that the time of his returning his
soul to heaven was drawing near. On his last Shabbat on earth,
the Shabbat of the weekly Sidrah of Vayyishlach in the year 5533
(1772), he delivered a Chasidic discourse to his disciples while
he was confined to his bed. On the following day (the 17th of
Kislev) he told Rabbi Schneur Zalman that during the last three
days before the soul’s returning to heaven, it was possible to per
ceive the creative word of G-d in every physical thing, which is
its true essence and reality. That night he further told Rabbi
Schneur Zalman that he would be blessed with a son, his first
born, whom he should name Dov Ber, after him, and he gave
him special instructions as to the manner in which he should
take care of his newborn son from the day of his birth until after
the Brit (circumcision).‘’
On the third day of the week, the 19th of Kislev, 5533
(1772), Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Miezricz, disciple and sue-
cessor of the Baal Shem Tov, returned his soul to its Maker. He
passed away in the town of Anipoli, where he was laid to rest. A
25
year later, on the 9th of Kislev, 5534 (1773), Rabbi Schneur

Zalman’s wife gave birth to a son, who was named Dov Ber, after
the Maggid of Miezricz.
Upon the Maggid’s demise, the disciples cast lots as to how
to divide among them the taharah (purification of the body) of
their saintly master. The taharah of the head fell to the lot of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman. To the rest of the disciples this served as
an obvious omen, not only of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s special
merits, but also as a harbinger of his succession to the leader-
ship.'‫״‬
ow that the leader was gone, the Chasidic movement faced

N its greatest crisis. The smoldering opposition which had
erupted violently shortly before the death of the Maggid of
Miezricz, could be expected to continue in full force. On the
other hand, the question of succession to the Maggid reached an
impasse. The Maggid’s son. Rabbi Abraham, refused to accept
the leadership. Besides, his aloofness from the world hardly made
him a fitting leader at this critical time. In order of seniority, the
vacant chair of leadership should have been given to Rabbi
Menachem Mendel Horodoker," senior disciple of the Maggid.
But, out of deference to the Maggid’s saintly son, he refused to
accept the succession. Under the circumstances, the disciples
decided to form an administrative committee, under the chair
manship of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. It was empowered to work
out a program for the future of the movement. The plan was to
include a geographical distribution of the Chasidic forces, with
various centers from which the Maggid’s disciples would carry on
their work, each one in his own territory. To Rabbi Schneur
Zalman was assigned the task of visiting these local Chasidic
centers from time to time, as well as other towns and communi
ties, with a view to strengthening and expanding the move
ment’s influence. Thereupon the disciples parted, each one hav
ing been assigned a certain territory in which to spread the
teachings of Chasidut.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s task was the most difficult one, for
he was to capture the stronghold of the opposition, the province
of Lithuania, with Vilna, the seat of Rabbi Elijah himself. This
26
F i r s t C ri si s
he was expected to accomplish in cooperation with Rahbi

Menachem Mendel Horodoker.
Rahhi Schneur Zalman set out to acquaint himself more
closely with the prevailing conditions in the very strongholds of
the opposition. During the years 1772-75 he revisited such cen
ters as Shklov, Minsk, Vilna, at times and in some places con
cealing his identity. Wherever possible he sowed the seeds of
Chasidut, organized new Chasidic nuclei, and strengthened the
movement in various communities.
Seeing that the opposition threatened to turn the conflict
into an irreparable schism, Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his col
leagues decided to do their best to avert it. In 1775, Rabbi
Schneur Zalman accompanied his senior colleague Rabbi
Menachem Mendel to Vilna in the hope of convincing Rabbi
Elijah that his opposition to Chasidut was based on a miscon
ception. Twice they unsuccessfully sought an audience with the
Gaon, and when some influential community leaders persisted in
their appeal to Rabbi Elijah to meet with the two leaders of the
Chasidim, Rabbi Elijah left town and stayed away until the two
emissaries had departed.
Dismayed but not discouraged, the two emissaries went to
Shklov, in the hope of once again engaging the leaders of the
opposition there in a public debate, but their efforts proved fruit
less there also.
Recounting these efforts in a letter to his followers in Vilna
in the year 1797,'^ nearly a quarter of a century later, Rabbi
Schneur Zalman describes in detail the circumstances of this
fruitless attempt and refers also to the ideological differences
between him and Rabbi Elijah in regard to certain Kabbalistic
doctrines. It is noteworthy that although Rabbi Schneur Zalman
was deeply disappointed by Rabbi Elijah’s refusal to see him and
his colleague, he defends the attitude of the “saintly scholar” on
the ground that the latter had been misled by distorted testimo
ny which he had unsuspectingly accepted as trustworthy.
Characteristically, Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s references to Rabbi
Elijah were always highly respectful, referring to him as HaGaon
HaChasid (the “saintly Gaon”). The text of the letter (with
abbreviations) follows:
27
. . . May my opening words fall upon attentive ears to

hear truthful words of genuine truth in regard to the dis
pute with our opponents.
If it had been possible for me to bring the matter to a
proper conclusion with them— surely there is no greater
mitzvah than establishing peace among Jews. But what was
there for us to do that we did not do? We have tried very
hard in this matter, but we did not succeed. We are inno
cent before G-d and Israel.
With prior notice we went to the house of HaGaon
HaChasid, long may he live, to debate with him and to
remove his censures from us. 1 was there together with the
Rav and Chasid Rabbi Mendel Horodoker of saintly mem
ory, but he [the Gaon of Vilna] shut the door to us twice.
When the notables of the community spoke to him,
“Master, behold, their famous Rav came to debate with your
Torah Eminence; and should he be defeated it will certain‫׳‬
ly bring peace upon Israel,” he staved them off by various
pretexts. But when they began to implore him persistently,
he disappeared, leaving the city and staying away until the
day we left the city, as the elders of your city know.
Subsequently, in our province, we went to the commu
nity of Shklov, again to seek a debate, and we did not sue‫׳‬
ceed. They did unto us things that should not be done,
reneging upon the promise they had promised us not to
mistreat us. But seeing that they had nothing with which
to refute us, they resorted to violence, purporting to rely on
the authority of HaGaon HaChasid, long may he prosper.
In truth, we judged him in the scale of merit, inasmuch
as the matter had been completely resolved in his mind,
without a doubt or any shadow of a doubt, and he had
arrived at a verdict on the testimony of many trustworthy
witnesses insofar as a man can see superficially.
Accordingly, when he heard a word of Torah quoted to him
by the notorious provocateur‫ ״‬who interpreted it, he did
not look upon it favorably or try to justify it, perchance the
agent had slightly misquoted it. For, as is well known, a
minor change in language may alter the matter from one
28
F i rs t C ri si s
extreme to the very other. It certainly could not have

occuned to him that they [the Chasidic leaders] might be
in possession of the word of G-d received from Elijah [the
Prophet] of saintly memory, to interpret and sublimate the
material [language] of the holy Zofrar in a mystical manner
that had eluded him, since it can he transmitted only
directly from mouth to mouth, and not through the said
agent. But because the attainment of such a high level [to
merit the revelation of Elijah] required a very great and
profound sanctity, diametrically opposed to that [level]
which had been confirmed to him by witnesses whom his
Eminence considered trustworthy— and usually people do
not err to such an extent, from one extreme to another—
he refused to accept from us any argument, answer or
defense whatsoever, or any explanation of the word of
Torah which he had heard [in our name], nor anything else
whatever.
And why should this day be different.‫ ׳‬For even now
nothing has been heard from him in the way of a retreat
and regret from [his position in] bygone days, to indicate
that any doubt has now arisen [in his mind] perchance they
[the opponents] had been wrong. On the contrary, the
money is the proof, namely, the fact that he demanded two
thousand adumim for tzedakah or other worthy cause. This
was because he did not wish to waste his time. For, as you
know, I have answers to all the questions, which are well-
known in our provinces; but they did not accept the
answers, as we have personally witnessed in the communi
ty of Shklov. Now, therefore, why should I toil in vain? For
the dictum of our Sages of blessed memory^ is well known:
“Just as it is a mitzvah to say a thing that will be heeded, so
it is a mitzvah not to say a thing that will not be heeded.”'■’
. . . Especially after the many evil deeds which have been
perpetrated against our Chasidic fellowship in the province
of Lithuania and Little Russia on the basis of the expressed
opinion of HaGaon HaChasid, particularly to his disciples;
and a friend has a friend. I have seen with my own eyes a
letter written by one of his disciples in Vilna in the name
29
R abbi Schneur Zalman
of his teacher [containing] things which I do not wish to

put in writing out of respect for the Torah.
Now, from the content of your esteemed letter it is evi
dent and clear to me that all the above has not escaped
your esteemed selves, and you were fully aware of it.
Nevertheless, you relied primarily on the possibility of
there being two esteemed men who could adjudicate [the
dispute] and decide who is right, etc. But there is no wis
dom in this suggestion. For their esteem would certainly
carry no weight whatever were they to adjudicate against
the opinion of HaGaon HaChasid which he placed in the
mouth of his emissary R’ Saadiah,'’ who always speaks in
the name of his master, and certainly not in his own name;
particularly in regard to the interpretation of the book of
Likutei Amarim and its like, which are based on the lofty
sacred teachings of the Ah of blessed memory. Insofar as is
known, there is not one person in the province of
Lithuania who would dare to maintain an opinion contrary
to that of HaGaon HaChasid, and declare openly that he
erred, G-d forbid, except in the distant countries such as
Turkey, Italy, most of Germany, Greater Poland and Minor
Poland (Galicia). This 1 would welcome indeed, especially
in matters of faith; for according to the rumor in our
provinces [stemming] from his disciples, it is precisely in
this area that HaGaon HaChasid found objection to the
book of Likutei Amarim and its like, where the concept of
G'd’s “Presence in all the world” and “no place is devoid of
Him” is interpreted in a very real sense, whereas in his
esteemed opinion it is absolute heresy to say that G ‫׳‬d,
blessed be He, is to be actually found in very lowly things,
for which reason, according to your esteemed letter, the
well-known book was burnt,‫ ’״‬whereas they have their own
mysterious and unique interpretation of the said dicta,
namely, “the whole earth is full of His glory” refers to
[G'd’s] watchfulness, etc. Would that 1 could know him
and guide him, and present to him our case, tt) remove from
ourselves all his philosophical censures and objections in
the footsteps of which he has followed, according to his
30
F i rst C ri si s
said disciples. If, however, he would find it hard to retract

from the path to which he has been accustomed since his
youth, and my words will not be accepted by him, then his
greatness should be matched by his modesty, to explain
fully all his objections to us in regard to this tenet, spelled
out clearly in writing by one of those who are close to him,
and signed by himself personally; and I will follow it up and
answer all his objections, also over the signature and seal of
my own hand. Both letters would then be copied and sent
to all the wise men ot Israel, both near and far, to express
their opinion thereon. For Israel has not been forsaken by
G'd, and there will be found many with perfect knowledge
of the Torah and with a mind inclined to adjudicate, with
out partiality to either side. Then the majority will rule,
and peace in Israel will be established thereby.
As for the book Likutei Amarim and its like, in the mat
ter of the “elevation of the sparks” from the kelipot, etc.,'’
the essential concept ttf this sublimation and the elevation
of the sparks has been mentioned for the first time only in
the Lurianic Kabbala, but not by previous Kabbalists, nor
[is it found] explicitly in the holy Zohar. We know with
absolute certainty that HaGaon HaChasid, long may he
live, does not accept the tradition of the Ari of blessed
memory in its entirety, that it has all been revealed by
Elijah, of blessed memory, but only a small portion of it;
While the rest is of his [the Ari’s] own great wisdom; con
sequently, there is no imperative to accept it, etc; more
over, the writings [of the Ari] came down in a most defec
tive form, etc."' A person who holds this view is entitled to
make his own choice to choose that which to him is good
and fitting, out of all the sacred writings of the Ari, of
blessed memory, saying, “This tradition is nice, and stems
from the mouth of Elijah, and this one is not from the
mouth of Elijah, of blessed memory.” What can we say, and
what can we speak, and how can we justify ourselves in his
presence? Even if he interprets something in the writings of
the Ari, of blessed memory, at variance with our interpre
ration, anyone with brains in his skull can understand that
31
one who does not believe in a certain thing is no authori

ty to judge and rule on that matter. But the adjudicators
should be “the great” in Israel who are noted for their
acceptance of the tradition of the Ari, of blessed memory,
in its entirety, that it is all from the mouth of Elijah, of
blessed memory, such as the Sephardic Chachamim and
their like. And this, too, would be of no avail, unless the
claimants and contestants against us also accept the tradi‫׳‬
tion of the Ari, of blessed memory, in its entirety, like our‫׳‬
selves, and were leading scholars of Israel in Nigleh
(“revealed,” i.e. Talmud, etc.) and Nistar (“esoteric,” i.e.
Kabbah), and adjudication be required between them and
the leaders of Israel among our Chasidim who are
renowned in Poland and Germany.'“* But so far we have
heard nothing of this.
As for the burning of the well-known book,^° it is not
for you to fight for the cause of the Baal Shem Tov of saint
ly memory and to provoke strife, G-d forbid. This is neither
the city nor the road in which G-d delights. If in your eyes
it is something new, it has already happened before.
Remember the days of old. For who was greater to us than
Moshe in his generation, namely, the Rambam, of blessed
memory, who in his country, Spain, rose in high repute,
growing ever greater, so that while he was yet alive they
used to include in the text of the Kaddish “in your life, and
your days . . . and in the life of our master Moshe, and in the
life of all the house of Israel,” etc., for they saw his esteem
and his holiness and piety; yet in distant lands, where they
had not heard nor seen his esteem, he was considered a
heretic and denier of our holy Torah, and his books were
publicly burnt, viz. the first book of his Code, by order of
men wise in their eyes, who objected to what he had writ
ten in the Laws of Teshuvah, and it did not occur to them
to ascribe it to the deficiency of their knowledge and
understanding of his sacred words, as subsequently clarified
by the Ramban (Nachmanides) and RaDaK (Rabbi David
Kimchi) of blessed memory. However, with the passing of
time their hatred also disappeared, and the truth appeared
32
F i rst C ri si s
on the surface and all Israel knew that Moshe was true and
his teaching was true. So will it be with us, speedily in our
time. Amen.^'
It is clear from the above letter that the weight of the oppo
sition to the Chasidic movement, insofar as the Gaon of Vilna
was concerned, rested on formal testimony presented to the
Gaon by persons whom the Gaon had no reason to suspect of
deliberate distortion. Such testimony undoubtedly included the
excesses of the Kalisk group, which could have been sufficient to
arouse the ire of the Sage of Vilna. However, unless this testi
mony was presented to him as representative of the whole
Chasidic “sect” rather than as an exception, the Gaon of Vilna
would not have consented to a general ban against the Chasidic
movement as a whole. There must also have been other deliber
ate misrepresentations which the Gaon in his saintly innocence
could not conceive as half-truths. Thus, Chasidic lore relates the
following episode which may serve as an illustration of the kind
of “testimony” presented to the Gaon: Two Jews, whose reliabil
ity as witnesses could not be doubted, testified on oath that they
had seen the leader of the Chasidim sitting at a joyful repast on
Tisha b’Av (the Fast of the 9th day of Ai‫ )׳‬with a female on his
lap! The testimony was true insofar as it went, except for two
things: It happened to be on Shabbat, when the Fast is post
poned for the following day, and the “female” happened to be a
baby grandchild. It cannot be ascertained whether the said
episode actually took place, or is no more than a legend. But it is
nevertheless characteristic of the manner in which “testimony”
could have been presented to the Gaon to obtain his condem
nation of the sect. It need not surprise us that the Gaon should
have accepted such testimony in good faith, for the Shabbatians
and their heirs, the Frankists, were known to indulge in all sorts
of immorality and misconduct, and the Chasidim were some
times branded as secret followers of those notorious though
defunct sects.
In addition to whatever testimony may have been presented
to the Gaon about the conduct, or misconduct, of the Chasidim,
it is clear from the above document that there were also certain
deep-rooted philosophical and doctrinal differences which sepa-
33
rated the Gaon of Vilna from the teachiitgs of the Baal Shem
Tov, particularly those expounded in the Likutei Amarim
(Tanya). These differences could have been resolved through a
direct confrontation between the Gaon of Vilna and Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, but the Gaon persistently refused to meet with
his younger defendant, as we have seen. Moreover, by reason of
the immense stature of the Gaon of Vilna, both as a Talmudist
and as a Kabbalist, there could not be found a person command
ing similar authority within reasonable precincts, who could act
as an arbiter in the dispute. Under the circumstances there
appeared little likelihood for the rift to be healed during the life
time of the Gaon of Vilna, unless he reversed himself, which did
not seem to be within the realm of probability.
The following year (1776), the leading disciples of the late
Rabbi Dov Ber of Miezricz conferred on the situation. It was
decided that Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s wish to emigrate to
Palestine be granted, and that Rabbi Schneur Zalman was to
become the leader of the Chasidim in White Russia and
Lithuania. However, Rabbi Schneur Zalman refused to accept
the leadership in an official capacity as long as his senior cob
league lived, despite the latter’s repeated appeals.^^ Only after
Rabbi Menachem Mendel died in 1788 did he accept the lead
ership officially. In the meantime. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was
actively engaged in preaching and disseminating the Chasidic
doctrines according to his own interpretation. During his exten
sive travels many followers were attracted to him, not only from
the masses but from the ranks of scholars as well. He established
a school of selected disciples in his own town. The students were
divided into three groups (Chadarim) and many of them became
distinguished scholars and Rabbis. The Chadarim, established by
Rabbi Schneur Zalman in Liozna during the years 1773-1778,
admitted only selected students of high scholastic ability for
intensive studies of both Talmud and Chasidut. The faculty
included, in addition to Rabbi Schneur Zalman himself, his
three learned brothers, Rabbi Yehuda Leib, Rabbi Mordechai,
and Rabbi Moshe. This academy of higher learning existed for
twenty years, and produced Chasidic rabbis of outstanding cal
iber, who widely disseminated the Chabad doctrine.^*
34
F i rs t C ri si s
I n the year 5537 (1777) Rabbi Schneur Zalman experienced a

traumatic personal crisis. It was towards the end of that year
that Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, with two of his col
leagues, Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk and Rabbi Israel of Polotzk,^'‘
together with a group of their followers, were due to leave for the
Holy Land. Rabbi Schneur Zalman felt a great urge to join them
and likewise emigrate to Palestine. By nature a peace-loving
man, Rabbi Schneur Zalman did not cherish the battle which
awaited him, and which he would have to wage single-handedly
after his colleagues were gone. Moreover, he was imbued with a
profound love for his fellow-Jews in general, and with deep
respect and affection for Torah scholars in particular. The strife
between the Mitnagdim and Chasidim was very painful to him,
and seeing no prospects itf immediate reconciliation and peace,
he was sorely tempted to escape from it all.
For three months he wrestled with the agonizing problem as
to whether or not to join his colleagues and emigrate to the Holy
Land. Finally, during Chol'HaMoed Pesach he reached a deci
sion. He informed his family and immediate circle of followers
and disciples that he would be leaving for the Holy Land right
aftet Pesach.
The Jewish community of Liozna consisted of ordinary, sim-
pie, pious Jews. They revered the great Chasidic leader, and his
learned brothers, who graced their humble community with their
presence. Now, the community was deeply gtieved to learn of the
impending departure of all its glory. Hastily, the seven elders of
the Community Council convened to delibetate on what to do
to preserve, at any rate, the institutions of learning which Rabbi
Schneur Zalman had set up. The following resolutions were
adopted:
(a) The houses occupied by Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his
brothers and their families would be kept in good repair and
readiness for their original occupants, should they decide to
return.
(b) The Council pledged to maintain and support all the mar-
tied scholars and younger students of the Chadarim of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, who would choose to remain in Liozna for
at least one yeat.
35
R abbi S c h n e u r Z ai . ma n
(c) The community at large would further provide mainte

nance for an additional fifty new students, if the seminarians
would agree to provide instruction and guidance for them.
Rabhi Schneur Zalman was gratified to see the sincere con‫״‬
cem of the community to maintain his seminaries. He urged his
disciples to remain in Liozna and avail themselves of the com
munity’s generous hospitality. He arranged for them a curriculum
of studies to be followed in his absence.
The whole town turned out to bid farewell to Rabbi Schneur
Zalman and his brothers. In the courtyard of the main Beit
Hamidrash, a platform was set up, from which Rabhi Schneur
Zalman addressed his farewell message to the community,
exhorting them to support the Talmudic students with esteem
and affection. He blessed them to have sons and sons-in-law who
would be “learners” and scholars of the Torah.
In the beginning of the month of fyar. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman, with his family and his brothers. Rabbis Yehuda Leib,
Mordechai and Moshe, with their families, as well as some of the
disciples of the upper two Chaclarim, left Liozna. They made their
way to Mohilev, on the Dniester River.
On the way. Rabbi Schneur Zalman tarried in various towns
where he gave public discourses in Talmud, and homiletic lec
tures in Mussar, inspiring the large audiences who flocked to lis
ten to him with love and awe for G-d and closer adherence to
the Torah and Mitzvot.
To all pleadings that he not forsake his flock, and remain to
guide their lives and destinies. Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied:
“Our Sages have ruled, 'Your own life has priority.’”‫׳ ־‬
Some of his leading disciples, however, remained to settle
down in various towns on the way.
Throughout the whole summer of that year 5537 (1777),
Rabbi Schneur Zalman tarried in the districts of Podolia and
Wolhynia, taking leave of many followers with parting lectures
and sermons.
Arriving, finally, in Mohilev, his senior colleagues Rabbi
Menachem Mendel of Horodok and Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk
did not disguise their displeasure at their colleague’s intention of
abandoning his post. They urged him to reconsider his decision.
36
Fi rst C ri si s
asserting that he had no right to leave the land, and thus deprive
the Chasidim of his leadership at such a critical time. They also
reminded him of the destiny which the Maggid of Miezricz had
foreseen for him, with the assurance of the eventual success of
his life’s mission.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman spent three weeks in Mohilev in the
company of his senior colleagues. During the last week of their
sojourn together Rabbi Schneur Zalman spent long hours each
day in private discussions with Rabbi Menachem Mendel. They
finally left without him, and he remained in Mohilev for two
more weeks which he spent in seclusion. Then he let it be
known that he would return to Lithuania. Upon hearing of this
momentous decision, his brothers hastily returned to Liozna with
their families, although it was not known yet with certainty
whether Rabbi Schneur Zalman would also return to Liozna, or
take up residence in some other town. There was some specula‫׳‬
tion that he might settle in Horodok at the behest of Rabbi
Menachem Mendel, or in Kalisk, at the behest of Rabbi
Abraham, or perhaps in a larger Jewish community, such as
Minsk or Shklov.
Arriving in Liozna, Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s brothers were
pleased to find the scholars and students engaged in diligent
study, according to the prescribed curriculum of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman. Moreover, there were a number of new young faces,
mostly from the vicinity of Liozna, who had taken advantage of
the community’s offer to maintain fifty additional students.
The return of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s brothers to Liozna
revived the fervent hope of the community that Rabbi Schneur
Zalman, too, would return and settle in their midst. However, in
view of the conflicting rumors as to Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s ulti‫׳‬
mate choice of residence, the Liozna Community Council called
a general meeting in the main Beit Hamidrash. Before the
appointed time, the Beit Hamidrash was filled to overflowing, and
the women’s gallery, too, had a capacity attendance.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s brothers also attended the meeting.
They informed the C(tmmunity that their illustrious brother had,
indeed, decided to return to Lithuania, but had not decided, as
yet, where to make his residence. However, pending final
37
arrangements, he intended to come first to Liozna, where his

house was so thoughtfully kept in readiness for him and his fam‫׳‬
ily.
The announcement brought cheers from all present. Several
resolutions were immediately adopted:
(a) To send a delegation to greet Rabbi Schneur Zalman and
extend to him an urgent invitation to make Liozna his resi
dence again.
(b) To provide lodgings and board for up to one hundred sem
inarians on a year-round basis.
(c) To provide free board and lodgings for thirty visitors each
week-end for three days, that is, for the Shabbat and the day
before and after. On Shabbat-Mevorchim (when Rosh Chodesh
is blessed) this hospitality would be extended to fifty visitors,
as also during the festival seasons. Finally, during the month
of Jishrei, when a large influx of Chasidim could be expected
for the Solemn Days and Succot, the community pledged to
provide free board and lodgings for up to five hundred visitors.
The members of the Community Council thereupon
appealed to Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s brothers to join the delega
tion that was to be sent to greet their illustrious brother, and to
convey to him the community’s pledges. To this they agreed,
choosing Rabbi Yehuda Leib to go with the delegation.
In due course the delegation returned with the happy tidings
that Rabbi Schneur Zalman had favorably accepted the commu
nity’s proposals, and consented to take up his residence again in
Liozna.
About the time that the first Chasidic emigres arrived in the
Holy Land (5th of Elul, 553711777), Rabbi Schneur Zalman and
his entourage left Mohilev and began the long wagon-trail
bound for Liozna. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s caravan, including
scores of coaches and wagons, augmented by new disciples and
followers, moved at a leisurely pace from town to town, stopping
to rest for a day or two in each town. They celebrated Rosh
Hashanah and the whole festival-season in the midst of this jour
ney, and it was not until the middle of Shemt (5538/1778) that
Rabbi Schneur Zalman finally reached Liozna.^^
By this time, the turbulence of anti-Chasidic agitation had
38
F i r s t C ri s i s
abated considerably. The lull lasted for about three years. During
this time Rabbi Schneur Zalman was able to concentrate his
attention on his seminaries and on the dissemination of the
teachings of Chasidut.
39
C h a p t e r IV
T he C hasm W idens
T Ihe period of the years 1781-1788 saw Rabbi Schneur

Zalman again engaged in defending the position of the
Chasidim and the Chasid ic doctrine against attack. As
has already been mentioned,' the battle against the Chasidim
was renewed with much vigor in 1781, following the publication
of the book Toldot Yaakov Yosef by Rabbi Joseph HaKohen of
Polonnoye. This book is believed to be the first published
Chasidic work by a disciple of the Baal Shem Tov which was
openly critical of certain aspects of the Rabbinate. It raised a
storm of protest among the Mitnagdic extremists, who caused
the book to be burnt publicly in Vilna, Brody, and elsewhere.
Chasidic books were also burnt in some Jewish communities in
Bohemia, where the well-known Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, Chief
Rabbi of Prague, was the formidable antagonist of the Chasidic
movement.‘ However, the central figure of the opposition was
Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, the greatest Talmudic authority of the
period. In the late summer of 1781 Rabbi Elijah was co-signato
ry with Rabbi Shmuel, head of the Ecclesiastical Court of Vilna,
on a manifesto calling for the most stringent measures against
the Chasidic “sectarians.” This appeal sparked the strict ban
against the Chasidim which was pronounced, with all the para
phernalia of the dreaded cherern, at the rabbinic convocation in
Zelva, and by the Rabbinates of Brisk, Slutzk, Shklov and other
Mitnagdic strongholds.
These attacks were more effective in causing the Chasidim
to close their ranks than in curbing their movement. The
40
C h a s m W i dens
Chasidim were forced into greater separation. If, in the past, the
Chasidim tended to hold their own congregational services by
reason of their adoption of the Lurianic rite in prayer (the so-
called Nusach Ari), they were nevertheless often permitted to
share the same houses of prayer.^ The wave of intolerance, how‫׳‬
ever, forced the Chasidim to establish separate synagogues,
which began to spring up in growing numbers.■* Then there was
the question of the ritual slaughter of animals (shechitah). Rabbi
Schneur Zalman insisted on the use of a specially honed slaugh‫׳‬
terer’s knife for this purpose.^ The Chasidim, therefore, would
either have their own trained and qualified slaughterer, or they
would rather do without meat. In view of the fact that the meat‫׳‬
tax was an important source of revenue for the kahal, the prob‫׳‬
lem of the Chasidic meat‫׳‬boycott was sometimes solved by per‫׳‬
mitting the installation of a Chasidic slaughterer in the commu‫׳‬
nal slaughter‫׳‬house.® But with the rise of antagonism against the
Chasidim, such cooperation was welhnigh impossible, and the
schism tended to become more intensified.
The issue of the shochet’s (slaughterer’s) knife played an
important role in the controversy between the Chasidim and
Mitnagdim, and calls for some clarification.
Jewish law requires that the knife which the slaughterer uses
to cut the animal’s throat be perfectly smooth. The slightest
notch on the knife’s blade makes the knife unfit for the kosher
slaughter of animals. Thus, the training of a shochet entailed, in
addition to his familiarity with all the laws of shechitah, also the
skill of preparing the knife to make it perfectly smooth and
sharp, and to develop a sensitivity for testing its smoothness
(namely by going over the sharp end of the blade with the tip of
his fingernail to detect even the slightest notch or imperfection).
The slaughterer’s knife in general use at that time, as from
olden days, was made of wrought or cast iron. The preparation,
i.e. sharpening and smoothing, of the knife entailed a lengthy
process, requiring both skill and patience on the part of each
individual shochet, and even then it was difficult to attain per‫׳‬
fection in both smoothness and keenness. Consequently, most
shochetim concentrated on the keenness of the knife. During
the time of the Maggid of Miezricz, especially later, on the insis‫׳‬
41
R abbi S c h n h u r Z a l m a n
tence of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, the honed steel knife was intro
duced for exclusive use by the Chasidic shochetim, since this
knife had the advantage of being more pliable and practical, and
could more quickly and with less effort be made both smooth and
sharp to perfection. Eventually, more precisely in the following
generation, the honed steel knife was universally accepted by all
jews, as it is still used to this day. However, in the early days of
the controversy, the innovation by the Chasidim was strenuous
ly opposed, as in the case of all other “innovations,” regardless of
their merit. The fact that these innovations were conceived for
the more meticulc3us observance of the law was ignored in the
heat of the opposition to the Chasidic movement in its totality. '
With all his insistence upon the use of the honed steel knife.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman did not rule out the older practice as no
longer valid. Indeed, wheir he learned that some of his Chasidim
refused to eat meat at weddings, or similar repasts, where the
meat was of animals slaughtered by the old method, he urged his
Chasidim not to embarrass their hosts and other guests in public,
since the meat was kosher. Thus, in a letter (of uncertain date)
he wrote to his Chasidim in Vilna:
The shechitah with honed knives is a great and pro
found mitzvah which our rabbis, the heavenly saints, adopt
ed, and were verily prepared to make the supreme sacrifice
for it. There can be no financial consideration in having a
permanent shochet [of our own]. However, if you some
times participate in a seudat-mitzvah (religious repast) with
other Jews of your community, heaven forfend that you
should separate yourselves from them, to regard them as if
they were eating from a [non-kosher] carcass, G-d forbid
and forfend. I have never myself taken exception to the
cooking utensils [in which such meat was cooked]. . .
The controversy on this issue continued all through the life
time of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. In Vilna, where the Chasidim
eventually succeeded in obtaining a predominating influence in
the community council, the leading non-Chasidic rabbis com
plained to Rabbi Scbneur Zalman as late as 5571 (1811) that
they were placed in a position where they had to use meat of
Chasidic shochetim using honed knives, much to their dismay!
C has m W i dens
In reply, Rabbi Schneur Zalman wrote to them a lengthy

epistle, with an erudite discussion on the Halachic points
involved, to prove that not only is shechitah with a honed knife
in order, but that it in fact reflects a more stringent compliance
with the Halachah. He also pointed out that when the out
standing gaon Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin visited White Russia in
5563 (1803) he had declared in the house of his saintly rabbi, the
Gaon of Vilna, that, from the viewpoint of the Halachah,
according to the Talmud and poskim, there was no prohibition
against the use of honed knives. The reason for the ban against
the practice was the same that served as the basis for the entire
ban against the Chasidim which was issued in 5532 (1772),
namely, the erroneous belief that the Chasidim constituted a
heretical sect, and consequently merited all the stringent and
punitive measures issued against the Chasidim at that time. Even
that reason no longer existed.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman pointed out, moreover, that the use
of honed knives had become a common practice throughout the
Ukraine, Galicia and Podolia, in much of Wolhynia, as well as in
the large cities of Dubno, Ostrog, Kremenitz and Lutzk, all of
which were predominantly non-Chasidic; also in the Holy Land,
and by the Sephardim. To invalidate the Chasidic use of honed
knives for shechitah would mean to invalidate a practice which
had already been accepted by tens of thousands of Jews, both
Chasidim and non'Chasidim.■‫׳‬
Thus, at the time when the said letter was written, nearly
thirty years after the ban against the Chasidim of 1772, the use
of honed knives was already widespread even among the
Mitnagdim. But in the period under discussion, the issue of the
shechitah as well as the other issues in the controversy, provided
sufficient fuel for a sustained attack against the new “sect.”
Being mostly on the defensive, the Chasidic community
assumed the characteristics of a brotherhood, with its members
voluntarily pledged to mutual assistance, aid and comfort. Yet
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was not content with merely strengthen
ing the Chasidic ranks. He was bent on peaceful expansion of
the movement. His disciples, men of Talmudic as well as
Chasidic learning, after years of study and training in his
43
Chadarim, were strategically placed in various Jewish communi‫־‬

ties, to propagate the Chasidic teachings and way of life. In
debates with their opponents they could more than hold their
own. Rabbi Schneur Zalman himself sometimes visited various
Mitnagdic strongholds and, being a gifted preacher, won many
new adherents.
n the year 5543 (1783) an important disputation took place in

I Minsk between leading Mitnagdic gaonim from Vilna, Shklov,
Brisk, Minsk and Slutzk on one side, and Rabbi Schneur Zalman
on the other. The disputation was to be conducted on two lev
els.
There was, first of all, to be a test of the Talmudic scholar
ship of the Chasidic protagonist. The Mitnagdim took the posi
tion that they would not debate with any Chasidic leader unless
they were satisfied with the latter’s proficiency in Talmudic
knowledge.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman agreed to these terms on condition
that the Mitnagdim, too, would agree to be put to the same test.
His counter‫ ׳‬proposal was accepted.
The second phase of the disputation was to be centered on
the doctrines of the Baal Shem Tov.
The gaonim of the Mitnagdic camp began to examine Rabbi
Schneur Zalman by a series of questions in Talmud and
Halachah. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s answers were precise, clear,
and to the point. The simple and succinct manner in which he
disposed of some rather involved questions amazed the audience.
They were similarly impressed by the questions which he, in
turn, put to his contestants. Rabbi Schneur Zalman obviously
had the ability to present most intricate problems in a few words.
The venerable gaon Rabbi Aharon Yaakov, the head of the
yeshiva of Slutzk, and the equally famed gaon Rabbi Zelmele
Slutzker, the leading contestants of the Mitnagdim, failed to
solve the problems which Rabbi Schneur Zalman put to them.
They requested Rabbi Schneur Zalman to answer his own ques‫׳‬
tions. This he did, with the exception of two, which remained
unresolved.
Having satisfactorily disposed of the preliminary phase of the
44
C h a s m W i dens
disputation, the antagonists of Chasidut began to outline their

objections to the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov.
The main strictures which the Mitnagdim leveled against
the Beshtian doctrines centered on two points:
Firstly, the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov accorded especial
esteem to the prayers and Tehillim recital of the unlearned and
untutored Jew, even though he did not know what he was saying.
This attitude, the Mitnagdim contended, tended to give the am-
ha’aretz and ignoramus a sense of undeserved self-importance,
and lowered the prestige of the talmidei-chachamim. It seemed to
ignore the Talmudic saying that “all calamities that occur in the
world are due to the amei'ha’aretz-”'°
Secondly, according to the doctrine of the Baal Shem Tov,
even a gaon and tzaddik have to serve G-d in the way of teshuvah.
The Mitnagdim took strong exception to this doctrine, arguing
that it placed the saint and scholar in the category of ordinary
sinners and repenters. Such a notion surely undermined the
honor of the Torah and the dignity of the talmidei-chachamim.
The Mitnagdim further concluded that this notion was in con
tradiction to the view of the Torah, Written and Oral, which
described the tzaddik as the “foundation of the world”“ and the
talmidei'chachamim as those who “increase peace in the world”
and as the true “builders” of the Jewish nation.'^ The Beshtian
notion of requiring them, too, to do penance was humiliating,
and most objectionable.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied to the said two main con
tentions of the Mitnagdim as follows:
“The basis of the doctrine of the Baal Shem Tov and of the
teachings of his successor, my teacher and master the Maggid of
Miezricz, which illuminate the way of Divine service, followed
by all the disciples of our master the Maggid, is to be found in the
first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu.
“My teacher, the Maggid of Miezricz, taught me the follow
ing doctrine, which he had received from the Baal Shem Tov:
It is written, “And the angel of G-d appeared (vayyera)
to him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush. And he
saw that the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was
not consumed. Then said Moshe, ‘I will turn aside and see
45
R a b b i S c: h n e u r Z a l m a n
this great sight’” (Exod. 3:2'3).

The Targum renders the word vayyera (“appeared”) by
v’itgali (“revealed himself”). The meaning of “revelation” is
that it comes within the perception of everyone, to each
one according to one’s capacity, down to the lowest levels.
Thus, the Targum also renders the word vayyered in Exod.
19:20 (“And G-d came doivn on Mount Sinai”) by v’it'
gali(“revealed himself”), though elsewhere, e.g. Gen. 38:1
(“And Judah came down"), the weird vayyered is rendered by
v ’nahat (“descended”). Similarly in Gen. 11:5 the Targum
gives a corresponding rendition in the sense of “revelation,”
as in the case of the revelation at Mt. Sinai.
Now, just as the revelation at Sinai was intended for all
the people, from Moshe down to the jew of the most hum
ble station, so must “revelation” be understood in the other
instances, including the first revelation to Moshe out of the
Burning Bush. Here, too, we must assume a revelation
which can be perceived on all levels, down to the lowest, as
already mentioned.
The words b’labat esh are rendered by Rashi by h’shal-
hevet shel esh, libo shel esh (“in a flame of fire; the heart of
fire”). Thus, the message of G-d (i.e. “G-dliness”) is to be
found in the “heart of fire,” i.e. in the earnest and sincere
inwardness of the heart, where the fiery embers of G-dliness
abide.
Tlae words “from the midst of the bush” elicit Rashi’s
further commentary: “Bur not from another [more stately]
tree, alluding to the verse, ‘1 am with him in distress
(t?:araJ1)”’(Ps. 91:15). Tzarah (literally “narrow place”)
alludes to this material world, which is so called because it
is limited in space; and also because the Light of the En So/
is concealed therein in Nature, and is thus “confined” and
“constricted,” as it were. By contrast, the supernal worlds,
where the Light of the En Sof shines forth manifestly, are
called “wide, open spaces.”
However, the design and purpose of the creation of this
physical world is to illuminate it and ccjnvert it from ‫ צרה‬to
‫“ —צהר‬light”— by means of the light of the Torah and the
46
C h a s m W i dens
Mitzvot, to be studied and observed in the daily life.

It is written, “Man is like a tree of the field” (Deut. 20:
19). There are fruit-bearing trees, to which, according to
Rabbi Yochanan, the talmidei'chaclmmim are likened (Taanit
7a); and there is the sneh, a humble bush that bears no fruit.
Yet, the “fiery flame” was manifest in the Sneh. To be sure,
the talmidei'chachamim, the students of the Torah, are filled
with fire, since the Torah is called “fire” (Deut. 33:2), but it
is not the inextinguishable kind of fire which burned in the
sneh. The taimidei'chachamim, can, and do, quench their
inner fire by the intellectual gratification which they derive
from their Torah studies, from the new insights which they
discover, and from original innovations in the interpreta
tion and exposition of the wisdom of the Talmud.
N ot so the ordinary and unlearned Jew, the sneh— in
whom bums an inextinguishable fire, and unquenchable
longing for attachment to G-d. The only spiritual expres
sion that the simple and untutored Jew can find is in prayer
and the recital of Tehillim. And though he may not know
the exact meaning of the sacred words he intones, they
contain the full force of his sincerity and wholeheartedness.
The only motivation of these humble Jews is their sim-
pie faith in G-d, which creates in them the burning and
insatiable desire for Torah and. Mitzvot, a desire which, of
necessity, remains unsatisfied and unquenched.
This is why the eternal “fiery flame” (labat esh) is to be
found precisely in the hearts of these simple, sincere folk.
It is written, “And Moshe said, ‘1 will turn and see this
great sight’” (Exod. 3:3), which, according to Rashi means,
“1 will turn from here, to come closer to there.” This indi
cates that Moshe Rabbeinu understood the Divine message
of the Burning Bush which emphasized the unique quality
of the ordinary Jew— the labat esh being found precisely in
the sneh, rather than in the cedars of Lebanon. The realiza
tion of this evoked a sense of teshuvah in him, and a change
of outlook and direction (“I will turn [ashu1‫׳‬a] from here to
come closer there”).
Now, Moshe Rabbeinu was a perfect tznddik. The course
47
of teshuvah of the perfect tzaddik is quite different from that

of the ordinary repenter. It is effected in the manner of “I
will turn from here to come closer there.” In other words,
no one, not even the greatest tzaddik, should be static in his
Divine service, however perfect it may seem at any time.
There must be a constant striving toward ever greater
heights, turning from one high level to a still higher one,
with a constant desire to get closer to G-d. In this progres‫׳‬
sion, which is essentially an infinite process, each higher
level attained leaves the previous level, however satisfacto
ry it seemed previously, deficient by comparison. Hence
there is room for teshuvah even for the perfect tzaddik."
Rabbi Schneur Zalman emphasized that the said fundamen
tal tenets of the Baal Shem Tov were based on the first Divine
revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu, whom G-d had chosen to he the
first deliverer and leader of the Jewish nation, and he went on to
explain the precedental nature of that revelation;
The Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu was quite
different from the Divine revelaticrn to Noah, or even to
Abraham. For, the Divine revelation to Noah was a per
sonal one, due to special Divine grace. Whether Noah was
singled out for this Divine love because “Noah found favor
in the eyes of G-d” (Gen. 6:8), or because he actually mer
ited it, as it is written, “For I have found you righteous
before Me in this generation” (ibid. 7; 1), it was, neverthe'
less, a personal revelation, confined to him only.
The Divine revelation to Abraham was quite different.
It contained certain instructions as to Divine service, and
was attended by extraordinary tests and trials. It was, obvi‫׳‬
ously, on an altogether higher level, though it, too, came as
a result of special Divine love, as it is written, “For 1 know
him (Rashi; love him) that he will command his children
and his household after him, that they observe the way of
G'd, to do righteousness and justice,” (Gen. 18:19). In the
Midrash, Abraham was also called the “Supreme King’s
favorite” (B.R. ch. 42). Be it as it may, G-d’s revelation to
Abraham was also, essentially, a personal one.
However, the Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu—
48
C h a s m W i dens
Rabbi Schneur Zalman explained— was not merely a per

sonal one, but rather a general one, serving as a guideline
for all future leaders of our people. This revelation showed
that a Jewish leader should look for the labat esh in the
sneh— among the ordinary people. The leader must try to
discover this spark in the heart of the simple folk and fan it
into an all-consuming flame.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman spoke with much feeling and convic
tion, concluding with the challenge;
In truth, the higher one’s standing as a Torah scholar,
the more humble must be one’s submission to G-d; other
wise one is guilty of rebelliousness against the King of the
Universe Himself. In that case one must indeed do repen
tance from the depth of a contrite heart, and eradicate the
“Amalekite” from within‘* that cools the religious ardor of
the Divine service.
According to eyewitness accounts, Rahbi Schneur Zalman’s
exposition of the basic doctrines of the Baal Shem Tov, and his
concluding remarks, spoken with profound feeling and inspira
tion, left a tremendous impression on all present. Many who had
come to witness the disputation in order to scoff at the head of
the Kat (Sect), had been so inspired by his extraordinary erudi
tion of the entire Talmudic literature, and his brilliant defense of
the Besht’s teachings, that they were at once “converted.”
It was said that four hundred followers, all of them distin
guished Talmudic scholars, both young adults and elderly men,
joined the Chasidic community, as a direct result of that dispu
tation. Scores of young scholars followed Rabbi Schneur Zalman
to Liozna.*'*
There is reason to believe that as a result of the public debate
in Minsk in 1783, the Chasidic community in that city received
numerous adherents. Indeed, it grew sufficiently strong to force
the Kahal to come to terms with it on certain communal mat-
ters.‘'‫׳‬
On his return from Minsk, Rabbi Schneur Zalman stopped
for a week in Smilian, which was also a center of Torah study in
those days. Here, too. Rabbi Schneur Zalman gained many new
49
adherents to Chasidut. All these adherents, in turn, helped fur

ther to disseminate the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and to
increase the Chasidic ranks.
50
C h apter V
Entrenchment U nder Fire
A
renewed attempt to curb the Chasidim was made in
1784 in MobileV, but it likewise bore little fruit, except
, to create agitation, strife, and bitterness among the two
sections of the Jewish population. On his part, however, Rabbi
Schneur Zalman repeatedly urged his followers to exercise the
utmost restraint in their relationship with their opponents, or
complete passivity where the occasion demanded it. “Wait
patiently until the storm blows over,” he wrote to his Chasidim
in the town of Oushatz. On that occasion, he even called upon
his followers to refrain from holding separate congregational
worship in order to avoid provocation.'
Some of the Chasidic leaders in other parts of the country
attempted to persuade Rabbi Schneur Zalman to take a militant
attitude against the extreme elements among the Mitnagdim.
However, Rabbi Schneur Zalman resolutely refused to be drawn
into any move that could only widen the gulf between the two
camps and make it well-nigh impossible to heal the breach. The
following eye-witness account, related by Pinchas Reizes,^ one of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s prominent Chasidim, describes the
confrontation between Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his militant
colleagues on the crucial issue of self-defense:
One day, early in the summer of 1785 (during the
month of Sivan, 5545), a plain, horse-drawn wagon pulled
up near the house of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. Two Jews
alighted. One was an elderly person of short stature; the
51
other was younger and tallerd Speaking with a pronounced

Polish'Wolhynian'Podolian accent, they inquired if that
was the house of Rahbi “Zalmena Litvak.”'*
A t first, we could not quite make out what they were
saying. However, two other Chasidim, Simcha Zissel of
Horodok and Shmuel of Kalisk (better known as Shmuel
Munkis)^ immediately recognized the strangers’ request
and pointed to the residence of the Rebbe (Rabbi Schneur
Zalman), while 1— Pinchas Reizes continued— and anoth
er young Chasid, Zalman Chienes of Beshenkowitz, a sem
inarian of Cheder Gimmel, accompanied them to show
them the way.
We led the strangers through the Small Beit HaMidrash
to the room where the Rebbe received visitors in private
audience. The Chasidim reverently called this “Small
Synagogue”— the “Lower Gan Eden." At that moment two
young men were engaged in ardent study in the Small Beit
HaMidrash. They were Arke Assayer (later known as the
saintly Rabbi Aharon of Strashelia),‘’ and the older son of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, Rabbi Dov Ber. The latter rose to
greet and shake hands with the visitors, extending to them
the traditional greeting of “Shalom Aleichem." The older
one of the strangers said a few words to the Rebbe’s son, but
they were unintelligible to me because of his accent. The
Rebbe’s son, however, obviously understood him and
answered briefly. From the answer 1 gathered that the older
man had inquired about the subject matter which the two
had been studying. Then the older man asked again,
“Which is the residence of Rabbi Zalmena Litvak?” This
brought a smile to the lips of the Rebbe’s son who knew
that this was the name by which his father was affection
ately called when he first came to Miezricz.
Before he had a chance to reply to the question, the
door to the adjoining private room of the Rebbe opened,
and the strangers’ faces lit up with delight as they saw the
Rebbe in the doorway. The Rebbe extended his hand to
them with the traditional greeting, and they followed him
into his private chamber.
52
E n t r e n c h m e n t U nde r F i re
For several hours the visitors remained secluded with

the Rehbe. Moshele, the Rebbe's youngest son, who still
could not speak properly, came running to us into the
courtyard, saying excitedly that the visitors were arguing
with his father, and his father kept on repeating, “It is
assur” (forbidden).
None of us knew who the visitors were, nor what they
had come to discuss with the Rebbe— Rabbi Pinchas Reizes
continued. The seminarians, as well as the older Chasidim,
attracted by the news of the arrival of the mysterious visi
tors, and forming small groups near the Rebbe’s house, were
most curious to know the identity of these visitors, and the
nature of their business with the Rebbe. Some of the older
seminarians of Cheder Aleph were visibly excited. Suddenly,
Arke Assayer came rushing out of the house, calling out
loudly, “Berel (Dov Ber, Rahbi Schneur Zalman’s son) has
fainted!”
Chaim Elia of Druya, Avraham Zalman of
Beshenkowitz and Nachman Velvel of Babinowitz were the
first to rush into the Small Beit HaMidrash, where they
found the Rebbe’s son sprawled on the floor near the door
of the Rebbe’s private study.
The first two, somewhat excitable and impetuous by
nature, began calling out, “Rebbe, Rebbe!” which brought
the Rebbe out of his room.
When 1 came into the Beit HaMidrash, together with
others, the Rebbe was bent over his son who now lay
stretched out on a couch, his face pale, and his eyes closed.
His father held his hand to Betel’s head.
The Rebbe requested cold water. When it was brought
to him, he sprinkled some drops on his son’s face. The lat
ter opened his eyes and emitted a deep sigh.
The Rebbe’s son developed a high fever. Zalman
Baruch and 1 moved him from the Small Beit HaMidrash
into the Rebbe’s living quarters and placed him in his hed,
where he immediately fell asleep.
Zalman Baruch remained at his bedside while 1
returned to the Small Beit HaMidrash. I found Arke still
53
there, and I begged him to tell me what he knew about the

mysterious visitors, and what had transpired. At first he
declined to tell me anything, and I suspected that he knew
more than he cared to admit. W hen 1 continued to press
him he began to weep. This filled me with profound grief
and increased my anxiety to know what had actually taken
place to cause the Rebbe’s son to faint. However, all my
pleadings with Arke Assayer to take me into his confi
dence were to no avail. Finally, 1 promised him a reward: 1
would divulge to him several Chasidic insights which the
Rebbe had revealed to me on the occasion of my private
audience with him. Arke knew that 1 was one of the sen
ior students of Cheder Beit and particularly close to the
Rebbe.
The tempting reward swayed him, and he told me what
had happened: “Soon after the door closed behind the
Rebbe and his visitors, we heard the latter’s raised voices.
We, the Rebbe’s son and 1, continued our study. As the
hours passed, and the discussion behind the closed door
became more animated, at times quite heated, we decided
to get close to the door in order to overhear what the dis
cussion was about. For a time it seemed to center on some
Talmudic point, then it dawned on me that the subject was
a proposed cherem (excommunication) against the leading
opponents of Chasidut. The emissaries told the Rebbe that
a minyan (ten, constituting a quorum) of senior disciples of
the late Maggid of Miezricz, members of the Holy Society,
had decided to fight back against the Mitnagdim with their
own weapon— the dierem, and they wished their colleague.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, to join them in this. The Rebbe
argued that this was assur (forbidden), because the effect of
such an anathema is to cut a person off from the source of
his soul, which might lead the anathematized person into
heresy, thus creating a Chilul HaShem (profanation of G-d’s
Name).
“The older one of the emissaries declared that they had
considered this possibility and had decided that, in view of
the danger threatening the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov
54
E n t r e n c h m e n t U nde r F ire
and the Maggid, placing the whole future of the Chasidic

movement in dire jeopardy, there was no other recourse but
to fight back with the same weapon.
“The Rehbe insisted that the law of the Torah forbade
such a step, and that not only would he not be a party to it,
but he most strongly disapproved of it. This stand provoked
the older emissary to utter an imprecation, and it was this
malediction which so shocked the Rebbe’s son that he
fainted!”
Continuing the story. Rabbi Pinchas Reizes went on:
After hearing from Arke what had transpired, I became
more intrigued than ever. I stationed myself near the door,
and strained my ears to hear the discussion inside the
Rebbe’s room. I could clearly hear the animated debate
that was being carried on by the Rebbe and his visitors, on
the laws pertaining to the three forms of excommunication
(nidduy, cherem, and shamta).
Presently, the Rebhe’s youngest son Moshele bounced
into the Small Beit HaMidrash, and ran around the shulchan
(table, or pulpit, used for the reading of the Torah).
A little while later, the door of the Rebbe’s room
opened, and the visitors appeared, accompanied by the
Rebbe. They halted at the door, still continuing the
Halachic debate. Moshele, seeing his father, ran up to him,
and the Rebbe affectionately placed his hand on the boy’s
head.
“Well, Reb Zalmena?” the older emissary said. “Do you
still refuse to join us? Consider it earnestly!” The Rebbe
reiterated, however, that, according to the law of the
Torah, it would be flagrantly sinful to cause such a Chilul
HaShem, whereupon the older emissary again repeated the
imprecation, and the two of them walked out briskly.
With extraordinary composure the Rehbe accompa
nied the two emissaries to their carriage. All of us seminar
ians present were profoundly impressed by the Rebbe’s
composure, and we realized that the emissaries were promi
nent Chasidic leaders in their native land.
The Rebbe’s son, Dov Ber, was confined to bed with a
55
R abbi S c: h n e u r Z a l m a n
high fever for several weeks, but finally recovered.'

Having refused to join his colleagues on the warpath, even
though they recognized it as a desperate step for self-defense and
survival, Rabbi Schneur Zalman redoubled his efforts to fortify
the Chasidic movement by persuasion and penetration.
Soon after the ill-fated visit of the two mysterious emissaries,
Rabbi Yehuda Leib, the Rebbe’s brother and dean of the semi
naries, summoned several young men of Cheder Beit. He told
them that the Rebbe requested them to volunteer their services
during the summer months as his emissaries. They were to visit
certain communities in Lithuania, with a view to disseminating
in those places the Chasidic doctrine and way of Divine service,
in an unobtrusive and secret manner. Rabbi Pinchas Reizes was
one of them, and, as he later recounted his experiences, all the
selected young men carried out their secret mission with com
plete dedication and with great success.
New faces began to appear in Liozna; they were scholarly
young men who had been “converted” to Chasidut by Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s emissaries.
Seeing that the effort had succeeded so well, it was repeated
again during the next summer (1786). This time a new team of
disciples were sent to spread the teachings of Chasidut and win
new adherents. A concerted effort was made to penetrate the
city of Vilna and its environs, and the initial success indicated
that the time was ripe for a personal visit by Rabbi Schneur
Zalman in one of the towns in the vicinity of Vilna.
fter Rosh Hashanah it became known that the Rebbe

/ \ ‫ י‬.would visit Swintzan, near Vilna, soon after Succot.
Hundreds of Chasidim and non-committed young Talmudic
scholars, as well as many from the entire district, prepared to go
to Swintzan.
The autumn of that year (5547/1786), as Pinchas Reizes
recounted, was an unusually severe one. The first snow fell in
Liozna as early as Chol-HaMoed Succor. It was so cold that one
had to put on one’s fur coat and wintry felt boots when sitting in
the succah. Many times it was necessary to clear the snow from
the roof of the succah, as was also the case on the eighth day of
56
Succot— Shemini Atzeret— which happened that year to be on

Shabbat.
A ll night long it had snowed heavily, and the Rebbe’s succ-
ah had a thick cover of snow. Kuzma, the gentile janitor, was
apprised of the fact that, so long as the snow was on the roof, it
was not permissible to eat in the succah. Kuzma, dull-witted as he
sometimes was, was quick this time to grasp the hint, and he
cleared away the snow from the roof of the succah. Whereupon
Rabbi Schneur Zalman made kiddush and ate the Shabbat and
Yom-Tov repast in the succah.
Many of the visitors, who had come to spend the last festive
days of Succot in Liozna, arrived chilled to the bone. Many came
with frost-bitten fingers and toes.
It was the Rebbe’s custom— Pinchas Reizes related— to
have the scrolls of the Torah prepared for the hakafot
(dancing with the Torah) which were to be held on the
night of Shemini Atzeret, as well as on the following night
and morning of Simchat Torah. Because of the jostling and
hustling of the exuberant crowd during the hakafot, the
holy scrolls were considerably jolted, and there was danger
of some of the parchments receiving violent breaks. Hence,
by order of the Rebbe, all the scrolls were taken out of the
Holy Ark, rewound and tied up again at the seam, accord
ing to the requitement of the law, so that if a break did
occur, it would be at the seam, which could be easily
repaired.
The inspection and preparation of the scrolls was done
by Michel the shamash (beadle), with the assistance of sev
eral seminarians, on Hoshana Rabba (the day before
Shemini Atzeret).
A special supervisor was appointed to supervise the
proceedings and then report to the Rebbe that the task had
been properly executed.
That year— Pinchas Reizes related further— it was my
great privilege to be the appointed supervisor for this task.
When I came in to report to the Rebbe about the comple
tion of the assignment, he was in a festive and elated frame
of mind. I mentioned to him that many of the Chasidim
57
who had come for Yom Tov had caught severe colds, and
some of them were confined to bed with high fevers.
The Rebbe became engrossed in thought, with his
head resting on his hands, as he was sitting at his desk. For
some time he appeared to be in a saintly reverie. Then he
raised his head, opened his eyes and declared:
“The Torah says of itself, ‘At His Right Hand, there
was a Fiery Law’ (Deut. ,33:2). We are rejoicing now with
the Torah. Let all the sick men be brought to hakafot. Fire
consumes fire. The fire of the rejoicing with the Torah will
do away with the fever brought on by the colds and the
chills!”
Now in Liozna there were two elderly Jews, noted
Talmudists, who were obstinate Mitnagdim. They had, of
course, the highest respect for the Rebbe, but they could
not rid themselves of their anti-Chasidic prejudice. They
were known as Rabbi Eizik Mechadesh (“the Discoverer”)
and Rabbi Naftali Zahir (“the Scrupulous One”). Both were
men of outstanding Talmudic learning and of great piety.
Their appellations were characteristic. Reb Eizik often used
to say: “Today, 1 have— praise G-d— discovered a new
insight in the Talmud,” while Reb Naftali used to say: “I am
scrupulous in my food,” or “1 am scrupulous in my speech,”
or “I am scrupulous in my views.” He was always “scrupu‫׳‬
bus” in something or other.
Rabbi Eizik and Rabbi Naftali had studied at the famed
yeshiva in Smilewitz, under the tutelage of the saintly gaon
and tzaddik Rabbi Shilem Yudel, of whom it was said that
Elijah appeared to him frequently. Many of his disciples
were noted Talmudic scholars. A t the time that Eizik and
Naftali studied in Smilewitz, Rabbi Shilem Yudel was
already a venerable sage, and was sightless. The lectures
were delivered by his second son-in-law Rabbi Shimon
Elia, the “Huy” (prodigy) of Drutzen (a village in the vicin
ity of Kochanow, in the district of Mohilev).
My father— continued Pinchas Reizes— was, in his
youth, a student of the Iluy of Drutzen when the latter had
already been the senior Rosh Yeshiva of Smilewitz for twen-
58
ty years. My father related that when the goon, Rahhi

Shimon Elia, gave a Torah-talk, it was so sweet and
enchanting that the audience lost all sense of time. But
when he delivered a ()ilpul (intricate Talmudic discourse),
one felt as if the arguments pro and con hovered in the air,
and one’s head began to ache from the profundity of con
centration. Subsequently, when my father inevitably
became an intellectual admirer of the Rebbe (Rabbi
Schneur Zalman), he said that if the goon Rabbi Shimon
Elia, the lluy of Drutzen, had occasion to listen to the pro
found depth of the Divine wisdom of Chasidut, he would,
undoubtedly, have become a Chasid. Moreover, if he had
applied his brilliant mind and eloquence to the exposition
of the Chasidic teachings, he would have converted the
greatest of the great of Israel to the Chasidic doctrine.
Rabbi Eizik “Mechadesh” was a native of Aptzug, and
Rabbi Naftali “Zahir” was a native of Kochanow. Both had
arrived in Liozna fifty years previously as sons-in-law of
well-to-do baalei'hattim, and, being adequately provided
for, devoted all their time to the study of Torah.
Eye-witnesses had related that when Rabbi Schneur
Zalman came to Liozna as the newly-elected Maggid and
delivered a pilpul, Rabbi Eizik was excitedly impressed.
Both he and Rabbi Naftali declared that it was the first
time they had heard such a pilpul since the day they had left
the yeshiva of Smilewitz, where the gaon Rabbi Shimon Elia
used to deliver a pilpul to an exclusive group of Talmudic
scholars, twice a week.
In those days, the inhabitants of Liozna, like those in
the surrounding towns, were Mitnagdim, whose religious
life did not differ from that of their fellow-Jews elsewhere.
Yet, they were nett militantly antagonistic, like those of
Vilna, Pinsk, Brisk and Slutzk.
The hoary old Jews of Vitebsk used to tell that they had
frequently met itinerant wayfarers who stopped at the local
synagogues and spoke of a wondrous gaon and tzaddik who
lived in the province of Podolia. They spoke in glowing
terms of his efforts t(t improve the lot of his brethren, and
59
of his supernatural powers.

Some of these itinerants were obviously men of
extraordinary Talmudic learning, and they could cite parah
lels in the Talmud of the kind of wonders performed by cer
tain Tanaim and Amoraim in whose category they placed
those performed by the Miracle-Worker of Podolia.
In those days— Pinchas Reizes continued— little was
known about those itinerant wayfarers. But since we
became followers of the Rebbe we learned that the passing
wayfarers were colleagues or disciples of the Baal Shem
Tov; they were his secret emissaries, who roamed the coun
try to spread the teaching of the Besht and his mode of
Divine service among the Jewish masses.
In due course the Rabbinic Council (Vaad Ha’aratzot)
became alarmed at the spread of the Chasidic movement.
A t the annual fairs in Vilna and Slutzk bans were pro
nounced against the dissemination of the Besht’s teachings.
But the Jew in the street failed to comprehend the attitude
of the Rabbinic Council. He loved to hear the wonderful
stories which inspired him with new faith and warmth.
Many Jews living in the districts of Vitebsk and Mohilev,
the unlearned as well as the learned, all being sincere and
dedicated in their faith and piety, were quickly attracted to
the new movement. Even those who did not identify them
selves with Chasidim in these provinces, at least did not
become militantly hostile to the Chasidic movement.
W hen Rabhi Schneur Zalman began to disseminate
the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and of the Maggid of
Miezricz, the two elderly Mitnagdim kept their distance
from him, but observed an attitude of strict respect for him.
Subsequently, when Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s brothers, the
saintly gaonim Rabbi Yehuda Leib, Rabbi Mordechai and
Rabbi Moshe, came to live in Liozna, and Rabbi Schneur
Zalman gave them in-depth lectures in the study of the
Talmud three times a week, Rabbi Eizik and Rabbi Naftali
were the only outsiders who participated in these sessions.
Later on, when Rabbi Schneur Zalman established his first
Seminar (Cheder Aleph) in 5536 (1776) and placed it under
60
the tutelage of his hrcither Rabbi Yehuda Leib, both Rabbi

Eizik and Rabbi Naftali frequented the “W hite Beit
HaMidrash” to engage the young men in Talmudic discus
sion. However, when Rabbi Schneur Zalman began to
deliver periodic lectures in Chasidut, the two Mitnagdim
again became conspicuous by their absence.
Yet, when the Regional Rabbinic Council (Vaad
Haaratzot) of Slutzk pronounced a ban against Rabbi
Schneur Zalman and the teachings of Chasidut in the year
5539 (1779), Rabbi Eizik and Rabbi Naftali sent their writ
ten protest against the ban, testifying from personal knowl
edge to the inordinate learning and piety of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman. Nevertheless, they obstinately refused to become
Chasidim of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, or to believe any of
the wonders which were current among the Chasidim
about their Rebbe.
To get back to our story— Pinchas Reizes continued—
a nephew of the said Rabbi Eizik, whose name was Moshe
Aptzuger, was a Chasid of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. He was
among the many Chasidim who came to spend the latter
part of Succot in Liozna. He was accompanied by his two
sc‫ו‬ns and his son-in-law, and they were staying with Rabbi
Eizik.
The stress ot the journey and the unusually inclement
weather had visibly undermined Rabbi Moshe’s health,
and, being a person of delicate health to begin with, he
became severely ill with a high fever, and was confined to
bed. His two sons and his son-in-law also took ill. Abraham
the Rofeh (doct(‫ו‬r) declared that, insofar as the younger
men were concerned, he was confident, with G-d’s help,
that they would recover. However, he was quite pessimistic
about Rabbi Moshe’s condition, in view of his age and the
severity of the attack.
When the Rebbe told me— Pinchas Reizes ctmtin-
ued— that “the fire ot the Torah will cure all the chills and
colds,” 1 enlisted the help of several fellow-seminarians,
among them Ephraim Michel of Shklov and Chaim Elia of
Dubrovna, and we went around town to all the bed-ridden
61
Chasidim to take them to hakafot on the night of Shemini

Atzeret. The Rebbe’s promise that “the fire of the Torah
will cure all the colds,” had already reached all the ailing
Chasidim. For, when 1 had come out of the Rebbe’s room,
I spread the word in the synagogue, whence it was quickly
transmitted throughout the town. Wherever we came to
help the ailing Chasidim to come to hakafot, we found great
excitement.
Everywhere 1 was asked to repeat the Rebbe’s words
verbatim, which I gladly did, and it was heartwarming to
see the instantaneous impact of the Rebbe’s words. Not
only the invalids, but all the households where they were
staying, were elated, being absolutely confident that the
sick would be cured, with G-d’s help.
To add to the inclemency of the weather that evening,
snow, mixed with rain, began to fall, and an icy wind sent
chills down the spine. The slush in the unpaved streets was
ankle-deep. Yet none of these discomforts kept anyone at
home. Those who could walk aided by others, walked to
the synagogue; others were carried.
Arriving in the house of Rabbi Eizik, we found him
engaged in a heated debate with Moshe’s sons and son-in
law. The latter three had asked that word be sent to the
synagogue to come and help them, and also help carry their
father to the synagogue. Rabbi Eizik argued that it would be
folly for them to go to the synagogue in their condition. As
for their father, it would undoubtedly be fatal for him to be
taken outside in that frigid weather. Besides, he was in any
case delirious with fever and completely oblivious to
hakafot, or anything else.
As we came into the house— our group included
Chaim Elia of Dubrovna, two other young men and me—
Rabbi Moshe’s sons welcomed us with a cry of triumph:
“Praise G-d, our father and we are saved!”
Rabbi Eizik countered with an equally vehement cry, of
dismay: “Murderers! Assassins! It’s a travesty of the holy
Torah!” ^
I went up to Moshe’s bed, and was appalled at the sight
ENTRENt:HM ENT UNDER FlRE
that met my eyes. He lay still as a log, his color a mixture

of blue and black, his eyes shut, his fever at a climactic
height. For a moment I was at a loss what to do.
Rabbi Fizik continued to press his argument, citing a
passage in Talmud where it is expressly stated that the lame
and the sick were exempt from making the three annual
pilgrimages to the Sanctuary in Jerusalem.® Surely, he con
tended, our sick may be excused from hakafot. If Rabbi
Moshe is taken outside, it will be a plain case of
manslaughter!
On the other hand, Chaim and Baruch, Moshe’s sons,
insisted that, in view of the Rebbe’s statement, which they
trusted with perfect faith, their father should be taken to
shul (synagogue) and should not be denied the promised
cure!
1 must admit— continued Pinchas Reizes— that I was at
a loss what to say or do. I could see the logic of Rabbi Fizik’s
position. Moshe’s condition was such that it was doubtful if
he could survive the trip to shul; the shock might easily kill
him. Yet I was even more impressed by the unwavering
faith of the two brothers. They were, after all, only plain
laymen, yet they accepted the Rebbe’s words without ques‫׳‬
tion, to the point of taking their lives, and their father’s
life, in their own hands.
The more I thought of their extraordinary faith, the
more ashamed I became of my own wavering. I thought to
myself: “Shame on you, Pinnie (Pinchas), the son of Rabbi
Henoch Shklover, and student of the gaonim of Shklov.
With all your knowledge of the Talmud, Responsa and reli‫׳‬
gious philosophy, and with all your recognition of the
Rebbe’s greatness (being closely associated with him for
eight years already), you have not yet mastered yourself,
letting your common-sense rule over the Divine intelli
gence of your soul, whereas these plain young men who
come to visit the Rebbe out of piety and simple faith,
knowing little of the Rebbe’s profundity, have attained a
higher degree of self-mastery!”
1 resolved there and then that I would have to seek a
63
R ab b i S c h n e u r Z ai ,.man
personal audience with the Rebbe to help me strengthen

my faltering faith.
I was so engrossed in my own thoughts that 1 became
quite oblivious to my surroundings, until Chaim Elia of
Dubrovna brought me out of my reverie by nudging me. He
told me that Abraham the Rofeh (Doctor) had declared
that Rabbi Moshe had but a few hours to live. From Rabbi
Moshe’s room came sounds of commotion, and I heard
Baruch’s voice trying to rouse his father.
“Father, the Rebbe has sent messengers to take you to
hakafotl”
When I came into Rabbi Moshe’s room. 1 found him
wide awake, his face all smiles, in eager anticipation.
Finally we managed to bring Moshe to shul. The shul
was crowded and hot. Quite a number of the congregants
were obviously much the worse for their colds. Coughs and
sighs punctuated the otherwise quiet atmosphere. One of
the most serious invalids was Yeshaya of Chatimsk, a man
in his early sixties. He was a Torah scholar and a devout
worshipper. He was an innkeeper, and a melamexl (teacher)
on the side. Yeshaya was known as a charitable and hos
pitable man. He was tall, broad'shouldered, and strong.
Many times he walked to Miezricz, and later to Horodok.
After Rabbi Mendel of Horodok enrigrated to the Holy
Land he began to make regular pilgrimages to Rabbi
Schneur Zalman. He was respected as one of the senior
Chasidim, and as a man of higher intelligence and mental
grasp. Because of his superior physique, the illness struck
him with especial violence, Abraham the Rofeh declared,
adding, however, that his hardy constitution would help
him ward off the Angel of Death. This prediction seemed
optimistic, for at that moment Rabbi Yeshaya was a wreck
of a man, pitiful to behold.
Now, the customary procedure of the Rebbe in con
nection with Shemini Atzeret was as follows; Minchah on
Hoshana Rabba (the day preceding Shemini Atzeret) was
recited earlier than usual, in the Small Bek HaMidrash (the
so-called “Gan Eden HaTachton”— “Lower Paradise”), at
64
about the same time that minchah was recited on the day
before Yom Kippur. Immediately after minchah, the atmos
phere became charged with pleasurable anticipation. A
feeling of joy filled every heart. Frequently the Rebbe’s
voice could be heard studying aloud in his room. In the
evening, the Rebbe gave a Torah discourse for the semi
narians and a few select visitors. Several hours later Maariv
was recited in the Rebbe’s Small Synagogue, whereupon
the Rebbe joined in hakafot with a select group of seminar
ians and visitors. The Rebbe himself recited Atah Hareita
(the verses recited before hakafot). He marched at the head
of each of the seven circuitous Torah processions, carrying
a scroll in his right hand, and reciting the verses which
accompanied each hakafah. Halfway, he stopped, trans
ferred the scroll to his left hand, then, placing his right
hand on the shoulder of the Chasid nearest to him, he
began a rikud (Chasidic dance). Everyone joined in the
dancing to the strains of a lively melody, and with every
moment the ecstasy grew, the heart overflowing with love
and yearning for G-d. Whoever was privileged to witness
and participate in the Rebbe’s hakafot could never forget
that mystic experience of soulful rapture which over
whelmed everyone present in the Rebbe’s Small
Synagogue. One had the feeling of being in the Holy of
Holies, in communion with the ineffable Divine Presence.
This was the moment when the innermost core of the soul
seemed to manifest itself. It was a rare opportunity of
attaining the sublimest heights of repentance and edifica
tion, or, in Chasidic terminology, the moment of “conver
gence of the flame and the spark.”
Chasidim firmly believed that the Rebbe’s conduct
reflected the celestial state at any particular moment. It
was a propitious time of Heavenly grace and radiating
Divine Countenance; hence the radiance of the Rebbe’s
face and his inner delight. The Rebbe’s Yechidut-hakafot
(“private hakafot”) could transform a Chasid. 1 remember
the first time 1 was privileged to participate in these
hakafot— Rabbi Pinchas Reizes recalled. The effect was
65
R abbi S(.: h n e i j r Z a l m a n
traumatic. I became a changed man. For the first time 1

could well imagine how a Jew must have felt when he made
the pilgrimage to Jerusalem of old, and entered the
Sanctuary, in the presence of the Divine Sheckinah that was
manifest tJiere.
Each bodily organ has its function and particular grat
ification; the head has the pleasure of intellectual activity;
the eyes— the pleasure of sight; the ear— the pleasure of
sound; the heart— the pleasure of emotions; the hand— the
pleasure of creative action; the legs— the pleasure of loco
motion, etc. There is, however, the kind of pleasure which
pervades all the faculties and organs of the mind and body,
when all the senses are submerged in this all-pervasive
pleasure. Such was the pleasure tliat a Chasid felt during
the “Yechidut'hakafot” of the Rebbe.
All the Rehbe’s actioirs and practices were premeditat
ed and regulated in time and place. The Chasidim were
always aware of the Takanot (special regulations) which the
Rebbe had instituted, and which they observed meticii-
lously, for the Chasidim were devoted to the Rebbe with all
their heart and .soul. All the Chasidim knew that only
those who were explicitly mentioned by the Rebbe’s
appointee were to attend the Rebbe’s hakafot. It was the fer
vent hope of every Chasid to be privileged with an invita
tion to these hakafot. Without it, no Chasid dared to show
himself at the Rebbe’s hakafot. Ffaving been once privi
leged to be invited to these hakafot, he was not to attend
them again. There were very few exceptions, as in the case
erf the Rebbe’s immediate circle and some of the closest
Chasidim.
After the Yechiduc^hakafot, the Rebbe made kiddush in
the succah, and immediately thereafter went into the Large
Beit HaMidrash for the congregational hakafot.
That year— Pinchas Reizes continued— there was an
innovation in the Rebbe’s routine. When the Rebbe
entered the Succah for kiddush, he sent for three
Chasidim— Micha’e! Ahanrn of Vitebsk, Shabse Meir of
Beshenkowitz, and Yaakov of Smilian.
(ro
When the three appeared, the Rebbe addressed each

one in turn. To Micha’el Aharon he said: “You are a
Kohen.” To Shabse Meir he said: “You are a Levi,” and to
Yaakov he said: “You are a Yisraei.” Then the Rebbe
explained: “I require a Beit'Din of three, consisting of a
Kohen, Levi and Yisrael. I have selected the three of you to
constitute such a Beit'Din. You will hear me recite kiddush
and you will respond with Amen, and attune your minds to
mine.” The Rebbe then requested a substantial quantity of
wine.
Having made kiddush and partaken of the wine in the
cup, the Rebbe poured the remainder of the wine from his
cup into one of the bottles of wine which had been brought
to him at his request. Then he told the Beit Din which he
had appointed that they were to act as his emissaries on a
“healing-mission.” They were to mix the wine (in which he
had poured the remainder of his kiddush cup) with other
wine, and give some of this wine to each and every sick
man to drink as a healing potion. The Rebbe also ordered
that an announcement be made in the women’s section to
the effect that bereaved mothers and childless women
would also be given of this wine to drink, so that they
would be blessed with healthy offspring.
The said Beit'Din lost no time in carrying out this mis
sion. They selected a number of young men to assist them
in dispensing the “healing potion.” Among them were:
Ephraim Michel’s, Shmaye Herd’s, Zalman Motel’s, Elia
Avraham’s, Yeshaya Nota’s— all of Shklov; Chaim Elia,
Shimon Baruch’s, Avraham Zalman’s and Leib Yitzchak—
all of Dubrovna; Avraham Abba of Rudnia, Yehoshua of
Horodok, Zelig of Kochanov, Gedalia of Kalisk, Herd Meir,
Yosef Avraham, Tuvia Meilech’s and Moshe Hirsh— of
Vitebsk; Aharon Yosef, Shmuel Moshe and Yisrael—of
Liozna. They were brawny young men who could cope with
crowds.
The three-membered Beit'Din, accompanied by their
assistants, ascended the bimah in the Large Synagogue from
where Rabbi Yaakov of Smilian repeated aloud the Rebbe’s
67
words, word for word. Then he added: “What 1 just told

you, are the Rebbe’s words. Now I want to add a few words
of explanation of my own. It has been transmitted from
generation to generation that, in order that a blessing be
effective, in other words, in order that the person receiving
the blessing should merit its realization, two conditions are
required on the part of the recipient:
(a) The recipient of the blessing must have implicit
faith in the efficacy of the blessing bestowed by the giver,
and
(h) the recipient must be willing to abide by the will
and instructions of the giver in matters pertaining to the
service of G-d, the Source of ail blessings, namely, in the
area of Torah-study, prayer and good conduct.
To make sure that everyone heard what Rabbi Yaakov
of Smilian said, his own words were repeated by Rabbi
Micha’el Aharon HaKohen, who possessed a powerful
voice. When he concluded, the aides began to dispense the
wine to the needy in an orderly fashion.
Silence fell on all in the synagogue when the Rebbe
appeared for hakafot. Here, the Rebbe recited only the first
and last verse of Atah Hareita, and led the procession of the
first and last hakafah.
The following day the topic of conversation was the
miracle of the recovery of the sick. Abraham the Rofeh
declared that, insofar as the elderly were concerned, it was
a case of the “Resurrection of the Dead,” for, in the natural
order of things they could not have survived.
The wonderful recovery of Rabbi Moshe finally “con
verted” Rabbi Eizik into a Chasid. The simple faith of his
nephews, Rabbi Moshe’s sons, had also left an indelible
impact on him. Being by nature an ardent student who
delved deeply into his studies, Rabbi Eizik immersed him
self in the study of Chasidut, and before long, became pro
ficient in all the Chasidic discourses which Rabbi Schneur
Zalman had delivered in public.”'‫י‬
68
n the third day of the week, on the morrow of Rosh Chodesh

O Cheshvan, Rabbi Schneur Zalman set out for Swintzan in a
hansom, accompanied by some twenty of his closest Chasidim
and disciples. The Chasidic leader stayed there for three weeks.
During that time he gave many public discourses in Talmud and
Chasidut to a highly appreciative audience, which included out‫׳‬
standing Talmudists from Vilna and from the surrounding towns
and townlets. Many scholars who had come armed with compli
cated queries relating to difficult passages in the Talmud, had
them easily resolved by Rabbi Schneur Zalman, and they were
deeply impressed by his extraordinary erudition. Hundreds of
them joined the ranks of his followers and became ardent
Chasidim.
On the third Shabbat of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s stay in
Swintzan, an episode took place which had far-reaching rever‫׳‬
derations. In the center of it was the venerable Rabbi Shlomo
Refaels, a renowned figure throughout the province of Lithuania.
A native of Kaidan, Shlomo Refaels acquired fame as a great
Talmudist, and as a man of unusual piety and good deeds. It was
said that the Rav of Vilna, Rabbi Shaul, had been a student of
his. For fifty years he sat in the Beit Midrash of the Prushim, study‫׳‬
ing in seclusion. He was a man of considerable means. Many
prominent families from far and wide considered it an honor to
establish matrimonial ties with his family, since he was also
blessed with very eligible sons and daughters, six and four respec‫׳‬
tively. His sons and sons‫ ׳‬in‫ ׳‬law conducted his extensive business
affairs, while he completely retired to a life of study and piety,
and the practice of philanthropy. It goes without saying that
Rabbi Shlomo Refaels commanded considerable authority and
enjoyed immense influence.
Rabbi Shlomo Refaels was one of the most outspoken and
militant opponents of the Baal Shem Tov and his successor the
Maggid of Miezricz. He was an active participant in the earliest
bans and proscriptions proclaimed against the Besht in Vilna,
Slutzk and Shklov in the year 5517 (1757). He was 63 years old
when he joined other leading opponents in their war against the
new Chasidic movement, or Kat (“sect”), as they called it.
Needless to say, his children were brought up in the same
69
spirit of militant opposition to the Chasidim and, because of the

tremendous influence and power of this widespread family, no
Chasid had dared set foot in Swintzan for many years.
In the course of the thirty years— Rabbi Shlomo Refaels was
well over ninety when Rabbi Schneur Zalman visited Swintzan
in 5547— his descendants had multiplied and spread. Though
only three sons and one son-in-law had survived, Rabbi Shlomo’s
children and grandchildren were well-established family-men,
mostly well-to-do aiad of scholarly background, carrying on the
tradition of their ancestor’s opposition to the “sect.” They, too,
like their forebear, spent large sums subsidizing special messen
gers and preachers to carry the bans and proclamations through
out the land, and financing other expenses of the war against the
Chasidim.
However, in Rabbi Shlomo Refaels himself a radical change
took place when he reached the age of seventy. After being the
driving force in the various anti-Chasidic campaigns which
emanated from Vilna, Brisk, Slutzk, Minsk, and Shklov over a
period of seven years, he suddenly, and without explanation,
informed the leading Rabbis in the said cities that he was with
drawing from the campaign against the Chasidim. He also
informed his children and grandchildren that the subject of the
Chasidim was no longet t(> be broached to him.
This unexpected turn of events threw the anti-Chasidic
camp into consternation. Feverish conferences took place, and
urgent letters were exchanged among the leading spirits of the
opposition. Finally, a general conclave was convened in Vilna.
Two opinions were expressed at this gathering; one calling for
the replacement of Rabbi Shlomo Refaels by someone else as the
driving force of the anti-Chasidic. campaign, and the second
expressing a more moderate view, namely, t(‫ ר‬send a delegation to
Rabbi Shlomo Refaels to find out why he had withdrawn from
the “holy war” against the Chasidim. For, if his reasons were
valid, they should be known.
The latter view prevailed, and a delegation was duly dis
patched to Swintzan. The messengers stayed for three days, but
could not elicit the reason that prompted Rabbi Shlomo Refaels
to lay down his arms against the Chasidim.
70
“Have you discovered them to be observant and pious Jews?”

he was asked.
“This can no longer be doubted,” he replied.
The first Chasid to come to Swintzan to speak openly in
favor of Chasidim was the famed goon of Shklov, Rabbi Yosef
Kolbo, who enjoyed an unquestioned reputation as a brilliant
Talmudist and man of wisdom and saintliness. This was in 5537
(1777).
During the next decade many scholarly young men, among
them some of Rabbi Refael’s own grandchildren, were attracted
to the movement and began to practice the Chasidic customs.
Two of the latter, Moshe Gedalia of Swintzan and Pinchas
Eliyahu of Ilukst, even became students of Cheder Aleph of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, under the influence of Rabbi Yosef Kolbo.
Before leaving Liozna to return to Swintzan, Moshe Gedalia,
taking leave of his Rebbe, was requested by him to tell his grand
father that, in the merit of his keeping his promise for seventeen
years, he would be blessed with long life and success in his Torah
learning. This brief message of the Rebbe greatly delighted Rabbi
Shlomo Refaels.
Now that Rabbi Schneur Zalman was in Swintzan, the aged
patriarch came to listen to him and to ask him to resolve various
Talmudic questions. Rabbi Shlomo Refaels was excitedly happy
to hear Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s incisive replies, which removed
all his doubts and problems.
On the third Shabbat of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s stay in
Swintzan, after the Rebbe concluded his Torah address in the
unheated Beit HaMidrash, prior to the minchah service, the aged
Rabbi Shlomo Refaels requested permission to say a few words.
He then ascended the bimah and began to speak in a weak voice
which was, however, quite audible in the hushed silence.
“My friends,” he began, “1 must confess my sins this
day. About thirty years ago 1 participated in the conference
of the geonim who issued a ban against the tzaddik Rabbi
Israel Baal Shem Tov. Standing now in this holy place, 1
declare that our intention was for the sake of Heaven.
“My friends, on the day I became, with G-d’s grace,
seventy years old, 1 was learning the Tractate Menachot. I
71
became drowsy and dozed oft. I dreamed that a man

appeared to me and said; ‘I am Israel Baal Shem Tov. You
and your colleagues declared a ban against me and my dis‫׳‬
ciples seven years ago. You did it without due process of the
law of the Torah; without full and proper investigation.
Reverse yourself! ’
“1 awoke greatly distressed, for it was a just argument.
Did we fulfill the injunction of the Torah, ‘You shall search
and investigate well’ (Deut. 13:15)? I began to investigate
and scrutinize, and arrived at the conclusion that the
Chasidim were Torah'true Jews, meticulous in their obser
vance of the Divine precepts. Thereupon I withdrew from
any further persecution of them.
“Since then more than twenty years have elapsed. All
this time 1 continued my investigation and scrutiny of the
teachings of Chasidut and the way of life of Chasidim,
especially since the gaon and tzaddik, Rabbi Yossele (Yosef
Kolbo) of Shklov, was here.
“I am now ninety-three years old. And, my friends,
standing here in the sanctuary of G-d, 1 declare with all my
heart, ‘Blessed art Thou, O L‫׳‬rd our G ‫׳‬d, King of the
Universe, Who has preserved us alive, has sustained us and
has enabled us to reach this season’— to see face to face the
great leader of Israel, the gaon and tzaddik, who has brought
thousands upon thousands of our brethren closer to true
Yirat Shamayim, and has brought glory to our Torah. In the
merit of this, may the Redeemer come to Zion, speedily in
our time.”
Rabbi Shlomo Refaels’ words, publicly acclaiming Rabbi
Schneur Zalman and the teachings of Chasidut, had a tremen
dous impact upon all present in the synagogue, and became tbe
talk of the town.
Throughout the night following the termination of that
Shabbat, Rabbi Schneur Zalman received visitors in private
audience. On the following morning, after the service, Rabbi
Schneur Zalman set out for Vitebsk, where he arrived on Tuesday
afternoon. The following day (Cheshvan 24) Rabbi Scbneur
Zalman returned to Liozna.''
C h apter V I
Internal Crisis
R abbi Schneur Zalman’s fame continued to spread rapidly.

His disciples, the students of the seminaries, branched
. out into various towns and townlets, establishing spear
heads for further expansion. Wherever the scholarly disciples of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman were actively disseminating the teach‫׳‬
ings of Chasidut, the ranks of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s followers
swelled with new followers.
The new class of Chasidim— Chabad Chasidim— were no
longer simple followers recruited from the unlearned masses.
They were scholars of note who commanded respect for their
learning and piety.
To the irascible and contentious among the Mitnagdim, the
continued growth of the Chasidic movement constituted an
ever-growing challenge. The agitation against the Chasidim in
many a Jewish community flared up into violence from time to
time. However, under the strict discipline which Rabbi Schneur
Zalman imposed on his followers, the latter exercised consider
able restraint, so that the strife was successfully confined to rela
tively small proportions. Yet, precisely at this time of external
Chasidic expansion and personal celebrity. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman found himself in the midst of an inner crisis brought
about by rivaling Chasidic groups of Wolhynia, involving also
the Chasidic leaders in the Holy Land. Jealousy reared its ugly
head. Some rivaling Chasidim dipped their pens in slander, and
cast aspersions on Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s leadership, arousing
suspicion among the Chasidic leaders in the Holy Land towards
73
R abbi S chneur 2’ alman
Rabbi Schneur Zalman. This turn of events was more painful to

Rabbi Schneur Zalman than all the opposition of the
Mitnagdim, hut the combined effect brought Rabbi Schneur
Zalman to the verge of a critical emergency.
The unhappy situation was aggravated by Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s personal misfortune in the loss of his beloved daughter
Dvorah Leah, a woman of saintly character, who had always
been very devoted ttt her father. She was the mother of a two‫׳‬
year old son, Menachem Mendel (who was destined to succeed
Rahbi Schneur Zalman’s son, Rabhi Dov Ber, to the third-genet‫׳‬
ation leadership of the Chabad movement).
The tradition preserved in the family directly links her pass‫׳‬
ing with Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s critical situation, just men
tioned. According to this tradition, the events unfolded them
selves as follows;
Rahbi Schneur Zalman was deeply disturbed by the intrigues
and dissention which jeopardized his activities, particularly
those relating to the Chasidic community in the Holy Land. He
knew that the jealousy which his successful work had aroused in
certain Chasidic circles was only the result of the work of the
Adversary on High, which threatened the very future of the
Chasidic movement. He had a premonition that his own eclipse
was at hand. One day,‘ Rabbi Schneur Zalman confided in his
daughter Dvorah Leah, and expressed his utmost apprehension
in regard to the future of the Chasidim and of the Baal Shem
Toy’s teachings.
Dvorah Leah realized the gravity of the situation and sensed
that her father’s life was linked with it. For several days she kept
her anxiety to herself. Then she decided that it was her duty to
divulge her secret to some of the senior Chasidim. She also
resolved that she would give her life for the life of her father.
Thereupon Dvorah Leah asked three senior Chasidim,
Moshe Meisels, Pinchas Reizes and Moshe Wilenker,’ to meet
with her. She asked them to promise on oath that they would act
according to her request and instructions, whatever they might
be, and would keep in strictest confidence all that she was about
to tell them, until such time as it would be fitting to keep the
matter secret no longer.
74
I n t e r n a l C ri s i s
The three Chasidic sages requested time to consider her con

ditions. They realized that something was amiss. They had
noticed that the Rebbe had secluded himself in his private room
(which Chasidim reverently called “Gan Eden HaElyon”— the
“Upper Paradise”), and not even Chasidim of the Rebbe’s inner
circle were admitted. This change in the Rebbe’s routine was
ominous, but what exactly was wrong they had no idea.
Undoubtedly, the Rebbe’s daughter knew something which was
of extreme gravity. Several times during that day and during the
night the three Chasidim conferred, and finally came to the con-
elusion that they had to accept Dvorah Leah’s conditions.
The following day they presented themselves to Dvorah
Leah with their resolution. She began by saying:
“We are all Chasidim of my father, our Rebbe, and each one
of us must be ready and willing to give his or her life for him, and
for the future of Chasidut.” Then she was overcome by emotion,
and gave vent to her feelings in a flood of tears.
At the sight of her distress the three Chasidim were deeply
moved. Moshe rose to his feet and impulsively exclaimed: “Why
are you crying? What is wrong? I will be the first to give my life
for the Rebbe and for the perpetuation of the Baal Shem Tov’s
teachings. Tell us what we are to do. I will gladly go through fire
or water. . . . ”
“First,” Dvorah Leah interrupted, “you must all swear to me
by the most stringent Torah-oath which has no absolution, that
you will do what I ask of you, without any mental reservation
whatever, even if it be a matter of life.”
Idearing these ominous words, even Moshe Wilenker, who
was known for his extraordinary sedateness and presence of mind
under all circumstances, lost his equanimity and, visibly dis
turbed, declared that such a matter must be reconsidered in a
calm atmosphere and with due deliberation. The other two,
however, brushed aside his objections, saying that they had
already carefully weighed the matter and had agreed to abide by
Dvorah Leah’s conditions, come what may. Thereupon the three
of them gave their solemn oath as requested.
“Now I make the three of you a Beit-Din, and you will agree
to act as a Beit'Din, and to rule on the situation in accordance
75
with the law of the Torah,” Ihvorah Leah said, continuing:

“The present situation, in the wake of the intrigue which has
cast a shadow over the relationship between the Chasidic lead‫׳‬
ers in the Holy Land and in Wolhynia on the one hand, and my
saintly father on the other, is grave in the extreme. From what 1
have heard from my father, the consequences could be frightful,
G'd forbid. These were his words:
For thirty years a good fruit-bearing tree requires culti
vation and care in order to bring it to its optimum fruitful‫׳‬
ness. It is now thirty years since the teachings of our
Master, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Ttv, were firmly planted by
my Master, the Maggid of Miezricz, and grew into a Tree of
Life. Now, the Adversary threatens to destroy it all. I do
want to live, for this is the duty of every man, according to
the Torah. Yet, more precious to me than life is my desire
to cultivate this tree so that it continues to give its fruit
until the coming of ciur Redeemer.
My teacher, the Maggid of Miezricz, had forewarned
me of difficult times, and had promised to come to my aid.
1 saw my teacher and master, but his face was overcast, an
ill-omen. . . .
Recalling that ctrnversation, Moshe Wilenker related how
they were all overccrme by a fit of weeping, in utter distress.
Presently, Dvorah Leah concluded: “In view trf the situation, 1
resolved to put my life in lieu of my father’s. 1 wish to be his
atonement; I bequeath my life to him; 1 am going to die so that
he may live a good and long life, in order to cultivate the Tree trf
Life. In this way I will also have a share in it.”
Apparently unaware of his daughter’s self-sacrifice for him.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman sent a pidyon (a request for a prayer) to
Rabbi Nachum of Czernobil,’ in the early part of Elul 5550
(1790). The pidyon, in his own behalf and in behalf of Chasidut
in general, was sent through the above mentioiaed Yaakov of
Smilian.
On the first night of Rosh Hashanah, after the services.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, breaking his custom not to speak to any
one on that night, asked: “Where is Dvorah Leah? When she
appeared, he began to wish her the customary blessing to “be
76
inscribed unto a happy year.” But she interrupted him immedi

ately, and wished him, instead, to “be inscribed unto a happy
year.”
On the second day of Rosh Hashanah 5551 (1790), Rabbi
Schneur Zalman gave a discourse on the teachings of Chasidut,
as was his custom to do on both afternoons of Rosh Hashanah.
After Havdaiah he called his daughter Dvorah Leah and her hus
band Rabbi Shalom Shachna into his room. What was spoken
there and then is not known, but Rabbi Shalom Shachna was
heard saying amid tears; “What is to happen to the two-year old
boy?”
The following day (the Fast of Gedaliah) Dvorah Leah
passed away. Rabbi Schneur Zalman took the young orphan into
his room and took personal charge of his upbringing.'* (The boy
grew up to be the famed and saintly Rabbi Menachem Mendel of
Lubavitch, author of the monumental Responsa Tzemach Tzedek,
and third generation head of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement).
The year 5552 (1791/1792) saw an intensification of intol
erance on the part of the Mitnagdim in certain communities
towards their Chasidic co-religionists. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
realized that his hopes for a reconciliation were still premature,
which greatly distressed him. The extent of his suffering became
apparent on the festival of Shavuot, the anniversary of the Baal
Shem Tov’s demise. As usual on this festival. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman spoke a great deal about the Besht, but his melodies had
a tinge of bitterness. He was soon immersed in a state of pro
found devekut (soulful reverie), his eyes closed, his lips moving
inaudibly. Tears trickled down his saintly face. It was an awesome
sight. Those who were present surmised that the Rebbe was
invoking Divine mercy, and felt as though the spirits of the Baal
Shem Tov and of the Maggid of Miezricz were present.
Suddenly, Rabbi Schneur Zalman rose to his feet and tear
fully exclaimed: “Zaida (Grandfather)!”— this is how he often
referred to the Besht— “invoke Divine mercy upon me, and upon
all your disciples and followers, and upon the survival of your
teachings! Oy, oy, gvald, gvaldl'’ Our Heavenly Father, have
mercy upon us!” Saying which. Rabbi Schneur Zalman collapsed
in a deep, fainting spell.
77
R abbi S c h n e u r Z ai . m a n
Turmoil broke loose in the room. The Rebbe’s wife and

daughters rushed into the room. A messenger was quickly dis‫״‬
patched to summon Yonah, the physician.
In the midst of the commotion, little Menachem Mendel
(the future “Tzemach Tzedek”), then two years and nine months
old, came running into the room. Seeing his grandfather lying on
the floor, he threw himself upon him, crying: “Zaida! Zaidal”
(“Grandpa! Grandpa!”). Rabbi Schneur Zalman opened his eyes.
He saw the proffered little hand of his grandson, who kept on
saying: “Zaida, take hold of my hand and get up!” Reaching for
the little hand. Rabbi Schneur Zalman said: “Give me your
hand! and he stood up, adding, “This one will comfort us!
R abbi Baruch Mordechai of Bobroysk,^ son-in-law of the At‫׳‬-

Beit'Din of Vilna, Rabbi Shmuel, related how he became a
Chasid, and his first experience of a private audience (yechidut)
with Rabbi Schneur Zalman. This was his story:
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s visit to Vilna, in the company
of Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, when they came
to confront the Gaon of Vilna, had left a lasting impression
on the Talmudic scholars in the city. They often quoted
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s incisive exposition of certain dif
ficult passages in the Talmud which they were privileged to
hear from him on that occasion. This aroused my interest,
and 1 began to study some of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
Chasidic discourses which were made available to me by
local Chasidim. Subsequently, 1 met young scholars of
note, who rehearsed various new insights of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman, which singularly clarified complicated areas in the
Talmud. I gained a profound respect for the Rebbe’s erudi
tion, but I was not sufficiently convinced to become a
Chasid of his.
It was not until the year 5553 (1793) that I made my
first visit to Liozna. My trip was not the pilgrimage of a
Chasid; rather, it was prompted by scholastic curiosity U)
take a closer look at the teachings of Chasidut, as expound
ed by the Rebbe.
Arriving in Liozna, 1 discovered that there was a strict
routine to be followed by young men desirous of a private

audience with the Rebbe. It was first necessary to be inter
viewed by Rabbi Yehuda Leib, the Rebhe’s brother, who
was in charge of admissions and arrangements for providing
full board for the applicant. If he was satisfied with the
applicant, he would recommend him for an examination in
Talmudic proficiency. Then followed a period of two or
three weeks of intensive Chasidic and Talmudic study,
upon the completion of which the candidate would be
admitted to a private audience with the Rehhe.
The examiners were the Rebbe’s other brothers, Rahbi
Mordechai and Rabbi Moshe. Rabbi Mordechai excelled
himself especially in the Talmud Bavli and the Rishonim
(Early Codifiers), while his brother’s specialty was the
Talmud Yerushalmi and the Rambam. Sometimes one of
them was the sole examiner; sometimes both of them gave
the examination.
My first Talmudic discussion with these two gaonim left
me completely overwhelmed. I had passed the test, howev
er, and after two weeks’ preparation, I was admitted into
private audience with the Rebhe.
I had prepared a number of questions pertaining to
devoutness, which the Rebhe chose not to answer. Instead,
he asked me if I had any questions in the area of Talmudic
study.
It so happened that for over a year I had been wrestling
with two problems, one in the Talmud Yerushalmi and the
other in the Rambam. 1 had discussed them with the Gaon
of Vilna, who helped me analyze the problems and thus
greatly elucidated them, but actually gave me no answer to
resolve them.
Now, standing before the Rehbe, I put these two ques
tions before him, and I was amazed to receive a clear
answer to them, which at once resolved them beyond a
doubt.
Upon leaving the Rebbe’s room and entering the
“Lower Gan Eden” (as the Chasidim called the Small
Synagogue in the Rebbe’s house), 1 was drawn into the tra-
79
ditional “Yechidut Dance.” This was a lively whirling dance

which was introduced by the early Chasidim to celebrate a
private audience with the Rebbe. I whirled around with the
older Chasidim and younger seminarians, oblivious to what
was going on, for I was excited beyond measure by the bril
liance of the Rebbe’s mind. For years afterward, the impres
sions of his awe-inspiring countenance and his profound
wisdom remained vivid in my mind.
My association with the Rebbe’s three illustrious broth
ers, though only of a few weeks’ duration, opened new hori
zons for me in my Talmudic studies. My conceptual capac
ity was substantially enhanced. I began to apply myself
more assiduously than ever before to the study of both
Chasidut and Talmud, and with all the concentration I
could muster.
Back home, I had to wait several months for my broth
er-in-law. Rabbi Shlomo’s, return before 1 could share with
him the excitement of having resolved my two problems.
He, too, became very excited, and insisted that I go to the
Gaon forthwith to hear his opinion about the answers. I
agreed, and, accompanied by my brother-in-law, went to
the Gaon.
As soon as I began to speak about the two problems,
the Gaon reviewed them in a concise manner, adding that
he frequently pondered over them, but as yet had found no
satisfactory clue to the solution. I then advanced the
answers without identifying the source of my information.
The Gaon was visibly moved. Wrapped as he was in his tal-
lit and tefillin, he rose to his full height and said reverent
ly: “Such answers could issue only from the Head of the
Heavenly Academy. Whoever the gaon and tzaddik was
who gave these answers, he could only have known the
solution by prophetic inspiration. Had I heard it from his
mouth, I would have said as Rabbi Yochanan said: ‘I would
carry his bathing apparel for him to the bathhouse.’”
Later on I greatly regretted not having disclosed to the
Gaon that it was the Rebbe of the Chasidim who had given
me those answers, as it might have elicited a better attitude
80
[n t e r n a l C ri si s
towards the Chasidim, and might have brought the two

“giants” together.
Though, in due course, my affiliation with the
Chasidim of Rabbi Schneur Zalman was no secret, I still
had access to the Gaon of Vilna. On one such occasion,
soon after the Tanya was publicly burnt in Vilna, 1 men
tioned to the Gaon that the author of this book was the
one who had told me the answers to those intricate prob
lems, and I reminded the Gaon of his reaction at that time
and what he had said, quoting Rabbi Yochanan.
Unfortunately, the Gaon rejected my defense, stating that,
according to the law of the Torah, I was an interested party,
and consequently my testimony was not trustworthy.^
81
C h apter VII
Liozna, T he Center Of Chabad
R abbi Schneur Zalman’s conciliatory policy towards the

opposition, based as it was on the principle that it takes
. two adversaries to make a fight, went a long way towards
calming the contentious spirits on both sides. Besides, the strin
gent measures which had been decreed against the Chasidim by
the leading Rabbinates were not very effective insofar as the gen
eral public was concerned. The rank and file of the Mitnagdim
were in closer touch with the Chasidim than some of their lead
ers, and they could not see anything so radically dangerous about
the Chasidim as to warrant the extreme penalties imposed on
them. Finally, external factors, connected with the political sit-
nation, which led to the partition of Poland in 1793, and again
in 1795, called for a greater measure of solidarity within the
Jewish community. These combined circumstances produced a
period of relative peace between the two camps during the years
1788-1795. Needless to say, this was a most welcome intermis
sion for Rabbi Schneur Zalman, who was now able to devote
more time to his literary activities. Fie re-edited his Shulchan
Aruch and completed his Tanya. Many of his Chasidic discourses
and lectures, some of which were eventually published in book
form, were at that time copied and re-copied, and eagerly stud
ied by his followers. His following rapidly increased, especially
after the second and third partitions of Poland, in 1793 and 1795
respectively, when Russia annexed large territories densely pop
ulated by jews. By this time Rabbi Schneur Zalman was credited
with a personal following of some 100,000 Chasidim.‘
82
L i o z n a , C e nt e r of C h a b a d
During these years Rabbi Schneur Zalman also strengthened

the internal organization of the Chasidic movement. After the
death (in 1788) of his senior colleague, Rabbi Menachem
Mendel of Vitebsk, in Palestine, Rabbi Schneur Zalman was rec‫׳‬
ognized as the chief leader of the Chasidim not only de facto but
also de jure, as it were. Rabbi Schneur Zalman expanded the vast
fund-raising apparatus which he had set up for the support of the
Chasidic community in Palestine. He also took care of the sup
port of individual Chasidim, including some prominent Chasidic
rabbis and their families.‫־‬
The burden of leadership began to weigh heavily on Rabbi
Schneur Zalman. With the increasing number of followers there
came an ever-growing demand on his time and personal atten
tion. He was constantly besieged by an endless stream of
Chasidim, who came to Liozna to seek his advice, guidance and
help, in spiritual as well as temporal matters. He appointed his
brother Rabbi Yehuda Leib, his son Rabbi Dov Ber and his sen
ior disciple Rabbi Aharon HaLevi Hurwitz, to assist him in his
manifold duties. He also drew up a set of regulations, known as
the Takanot of Liozna, whereby he laid down a discipline of con
duct for his Chasidim, and the rules governing their visits to
Liozna. These Takanot, among other things, called for the obser
vance of strict decorum in the Chasidic congregational services
and the submission of copied Chasidic discourses and lectures for
perusal and correction. Gabbaim (wardens) were appointed in
every Chasidic community to see to it that the Takanot were
complied with. Visits to Liozna were permitted only once a year.
Nevertheless the pressure of leadership of so vast a following
became go overwhelming that he often contemplated escaping
from it all and emigrating to Palestine.’ However, his sense of
duty and loyalty to his followers mled out such a step. Rabbi
Schneur Zalman had to resign himself to a life that was no longer
his own.
Liozna was one of three small towns, all in White Russia,
which are very closely associated with Chabad. The other two
were Liadi and Lubavitch. Liozna was the cradle of Chabad.
Here the founder of Chabad was born, and here he spent most of
his life. In Liadi, as we shall see later. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
83
spent the last twelve years of his life, when his fame was at its
height. That is when Liadi became renowned. It gained its fame
from the illustrious Chabad leader whose residence it was, and
the two names became linked together, for Rabbi Schneur
Zalman became known as the “Rav of Liadi.” “Lubavitch” subse
quently became synonymous with the Chabad-Chasidic move
ment, because it was the seat of the four succeeding generations
of Chabad leaders, from Rabbi Dov Ber Schneuri,“*the founder’s
oldest son and successor, to Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn, the
sixth “Lubavitcher Rebbe.” For more than a century— 102 years
and two months, to be exact— Lubavitch was, without interrup
tion, the center of the movement, and the Chabad Chasidim
became more popularly known as “Lubavitcher” Chasidim. In
Lubavitch, as we have noted,^ Rabbi Schneur Zalman received
his early Talmudic tutoring. His tutor. Rabbi Issachar Ber, later
became one of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s most prominent senior
Chasidim.
In the early history of the Chasidic movement, both Liozna
and Lubavitch are mentioned, along with other neighboring
towns and townlets.^ They were the scene of quiet activity by
secret mystics {nistarim) who spread the doctrines of the Baal
Shem Tov before the latter revealed himself as the founder and
leader of the Chasidic movement.^ When Schneur Zalman was a
small boy, the “ancients” of the town were able to relate some
interesting facts about the development of the Jewish communi
ty of Liozna, whose Jewish population of some 35 families began
to grow after Russia captured Vitebsk from the Poles in 1654.
Many Jewish families from Vitebsk then settled in Liozna. Those
“ancients” also knew to relate how Liozna twice narrowly
escaped the consequences of blood'libels.*
Apart from those tales of the hoary past, Liozna was not dis
tinguishable from any other similar small town in White Russia.
It began to achieve distinction, however, when Rabbi Schneur
Zalman was appointed as maggid in his native town, and more so
when he took up residence in Liozna again, in mid-winter of
1788, after his frustrated migration to the Holy Land.
With the departure of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s senior col
leagues for the Holy Land, and his own return to Liozna,’ Rabbi
84
L i o z n a , C e n t e r of C h a b a d
Schneur Zalman now remained the central figure in the

Chasidic movement, with Liozna as its “capital.” Chasidim from
all parts of Russia began to make regular pilgrimages to Liozna,
particularly for the festival seasons, in order to spend some time
in the inspiring presence of their spiritual leader. It soon became
necessary to introduce a strict system and calendar for such piL
grimages. These became known as the Liozna “Takanot" or “ordi
nances," to which brief reference was made a little earlier.
The first Takanot were instituted during the years 5540-3
(1780-3). The details were worked out by Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s brothers with the other senior Chasidim, and approved
by Rabbi Schneur Zalman. From time to time, over a period of
fifteen years, the Takanot were amended. The last recorded
Takanot bear the date of 5556 (1796).
he Takanot of Liozna began with a set of general rules regu

T lating the manner and conduct of the daily services in the
Chabad congregations everywhere. They were addressed partic
ularly to the young adults.
These ordinances included the following:
All the young men are to assemble in their synagogues
for daily congregational morning prayers at the same time
when congregational services were held in the other local
congregations, namely, in the summer not later than 6:30,'°
and in the winter at sunrise.
There is to be no talk or conversation whatever before
the commencement of the service.
N o young man will be admitted as a visitor to Liozna
without a written testimonial, signed by two reliable wit
nesses, to the effect that the bearer had faithfully complied
with the Takanot. If for some reason it is impossible for the
visitor to furnish such a certificate, he has to make a
solemn affirmation to the same effect....
With the commencement ot the service, there should
be no walking about in the synagogue....
Upon coming to Liozna, visitors have to report to
Rabbi Aharon Halevi“ and the Rebbe’s son, to verify their
admissibility.
85
Chasidic texts and copies of Chasidic discourses should

be brought and submitted to Rabbi Yehuda Leib'^ to be
checked for accuracy by himself and the other examiners
working under him, because of the prevalence of copyists’
errors. The material should be bound and bear the name of
the owner.
Anyone failing to bring all his Chasidic writings for
examination will not be admitted for an audience with the
Rebbe....”
The above regulations clearly reflect Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s concern for the proper decorum in the synagogue in
compliance with Jewish Law, his emphasis on congregational
service, and on the general adherence to orderly and disciplined
conduct. These standards have come to characterize Chabad
synagogues, often in conspicuous contrast to other Chasidic and
non-Chasidic counterparts. His insistence upon ensuring correct
study-texts is not less noteworthy.
Additional Takanot bear the date of the year 5553 (1793),
and read as follows:
Whoever has already visited Liozna once, should not
come again, except on a Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh is
blessed. In the month of Elul only the last two Shabbatot
before Rosh Hashanah are open to visits. In the month of
Tishrei (visitors may come for) Shabbat Shuvah. During
Cheshvan no one may come. In Kislev— only for the
Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh Tevet is blessed. In Tevet— for
the Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh Shemt is blessed. In
Shevat—for the Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh Adar is
blessed. In Adar— for the Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh
Nissan is blessed. In Nissan— no visitors. In lyar—^for the
Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh Sivan is blessed. Similarly in
Sivan— for the Shabbat when Rosh Chodesh Tammuz is
blessed, and similarly in Tammuz— for the Shabbat when
Rosh Chodesh Av is blessed. During Av— only for Shabbat'
Nachamu.
N o one should come to Liozna more than once in the
same year. . . . One should provide himself with board and
lodging for two weeks at least.
86
L i o z n a , C e n t e r of C h a b a d
One wishing to present a written petition to the

Rebbe, should write the note at home, before leaving.'''
It is clear from the above ordinances that the stream of visi
tors had so increased in the previous decade that it was necessary
to limit admissions. Moreover, an audience with the Rebbe
apparently entailed a waiting period of at least two weeks.
In the same year (1793) Rabbi Schneur Zalman felt impelled
to send an encyclical to all his followers, and particularly to the
gabbaim of the Chasidic communities, in which he implored
them to stem the tide of the Chasidim streaming to Liozna.
The problems and sorrows which were incessantly laid before
him by his Chasidim, deeply touched his sensitive nature and
affected his daily life. He could only plead with his followers to
spare him, at least, the anguish of listening to their material
problems and plights, which he urged them to address to the
merciful Father in Heaven. Thus he writes in his pastoral letter:
. .. My soul is poured out with my request, and my plea
is laid and spread before my loving friends, all our Chasidic
fellowship in general, and particularly those active in holy
work, the gabbaim for the Holy Land, may it be rebuilt
speedily in our time. To them my plea is reiterated with all
heart and soul, to watch with a watchful eye, in a matter
concerning my very life, namely, to restrain the people
from travelling here, and to earnestly admonish them not
to cause me spiritual embitterment and soulful aggravation
by an untimely trip, as will be explained below; and to
request them— whether they be of the local city dwellers,
or of the surrounding villages, or of other cities passing en
route through your city, be they new or old Chasidim—
with a redoubled and awesome warning, not to cause, by
their said trip, an infringement of any of the hereunder
mentioned conditions made in truth and justice, showing
them a copy of this letter:
First, those coming for the four well-known occasions'^
should not presume to request a private audience with me
even in a very urgent matter concerning the service of G-d,
not to mention any mundane matter however exceedingly
important. For it is quite impossible that all those who
87
R a b r ! S c h n e u r Z alman
assemble here during the said four periods should come in

to speak with me. Obviously all thirst to come in, and I can
not make distinctions between them, to arouse bitter jeal
ousy of those that pressured their admittance. By my nature
and inner sensitivity I cannot bear the anguish of those pre
vented from entry, who must return home with profound
disappointment and, to their thinking, justified jealousy.
Besides . . . it is particularly painful to me that anyone
of our new Chasidim wishing to come closer to the service
of G'd should have to be firmly held back, since the need
is great to speak to them personally and not in any other
way. But what can I do, seeing that it is not at all oppor‫׳‬
tune to speak persttnally with each and every one of the
new [Chasidim] assembling during the said four periods....
Therefore the new ones should definitely not come during
the four periods for an audience. They have ample time to
come in any month of the year, for any of the first three
Shabbatot, but they would have to remain for two or three
days after Shabbat.
However, for the fourth Shabbat, when Rosh Chodesh is
blessed, the new Chasidim should not come at all, inas
much as this Shabbat is reserved for the old Chasidim to
enable them to have an audiervce once a year and no more,
as is well known . . . and in a very important matter where
the individual cannot take counsel from any of the
Chasidim in his town. This is further strictly conditioned
on the circumstance that [in his problem] he has before
him two alternatives and he does not know which to
choose. But if there is only one way, which is inferior and
it distresses him greatly, G ‫׳‬d forbid, and he feels impelled
to inform me of his distress, G-d be merciful, then he
should inform me by letter, or through my trusted gabbai,
and he can rest assured that he will convey to me all his
words fully . . . and if I will have anything to say in reply, I
will also convey it through the said [gabbai]__
I cannot adequately describe in a letter the extent to
which my very life is embittered by those who come in to
me to pour out before me personally their sorrow in detail
88
and at length, in order to infuse deep into my heart their

sorrow and distress, G-d be merciful. Even if they seek
counsel in matters free from sorrow and bitterness, I cannot
bear the mental distraction and loss of time entailed in my
having to concentrate my thought and mind upon the mat
ter in order to give a proper answe r. . . Many times in this
situation I deplore my very life, and many a time I resolved
in my heart to uproot my tent from this country. But I look
forward to G-d’s help that He will open the eyes and hearts
of all who hear these, my words. . . .
My beloved ones, my brothers and my friends! Out of
a secret love to an open admonition. Come let us contend
together. Remember the days of old, consider the years of
former generations. Has there ever been such a thing since
days immemorial? Where did you find such a custom in any
one of the books of the sages of Israel. . . to seek counsel of
a material nature . . . except in relation to the true prophets
of old, as in the case of Samuel the Seer . . .‫ ’י‬For truly all
human affairs, except those pertaining to the Torah and
the fear of Heaven, can only be grasped prophetically. . . .
When a merciful, wise and righteous father strikes his son,
the wise son does not turn his back [on him] to flee and
seek help [elsewhere], or even [to seek] an intercessor [to
intervene in his behalf] before his merciful, righteous and
just father; but he will look up to his father, face to face,
suffering his blows with love, for his lasting good.. . . Then
G-d will also bestow the good and will cause His face to
shine upon him with manifest love. . . .
This, too, I request that . . . whoever [of the old
Chasidim] sometimes has an important matter in the serv
ice of G-d on which to consult me personally and not oth
erwise, then he must remain for about two weeks, perhaps
there will be an opportune time to speak to him as he
desires. . . .
Please, please, I appeal to your abundant mercies, do
not drive me out of our land before the right and proper
time, as it may please G-d. . . .
This is also to inform that in the months of Nissan and
89
R abbi S c:;h n e u r Z a l m a n
lyar, until the Shabbat before Rosh Chodesh Sivan, as well

as after Simchat Torah until Shabbat Chanukah, there
shall be no visitors, neither new nor old Chasidim.‘“
Clearly, Rabbi Schneur Zalman did not wish to assume the
position of intercessor, whose blessings and prayers would bring
miraculous help to those who believed in his supernatural pow
ers. He wished to confine his role to that of teacher and spiritu
al counsellor, though he well knew that material stress was
bound to affect one’s spiritual well-being. However, he was too
kind and sensitive a man to disregard the frailty of human
nature, and he had to make concessions in extreme cases of
material distress. It was related by those who were close to him,
who knew his passionate desire for solitude and communion with
G'd, that it was with supreme selflessness that he would tear
himself away from his studies and worship in order to take time
out to receive in private audience a man or woman in distress.
In 5555 (1795) a revised .set of Takanot was issued, as fob
lows:
1. Chasidim of long standing (“old Chasidim”) can
come to Liozna for the Shabbat preceding Rosh Chodesh.
N o more than one visit a year is permitted, without any
exception whatever, even if one is prepared to rent his own
[lodgings and] board, or bring food with him.
2. A “year” means a full year, not even one month
sooner. It will he reckoned from the Shabbat preceding
Rosh Chodesh Sivan. Except for the four periods when all are
permitted to come. The four periods are: Simchat Torah,
Shabbat'Chanukah, Purim, and ShabbatShuvah. Provided,
however, that those coming for Shabbat'Shuvah who cannot
afford to pay for their upkeep, should not come for Rosh
Hashanah, even if it occurs on Thursday and Friday; in
other words, they are permitted to come only when Rosh
Hashanah occurs in the middle of the week, but only for
the Shabbat [following, i.e. Shabbat'Shuvahl, and immedi
ately upon the termination of the Shahbat, should set out
on their way.
3. If one feels he must make a second visit [in the same
year], he should first write about the matter, and permission
90
may perhaps be granted. But without permission one is

sternly forewarned. . . .
4. As for the Shabbat preceding Rosh Chodesh, permis
sion is granted for once a year, except those preceding Rosh
Chodesh Nissan, and lyar, and MarCheshvan and Kislev. The
others are permissible, namely, the Shabbat preceding Rosh
Chodesh Tevet, also Shabbat-Chanukah in most years, the
Shabbat preceding Rosh Chodesh of the months Shevat,
Adar and Adar [S/ieni], Sivan, Tammuz, Menachem Av and
Eltd; also for the Shabbat after the middle of Elul. But for
Shavuot, Shabbat'Nachamu, and the Shabbat before Rosh
Hashanah, no one should come under any circumstances.
5. Those arriving in Liozna, whether Chasidim of long
standing or new ones, should never enter any house or
courtyard of our town’s ba'alei'battim, except two designat
ed houses and courts as per bearer of this letter . . . This
applies both to those coming by wagon as well as on foot.
From the said courtyards our appointed will conduct each
one to his place, to wit, those who can afford to pay [for
their upkeep] will be conducted to lodgings suitable for
them among the many houses in our town where payment
is taken. The men who cannot afford, and only those who
come on foot, will be assigned by our appointed to the
upper baalei'battim. in our town, each one according to his
station, to the extent of the assessment with which every
one has been assessed in regard to providing free hospitali
ty over the Shabbat days. During the weekdays free meals
will be provided in the community dining-room, as will be
explained by the bearer, during the period which the wait
ing for an audience necessitates, as for example in the case
of new Chasidim.
6. Even if one is invited by a Bad-habayit in our town
to eat with him on Shabbat or during the week, a strict ban
is imposed upon the guest, except in the case of a parent,
brother, brother-in-law or mecKutan, and only for them
alone, but not for the sons and sons-in-law who may be
with them.
7. Anyone of the old Chasidim coming to our town for
91
any of the Shabbatot preceding Rosh Chodesh should not

come without a written attestation by the gabbaim of his
town to the effect that a complete year has passed since his
previous visit. Whoever shall come without such written
attestation will be denied any lodging, even if paid for, and
certainly any food, even if paid for, not to mention gratis for
the poor. The gabbaim must watch this constantly, as well
as the general ordinances, to bring them to public atten
tion and to remind the general public, including the new
Chasidim, of this. Those living in rural areas should bring
such a certificate from the gabbai in the nearby town to
whom he gives his contributions for the Holy Land. The
gabbai, on his part, should keep a register of all the visitors
to our town, recording the names of the visitors and the
month in which the visit was made, in order to avoid error.
8. All visitors for the said four periods shall return
home immediately at the termination of the Shabhat or the
Yom Tov; even one who is in very great need in spiritual
matters, not to mention mundane matters, regardless how
urgent. Let him imagine that I have already departed, etc.
And there is no hindrance of G-d to send help, and He has
many messengers besides me.
9. Anyone coming for any Shabbat preceding Rosh
Chodesh mentioned above, who has a query in a matter of
Torah, should write down his query, and I will reply to him
in writing, or orally through my son'’ or my son-in-law.^® Or
he should provide himself with paid-for lodgings for an
entire month, perchance after all I may find time to speak
to him privately, inasmuch as there are very many new
Chasidim who come daily, and for whom there is not suffi
cient time, as it is, to speak with them privately, except in
public matters.
10. When one is in need in a ver^' important mundane
matter, if it is a matter wherein 1 am not in a position to be
of practical help to him, such as writing a letter of recom
mendation for him, and the like, and his intention is only
to acquaint me with his distress that 1 intercede in his
behalf [On High] , . . '
92
Despite the ever growing restrictions and admonitions, the

stream of visitors to Liozna continued unabated, and, in fact,
grew steadily because of the numerical expansion of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s followers. Obviously, not all of them could
hope to be received in private audience by the Rebbe. This was
a physical impossibility. But many came just to be near him, if
only for one Shabbat, and possibly to hear a Chasidic discourse
delivered personally by the Rebbe. Many had various problems,
economic or spiritual, health problems and family problems, and
they believed implicitly in the Rebbe’s intercession, and in his
prayer and blessing. It is plain to see from the Takanot how great
was the personal burden of Rabbi Schneur Zalman in shepherd‫׳‬
ing his numerous and constantly growing flock.
In 5556 (1796) the regulations governing visits to Liozna
were revised again. They were solemnly adopted at a large assem‫׳‬
bly of leading Chasidim from many communities, who met in
Liozna. The document, which bears the date of Monday, 27th of
Adar 1, 5556, was signed by 48 representatives from nearly as
many different communities. It was approved and reaffirmed by
a colophon over the signature of Rabbi Schneur Zalman himself,
wherein he calls on all the Chasidic congregations to solemnly
adopt the regulations and carry them out meticulously, declaring
that they were designed for the public benefit.
These regulations contained the following main provisions:
1) N o more than two visits to Liozna per year for old
Chasidim.
2) No one should enter the Rebbe’s study to speak to
him privately, either in spiritual or mundane matters; nor
submit any request in writing. One could, however, submit
a written outline of the problem, without asking for advice,
but only in order that the Rebbe remember him in prayer.
3) If there be a matter of extraordinary importance
which may make it necessary to ask for the Rebbe’s advice,
the person must first submit it to a conclave of the three
leading Chasidim in his community. Should they agree
that the matter is indeed of extraordinary importance, that
there could be more than one way of coping with it, and
that they themselves cannot decide what course should be
93
R abbi S c h n e l .'R Z a 1, ma n
taken— then the three were permitted to write to the

Rebbe for advice. Under no circumstances was the person
himself to come to Liozna to present his problem.
4) Whenever the Rebhe gave a public discourse or ser
mon, in the Beit HaMidrash or in the synagogue, lao one is
to press forward to ascend the bimah, except the members
of the immediate family and special guests.
5) Certain provisions were made for collective visits in
groups of 30 to 40 persons, to consult the Rebbe on Torah
matters. For this purpose, the Rehbe volunteered two hours
daily in the afternoon.
6) New Chasidim could come only during any of the
first three Shabbatot of the month, but not for the Shabbat
preceding Rosh Chodesh, which is reserved exclusively for
old Chasidim.
7) The previous regulations governing board and lodg
ings were reaffirmed.
8) On three occasions in the year, visits to Liozna were
liberalized for both old and new Chasidim. These were:
Purim, Shahbat'Shuvah (the Shabbat between Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and the last days of the Succot
festival. It was promised, however, that when the new
building of the Beit HaMidrash would be completed, also
Shabbat'Chanukah would be included in the special peri‫־‬
ods when visits to Liozna would be permitted to all.-^
The frequent revisions and reaffirmations of the Takanot of
Liozna graphically point to the fact that the Chasidic leader was
wrestling with a serious problem of how to cope with the numer•‫־‬
ous visitors to Liozna. Vital issues at stake were not only human‫׳‬
itarian but also spiritual. Rabbi Schneur Zalman became, as it
were, a captive of his own movement. Lbs sensitive nature and
his selfless dedication to each and every one of his Chasidim
made him particularly vulnerable to noblesse oblige.
94
C h apter VIII
First Encounter W ith T he
H askalah
T 1he Haskalah movement, which was bom in Germany,

came to Eastern European Jewry almost at the same time
as the Chasidic movement. The latter, as already men-
tioned,‘ began to spread in 1734• Barely twenty years later, in
1751, we find the first Haskalah polemic against the Chasidic
movement in Solomon Helma’s Mirkevet HaMishneh, followed
by Nezed HaDema of Israel of Zamosc (1773) and Toldot Chayyai
of Solomon Maimon (1792). The real confrontation came sev
eral decades later, with the launching of the aggressive literary
campaign by the MaskiUm of Galicia during the years 1815'
1840.^ In Lithuania and Russia the first open challenges by the
Haskalah came even a little later, with the publication of Isaac
Ber Lebensohn’s Te’udah b’Yisrael (Vilna, 1828).’
Several factors helped to facilitate somewhat the introduc
tion of the Haskalah into Eastern Europe.
Firstly, the dissolution of the Council of the Four Lands in
1764 weakened the communal organization in general, and rah-
binic authority in particular. The previously centralized rabbinic
authority gave way to localized rabbinic and lay leadership, with
no unified body to deal with problems affecting religious Jewry as
a whole.
In Lithuania the main rabbinic authority was vested in the
hands of the Gaon of Vilna, of course. This extraordinarily briL
liant Talmudic genius was favorably inclined towards the sci-
95
R a b b ! S c h n e u r Z a l ma n
ences. He believed that the natural as well as the exact sciences

were rooted in the Torah, and that the sciences were a necessary
aid to the understanding of the Torah. He was often quoted to
the effect that a deficiency in the knowledge of the sciences
meant a seven-fold deficiency in the knowledge of the Torah.‘'
Himself a brilliant student of mathematics, astronomy, medicine
and other branches of science, he encouraged the translation
into Hebrew of scientific texts known in his time. In his mind
there was such perfect harmony between the Torah and science,
that he could not imagine that there could ever be a conflict
between the two.
The Gaon’s brother. Rabbi Yissachar, and his son Rabbi
Abraham, outstanding Talmudic scholars, were also well versed
in secular sciences and in languages. They read and spoke Polish,
German and French, and thus had access to Western literature.
There were others among the Gaon’s disciples who studied for
eign languages and were encouraged to study grammar, philoso
phy, mathematics, and so forth.
When the fame of Moses Mendelssohn^ reached Vilna, espe-
dally the news of his translation of the Pentateuch into German,
accompanied by a commentary (“Biur”), the Gaon became inter
ested. Mendelssohn’s reputation as a strictly observant Jew was
untarnished. Moses was the son of a pious and learned Safer
(Scribe) in Dessau, whose name was Menachem Mendel. In his
youth Moses absorbed a great deal of biblical and Talmudic
learning in an atmosphere of piety. A t the age of twelve his
father died, and Moses was befriended by Rabbi David Frankel.
The orphan became his diligent pupil. When Rabbi Frankel
received a call from the Jewish community in Berlin, young
Moses joined him there. In Berlin, Moses continued his
Talmudic studies while he also devoted himself to the study of
languages, ancient and modern, as well as philosophy and other
secular subjects, under the tutelage of Israel of Zamosc and other
Mas kilim.
In due course, Mendelssohn translated the Pentateuch, the
Book of Psalms, and Song of Songs into German, in cooperation
with other Maskilim (Solomon Dubno, Naftali Hertz Wessely,
Aharon of Yaroslav and Hertz Homberg), and produced the Biur
96
F i rs t E n c o u n t e r W i th H a s k a l a h
(Commentary) on the Pentateuch.

The Translation and Commentary fulfilled several objectives
of the Maskilim:
To introduce the German language to the younger genera
tion of students of Torah and Talmud, so as to give them access
to German literature and philosophy. It was easy for a Jewish boy,
who was familiar with the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, to use
the Translation as a vehicle to learn German by comparing the
Hebrew text with the translation. The Maskilim also saw in the
Translation a means of popularizing the German language among
the masses of the Jewish people with a view to supplanting the
“jargon” of Yiddish, which the new Jewish intelligentsia
despised.
The Commentary was intended also to present a more
“rational” and “scholarly” interpretation of the Pentateuch.
While it was based on the classical commentaries of Rashi,
Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and others, it omitted the Midrashim and
Aggadot, and anything which had to do with the mystical and
esoteric, concentrating on the plain sense of the words (Pshat).
Thus the Biur preserved the traditional character of the
Pentateuch.
The Biur was designed also to encourage the study and
understanding of Hebrew grammar and syntax, and to foster an
appreciation of the aesthetic value of classical Hebrew and
Hebrew poetry.
On the face of it, Mendelssohn’s Translation and Biur
appeared to be a positive contribution. In this light it was accept
ed by some well-meaning rabbis, who did not realize the inher
ent danger of the Biur in that it insidiously undermined simple
faith in the Sages of the Talmud and Midrash, which had been so
consistently fostered by Rashi.
Thus, when news of Mendelssohn’s Translation and Biur
reached Vilna, Rabbi Yissachar and Rabbi Abraham selected five
of the Gaon’s foremost disciples (among them was also Moshe
Meisels, who later became an ardent Chasid of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman) and sent them to Berlin. Their task was to become per
sonally acquainted with the translator as well as with his work,
and make a judgment as to their qualifications. They were par-
97
ticularly instructed to evaluate the merits of the Biur for wider

dissemination. The five delegated students spent about a year in
Berlin. They found Mendelssohn’s adherence to Jewish tradi‫׳‬
tions and religious observances beyond reproach. As for the
Translation and Biur, they had copied sections from it and
brought them back with them. The work was found satisfactory
and was recommended as such to the Gaon, who gave his con
sent for its use.
A great deal of credit for the acceptance of the Biur, in cer
tain rabbinic and yeshiva circles, was due to Solomon Dubno.*’ He
was a disciple of the saintly gaon and Rabbi of Dubno, Rabbi
Naftali, who was a disciple of the Baal Shem Tov. Later Solomon
Dubno studied in Amsterdam, where he gained fame as an
authority on the T ’NaCh and Hebrew grammar. Subsequently he
came to Berlin, where Mendelssohn engaged him as a teacher for
his son, giving him room and board in his home. A t
Mendelssohn’s suggestion, Solomon Dubno began writing a
commentary on the Pentateuch. Indeed, his commentary on
Genesis was eventually incorporated in the Biur.
During his stay in Berlin, it came to pass that his teacher
Rabbi Naftali stopped over in Berlin for several days on his way
from Offenbach (near Frankfurt am Main), where he went to
receive medical treatment from a famous physician in that city.
After his treatment, he visited the Jewish community at
Frankfurt, at the invitation of its rabbi, Rabbi Pinchas Hurwitz
(author of the Haflaah), and then returned home by way of
Berlin. Solomon Dubno attended on his saintly teacher during
his stay in Berlin. He told his teacher of his association with
Mendelssohn and of their mutual endeavor. It is not known what
the teacher said to his disciple in reply, but a few days later
Solomon Dubno departed from the Mendelssohn home and
went to Vilna. He was well received by the Gaon Rabbi Elijah
and his disciples, and was offered hospitality by Joseph Peseles, a
prominent and wealthy member of the Vilna community and a
relative of the Gaon. Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin and his brother
Rabbi Zelmele gave their approbation to Solomon Dubno’s com
mentary on the Pentateuch, encouraging him also to write a
commentary on the Books of the Prophets and Holy Writings.
98
F i r s t E n c o u n t e r W i th H a s k a l a h
The Maggid of Vilna, Rabbi Yechezkel Faivel, who was

known for his learning and piety and was close to the Gaon of
Vilna, often preached and admonished young Talmud scholars
on the virtue of studying the Holy Scriptures with exegesis.
The Gaon’s brother Rabbi Yissachar, himself the author of
an exegetic work on the Pentateuch, convened periodic confer
ences for discussions on the Hebrew language and grammar to
foster their study among the students. One of these conferences
was attended by the venerable grammarian Rabbi Shlomo
Zalman Hena, author of Tzohar la’Tevah, who was visiting in
Vilna. His talks on the T ’NaCh deeply touched all present and
further stimulated the study of Hebrew and of the Scriptures
among the yeshiva students.
Thus, the general climate in Vilna was conducive to the
Haskalah spirit that breathed from Berlin. Scores of brilliant
young men were induced to go to Berlin, Amsterdam, Padua and
other centers of enlightenment, to study languages, medicine,
astronomy, and mathematics. Some of them, like Baruch Schick
and Benjamin Zalman Riveles of Shklov, Menashe of Ilya,
Pinchas Eliyahu of Vilna (author of Sefer HaBrit) and Solomon
Dubno, gained prominence, and served as forerunners of many
others who sought to combine Talmudic knowledge with
Western culture.
On the other hand, the Maggid of Miezricz and his disciples,
the various Chasidic leaders, as well as some of the more influ
ential rabbis such as the famed Rabbi Ezekiel Landau of Prague
(an opponent of Chasidut), foreseeing the erosion which the
Haskalah movement was bound to create in the foundations of
traditional Judaism, fiercely opposed Mendelssohn’s Translation
and Biur, and thwarted all attempts of the Maskilim to dissemi
nate Western culture among the Jewish masses in Eastern
Europe.
The Maskilim, on their part, in order to captivate ever more
young men and convert them to the Haskalah movement, tried
to pierce through the defenses which the Chasidim set up in
their communities. They sent secret emissaries to various
Chasidic communities to recruit gifted young scholars for the
Haskalah. Frequently, their efforts were successful and many a
99
yeshiva student was persuaded to go to Berlin to join the ranks of

the “seekers of enlightenment.”
uring the years 1791-1796, the secret emissaries of the

D Maskilim were particularly active among the Chasidic com
munities of Lithuania and the Ukraine. However, as soon as
their mission was discovered, they were subjected to ridicule and
abuse, and their further stay was made intolerable for them.
One such secret agent of the Maskilim was a certain Shimon
of Zamut. He came to Vilna in 1792. With a good background in
Talmudic studies and an extraordinary erudition in T ’NaCh,
coupled with proficiency in grammar (having been a disciple of
a disciple of Zalman Hena) and in astronomy and geometry (a
disciple of a disciple of Israel Lifschitz), Shimon of Zamut was
eagerly welcomed by Rabbi Yissachar, the Gaon’s brother, and
Rabbi Abraham, the Gaon’s son. They appointed him as a gen
eral supervisor over all the teachers in the Talmud Torahs of
Vilna.
The Gaon, too, treated this seemingly pious and erudite
scholar with deference and, moreover, requested him to peruse
his own work Dikduk Eliyahu. It could not have occurred to any
one that this Shimon was one of the secret Maskilim, whose
paramount interest was to recruit “converts” to the Haskalah.
In his capacity as supervisor over the Talmud Torahs, Shimon
classified the students according to their mental capacities.
Those who showed particular promise for admission to the yeshi-
va to study the Talmud intensively, were assigned by him to spe
cial studies in T ’NaCh. Gradually he brought many of the
brighter boys under his influence. W hen some of them were
completely won over to his viewpoint, he persuaded them to go
to centers of Haskalah in Germany and elsewhere, under the
guise of going to study in the yeshivot of Minsk, Slutzk, Smargon,
or Brest.
For about four years Shimon continued his undercover work
with considerable success. It was a common practice in those
days to follow the advice of the Sages of the Talmud (Avot 4:14)
“Wander out to a place of Torah.” Away from the distractions of
one’s home, a boy was expected to concentrate more fully on his
100
studies. It aroused no one’s suspicions, therefore, when some of

the brighter boys left town ostensibly t(3 go to any of the better
known yeshivot elsewhere, but actually to enter any one of sever
al schools of the Maskilim in Galicia, Poland and Germany.
Only the aforementioned Joseph Peseles shared Shimon’s secret.
A secret Maskil himself, Peseles supported the work of the
Maskilim with considerable sums of money.
During those years in Vilna, Shimon succeeded in winning
the confidence also of the Chasidim. Taking no part in the quar
rels and contests between the two factions of the Jewish com
munity in Vilna, he was sometimes able to assume the role of an
impartial arbitrator between the representatives of the two com
munities in the Kehilah, the Pamassim, of each side. He particu
larly curried the favor of the two leaders of the Chasidic com
munity in Vilna, Baruch Mordechai and Moshe Meisels. Both
were grammarians and lovers of the Holy Tongue. Moreover,
Moshe Meisels liked to try his skill at Flehrew rhymes, and con
sidered Shimon something of an expert on Hebrew poetry. All
this served as the basis for an affinity between them and Shimon
of Zamut.
At that time, the nusach of prayer which Rabbi Schneur
Zalman had instituted, was already in use among the Chasidim.
The Chahad Prayer Book had not yet been printed, but the
Chasidim used to annotate the prayer books in use to conform to
the Nusach Chabad. Where possible, they used the siddur Sha’ar
HaShamayim of the Sheloh (Rabbi Isaiah Hurwitz) which was
closest to the Nusach Chabad. But lacking that, any siddur could
be made to harmonize with their nusach with the aid of annota
tions.
To be sure, the changes instituted iit the Nusach Chabad pre
sented another bone of contention for the Mitnagdim. However,
those of them who had a knowledge of Hebrew grammar and
syntax, had to admit that Rabbi Schneur Zalman meticulously
embodied in his nusach the principles of the Hebrew language, so
that the most erudite grammarians could find no fault with it.
Shimon of Zamut, who was not adverse to flattering the
Chasidim to win their favor, could do so honestly in regard to
their nusach. He often used to say that he was no authority on the
101
esoteric significance of the nusach, or the essential differences

between Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Ari, or the Kabbalistic
reasons for the particular sequence of certain prayers. However,
insofar as the grammatical rules were concerned, he could
declare without hesitation that the Nusach Chabad was superior
by far. Indeed, he would express his astonishment that, in view
of the obvious erudition of their leader in the Hebrew language
and grammar, the Chasidim generally did not make it their prac‫־‬
tice to study these subjects in a systematic way.
Like many of the other leading Maskilim, Shimon felt a cer
tain respect for the Chabad Chasidim. They regarded the
Chabad leader and his Chasidim as a class of their own among
the Chasidim in general. Some of the leading Maskilim of the
Berlin school had occasion to meet with leading Chabad
Chasidim, such as Yosef Kolbo, Pinchas Schick, Binyamin of
Kletzk, and others from Shklov and elsewhere, who came to the
fairs in Leipzig. They found these Chabad Chasidim to be men of
profound knowledge not only in the Talmud, but also in religious
philosophy, whose piety was matched by their refinement of
character. These could not be labeled as “fanatical ignoramuses”
and “children of darkness” as the Maskilim were wont to refer to
the Chasidim of Galicia and Poland. Consequently, it was the
Galician, and later the Polish Chasidim, who were the first tar
gets of the satirical and vituperous invectives of the Maskilim.
As for the Chasidim of Lithuania and the Ukraine, these, the
Maskilim realized, had to be drawn into the Haskalah movement
by persuasion rather than by satire and ridicule. Consequently, a
number of Haskalah protagonists were active among the
Chasidic communities in Lithuania and the Ukraine during the
years 1791-96 in an effort to persuade them of the need to study
the Hebrew language and grammar, which the Maskilim consid
ered as the first step towards a full-fledged Haskalah orientation.
However, these Maskilim, some of whom might have been well
intentioned, met with a firm rebuttal everywhere. A t best, the
Haskalah emissaries were ignored; but more often they were
treated with contempt and simply told to get out. Sometimes
these emissaries were even threatened with violence if they
would not stop their insidious activity. Moreover, the
102
Mitnagdim, too, often joined the Chasidim in frustrating the

efforts of the Haskalah emissaries.
The religious community was particularly incensed by a trag
ic incident which was said to have occurred in Ponieviezh at that
time. The story, which gained widespread circulation, was as fol
lows: A new cheder had been established in the town of
Ponieviezh for intensive study of Germra. A melamed (teacher),
who hailed from Zolkiev, was engaged to teach the boys. He
introduced into the curriculum the study of T'NaCh with vari‫׳‬
ous commentaries. After a while, the teacher urged the boys to
obtain their parents’ consent to attend certain classes in the local
non-Jewish school. The school was headed by a priest, and the
Jewish students fell under the influence of his missionary zeal.
One of his methods was to exclude the Jewish children from the
free meals which were given at the school for the Christian stu‫׳‬
dents. Two Jewish boys, unable to resist the priest’s influence and
temptation, converted to Christianity. According to the rumor,
which spread throughout the entire region, the teacher from
Zolkiev was blamed for the tragic conversion of the boys.
Excitement and indignation ran high, and the dangers of the
Haskalah were brought home to every Jewish family, Chasidic
and Mitnagdic alike.’
In view of the reports coming in from the various Haskalah
emissaries about the poor results of their efforts, the Haskalah
leaders instructed Shimon of Zamut to visit the various Chasidic
communities in Lithuania and the Ukraine, including also the
very center of the Chabad Chasidim, and their leader— in
Liozna. Shimon was to survey the situation and report his find
ings to the central committee of the Maskilim, together with rec
ommendations as to how best to penetrate the Chasidic strong
holds. Because of the excellent reputation which Shimon
enjoyed in Vilna, both among the Mitnagdim and Chasidim, he
seemed to be eminently suitable for this task. On the basis of
family reasons, Shimon obtained leave of absence from his duties
for several months, and set out on his tour of Chasidic commu
nities, including Liozna.
Shimon was to return to Vilna before Rosh Hashanah. But
several weeks prior to his return, the Chasidic leaders, Baruch
103
Mordechai and Moshe Meisels, received a letter from Liozna

alerting them to the true identity of Shimon of Zamut. The let
ter, written in the name of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, informed
them that Shimon, who had been held in such high esteem as a
very pious Jew and admirer of the Chabad Nusach, was in reality
a secret emissary of the Maskilim. The Chasidic leaders were to
keep a watchful eye on him, gather evidence on his clandestine
activities, and at the proper time, they were to expose him for
what he really was.
In the meantime, the relation between the Mitnagdim and
Chasidim of Vilna became more strained. The Chasidim had sue-
ceeded in gaining two more representatives on the community
council. Though this strengthened the community and was beii'
eficial also financially, since additional income poured into the
community chest from the Chasidim who had previously hoy-
cotted the community council, some of the militant Mitnagdim
were concerned about the growing strength of the Chasidim, and
plotted to undermine the Chasidic influence. At the head of
these plotters was the above-inentioned Joseph Peseles.
The Chasidim, on their part, took steps to thwart any new
attacks against them, by infiltrating the very councils of the
Mitnagdim. Of particular service to the Chasidim was a relative
of Peseles’ wife, a certain Betzalel Baruch. A physical monstrosi‫׳‬
ty of a man— a hunchback, limping on one leg, seemingly half
blind and deaf, with impaired speech— Betzalel Baruch made the
impression of a half-wit. In reality, however, he was a clever and
alert man, who missed nothing of what was going on in the
Peseles’ house, where he lived and performed odd jobs in return
for his keep. Unobtrusively he was always around when some
conference was taking place in this house. Open letters were
never concealed from him, nor were any drawers locked for him.
Betzalel Baruch kept his eyes and ears open, read the letters and
memoranda which were w'ithin easy access, and copied some of
them. All the information which he carefully gathered, he
turned over to the Chasidim.
It was with the help of this Betzalel Baruch that the first clue
was discovered to Shimon’s true identity. For Betzalel Baruch was
able to copy an informative and revealing letter which Shimon
!04
had written to Peseles.

In this letter, written from Cracow, Shimon reported on his
visits to various Chasidic communities, including the very capi
tal of the Chasidim. After spending about a week in Liozna, sev‫׳‬
eral days of which he was ill, he was received in private audience
by the leader of the Chasidim. Before the audience was over, the
Rebbe of the Chasidim recognized him for what he was— an
emissary and spy of the Maskilim. Shimon could not account for
this uncanny perceptiveness of the Rebbe—^perhaps he sniffed
that he, Shimon, had not put on tefillin that day, as in the case
of the yenuka^ mentioned in the Zohar, whose sensitive nostrils
discovered a man’s failure to read the Shema— Shimon added
sarcastically. Be it as it might, he had to beat a hasty escape that
very night.
Shimon went on to say that throughout the towns of White
Russia through which he passed, he found the Chasidim firmly
entrenched, and that it would not be easy to dislodge them. A
well thought-out strategy would be required to enlighten those
“fanatics,” the Chasidim and non-Chasidim alike. “For, to all of
us who do not believe that there ever was, or is, a G-d, both the
followers of nakdishach^ and keter as well as of nekadesh and rui’ar-
itzach beat the air and cling to an antiquated age,” Shimon wrote.
He concluded by saying that all the measures hitherto employed
by the committee in Vilna in their fight against the Chasidim
was like a drop in the bucket by comparison with what will have
to be done, and that he would report in detail on his return to
Vilna.
Now that Baruch Mordechai and Moshe Meisels had no
more doubt about Shimon’s identity, they resolved to gather fur
ther evidence about him. They decided on a bold step, namely to
search Shimon’s belongings before his return to Vilna. They
recalled that Shimon had often spoken glowingly of a relative of
his, a certain Aizik’I Frumeles, a prominent merchant who lived
in Polotzk. According to Shimon, this man was an avid Hebrew
grammarian, who had entered into matrimonial ties with
Chasidic families and became one of them, praying in their
klaus. Being a man of means, with business dealings in surround
ing communities, Aizik’I Frumeles enjoyed considerable influ-
105
R a b b ! S c h n e u r Zalman
ence among the Chasidim of Polotzk and vicinity.

In the light of this information, the two Chasidic leaders of
Vilna called upon one of the Chasidim of the town of Swintzan,
whose name was Zalman Leib, to appear in Vilna on a visit to
Shimon, as a relative of the said Aizik’l Frumeles, As such, he
was admitted to Shimon’s room and allowed to stay there for a
few days, pending the latter’s arrival.
Zalman Leib found bundles of letters and notes, received as
well as written, by Shimon. Here was Shimon’s entire corre
spondence with a number of leading Maskilim, including Naftali
Hertz Wessely, Isaac Eichel, M. Bresslau, David Franco Mendes,
Solomon Maimon, M. M. Levin, Baruch Linda, the brothers
Friedlander, and other leading members of the "Meassefim,”'^
who had already become welLkraown for their apostasy and mil-
itantism against Jewish orthodoxy. It was evident from this cor
respondence that Shimon was no small peg in the campaign to
spread the Haskalah movement among the yeshiva students in
Lithuania. Zalman Leib also found among Shimon’s notes a list
of the boys whom he had sent away to Haskalah schools in
Warsaw, Cracow, Vienna, Berlin, Breslau, Dessau, Koenigsberg,
Hamburg and other centers of the Maskilim; copies of letters of
introduction for each of the boys, their background, mental abiL
ity and past progress; financial accounts of moneys received and
spent in his propaganda work; corresponderace with the teachers
of the boys on the latter’s brain-washing to clear their minds of
the “antiquated” beliefs and opinions which they had absorbed
at home and at the yeshiva, in order to make them more recep
tive to the new spirit of the “enligh tenment.”
All this material left no doubt as to Shimon’s character, his
views and activities. It was quite clear that Shimon was an athe
ist, who had completely broken away from Jewish tradition, and
in his heart ridiculed and despised the Sages of old and their
teachings. Above all, he was art undercover-agent for the
Maskilim, who shrewdly and successfully had already trapped
many promising young Talmudic students in his missionary net.
Baruch Mordechai and Moshe Meisels carefully copied and
documented the incriminating material for the proper use at the
proper time.
106
First En c o u n t e r W ith H as kalah
n the Fast of Gedaliah (the day after Rosh Hashanah),

O Betzalel Baruch informed Baruch Mordechai that Shimon
had returned on the day before Rosh Hashanah and that during
the two days of the festival, he held frequent talks with Peseles.
Betzalel Baruch related to him all that he had overheard of
Shimon’s account of his visit in the Chasidic capital, including
all the details of Shimon’s audience with the Rebbe, his talks
with the Rebbe’s brothers and sons, the Chasidic customs and
conduct which he had observed, and so forth. Shimon made no
secret of the fact that he had been greatly impressed by the
extraordinary discipline which prevailed among the Chasidim,
and by their general conduct.
The highlights of Shimon’s report, as recounted by Betzalel
Baruch were as follows:
Already on arrival in Vitebsk, some 25 miles distant from
Liozna, Shimon noted how everybody spoke most reverently of
the Rebbe, as well as of his brothers and sons. Members of the
Rebbe’s family were never referred to by their full names, but by
their initials. Even the Rebbe’s grandson Menachem Mendel, a
boy of some six or seven years, was also called in this way—
RaMaM, and he was highly praised as an unusually brilliant and
knowledgeable boy, with extraordinary mental capacities.
During the three days Shimon spent in Vitebsk, he visited
many synagogues and Batei'Midrash, and everywhere he found
groups of men sitting at long tables and studying out of printed
but unbound folios. Their prayers were as animated and as
inspired as their learning.
Shimon discovered that what the Chasidim were studying so
avidly were the newly printed sheets of a book by their Rebbe,
which was coming off the printing-press in Slavita. So eager and
impatient were the Chasidim to study this book, that they had
arranged with the printer to send them the printed sheets as soon
as they came off the press.
He had seen these printed and unbound folios in various
towns on his route, as well as in Vilna before his departure.
Shimon described a Chasidic get-together which he had wit
nessed in one of the synagogues in a late afternoon, following the
Mincha prayer. He, too, was invited to join in the “Seudat-
107
Mitzvah.” The fare was simple: a loaf of bread, two herrings,

watermelon and a bottle of liquor. But the spirits were high.
They drank to the health of their Rebbe, and sang melodies. The
talk around the table was animated, for the subject matter was
the latest news emanating from Liozna, about the great strides
which the Chasidim had made in various communities. One of
the elders of the group related an episode about the Rebbe’s early
days in Miezricz, when he was a disciple of the Maggid. The
Chasid used this episode as a text for his sermonette. It went
something like this:
When our master and teacher, the Rebbe, was about to
leave Miezricz, the Maggid’s son. Rabbi Abraham, known
as the “Angel” because of his saintliness,*' accompanied
him to the wagon. Rabbi Abraham then said to the driver,
“Whip the horses until they cease to he horses.” Thereupon
our Rebbe changed his mind and decided to stay a little
longer. He declared that Rabbi Abraham’s words, “Whip
the horses until they cease to be horses,” opened a new way
of serving G-d, which he wished to explore.
The elder of the group then w‫׳‬ent on to explain the
meaning of the lesson. Referring to the Scriptural verse, “A
whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the
fool’s back” (Prov. 26: 3), he explained that the “horse,” the
“donkey,” and the “fool” were metaphors for certain types
of Jews who failed to live up to their function and purpose
in life. Some Jews, like a blind or rebellious horse, refuse to
go in the right direction. He identified them as the militant
Mitnagdim, who refuse to see the good of the Chasidic way
of life. Others, like the donkey (chamor, from the word
chomer, clay, matter), simply are too much concerned with
their material needs and bodily pleasures, albeit in the area
of permitted things. These need a bridle to curb their
appetites and refine their natures— precisely what
Chasidut seeks to accomplish. Finally, there are the “fools”
wTo consider themselves the w'isest. These he identified as
the Maskilim.
Relating this experience, Shimon said he was sorely pro‫״‬
voked to take the speaker to task, but, remembering his mission
108
F i r s t En c o u n t e r W i t h H a s k a l a h
and realizing also the futility of a debate with people who would
not listen to reason, he repressed his feelings, and stayed on to
see the affair conclude with a collection of donations to be sent
to their Rebbe. Shimon was amazed at the magnanimous
resporrse of the Chasidim who raised a substantial sum of money
in ready cash there and then. Lots were cast as to who would be
the two lucky representatives to take the money to the Rebbe,
together with the names of the contributors.
Of particular interest was Shimon’s account of his adventure
in the Chasidic capital:
I arrived in Liozna on a Monday afternoon, about two
o’clock. I entered the synagogue in the Rebbe’s court. In
the adjoining vestry 1 found a number of men still wrapped
in their praying shawls and phylacteries, praying individu
ally in melodious tones, some of them snapping their fin
gers and swaying in rapt devotion.
In another room a group of young men were engaged in
intensive Talmudic study, with the Rebbe’s brother Maharil
(Rabbi Yehuda Leib) at the head of the table, conducting
the seminar.
In a third room a larger group of young men were busy
studying those folios which 1 had seen in Vitebsk and else
where. Leading this group was a young man, who was read
ing from the text and explaining it at length. The subject
matter was the eighth chapter of the Rebbe’s book, which
centered on the transgression of eating forbidden food, and
the defilement of the body and soul caused thereby. He dis‫׳‬
cussed the difference between the defilement caused by the
transgressions of frivolity, arrogance and idle talk, which
dull the heart and senses, and the defilement of the mind
caused by the study of secular philosophy. The great
philosophers Maimonides and Nachmanides were excep
tions, however, because they sought this knowledge only as
a tool in the service of G-d.
I had to admit to myself that his explanations were log
ical, and the subject was captivating. Later I learned that
the young man was the Rebbe’s older son Dov Ber, who
gave a regular class twice a week to two groups of students.
109
each of about 25 students.

That day I bought the first three printed sheets of the
book, beginning with the first chapter and finishing with
page twelve, at the beginning of the tenth chapter. For the
next three days I studied the text with concentration, to
the best of my mental capacity. 1 also enlisted the help of
some of the older Chasidim to clarify some passages for me.
1 found the subject matter largely beyond my ken. Some
topics, such as the Supernal Sefirot, the yichudim (“unions”)
achieved through Torah and prayer, the purgatories of fire
and snow, 1 could only take with a goodly measure of salt,
of course. But on the whole 1 was considerably impressed by
the sweep of the author’s imagination, his lucid style, and
conciseness of expression, and the general adherence of the
text to the laws and norms of the Hebrew language.
During these days 1 was able to observe also the other
sons of the Rebbe. The middle one, Chaim Abraham, was
fond of seclusion. He immersed himself in his studies with
silent concentration, and was more contemplative than
voluble. By contrast, the youngest, Moshe, a lad of about
fourteen or fifteen, was a lively one. His sparkling eyes
exuded intelligence and self confidence. He loved to talk
and debate. 1 heard that he was thoroughly proficient in
the entire Talmud and in religious philosophy. He is said to
have the Guide, Kuzari and Ikkarim at his finger tips, for he
was gifted with an extraordinary mental grasp and memory.
I asked him if he had studied Hebrew grammar, and he
replied, “It is an integral part of Torah; how can one not
learn it? Without grammatical knowledge one cannot
properly understand the words of T ’NaCh, or the meaning
of the prayers!”
The Chasidim have certain customs and rites of their
own. A Chasid who is granted an audience with the Rebbe
undergoes three days’ preparation. Some even extend it
over a week.
The preparation essentially takes the form of a spiritu
al stocktaking and the purification of the mind. On the day
of the audience, for several hours before the appointed
110
F i rst E n c o u n t e r W i th H a s k a l a h
time, the candidates gather in one of the vestries of the

synagogue to study Torah. Some of them also stay up the
night before for Tikun Chatzot (midnight prayer), to recite
supplications and Tehillim (Psalms), usually accompanied
by tears and sighs, in contrition and penitence.
After the audience, which the Chasidim call Yechidut
(“Alone” with the Rebbe), those who had this privilege do
a special dance called the “Yechidut Dance,” or “Taharah
Dance,” to the tune of a special melody. The dancing
expresses their elated feelings at having been privileged to
see the Rebbe face to face, and their absolute confidence
that the problem about which they had petitioned the
Rebbe will now be happily resolved. While the inspired
petitioners dance in a circle, the other Chasidim present
clap their hands and join in the lively melody.
The Chasidim love to sing, and they have special nigU'
nim (tunes) for various occasions. There are the tunes
which they hum during their prayers; those they sing dur
ing study; those at a seudah (festive meal), and those at a
hitvaadut (get-together). In each case the nigunim are
appropriate to the occasion, and are rather inspiring. Three
nigunim made a particularly profound impression on me:
The “Hitvaadut Melody” which they usually call the
“Nigun of Brotherly Love”; the “Contemplation Nigun,”
also called “Nigun of Teshuvah (Repentance),” and the
“Yechidut Nigun,” also called the “Nigun of the Mikdash
(Sanctuary).”
The Nigun of Brotherly Love I heard for the first time
in Vitebsk. It consists of five stanzas, all harmoniously
blended into one another, with a crescendo of tender and
caressing strains, culminating in a rhapsody of tender pas
sion.
The Nigun of Teshuvah consists of three stanzas. The
first evoking a dematerialization of the self, and thought‫׳‬
concentration; the second appealing to the inner con‫׳‬
science, is profoundly nostalgic, while the third is designed
to excite contrition, giving way to comforting solace and
blissful reconciliation.
Ill
The Yechidut Nigun also consists of five stanzas. The

first two, expressed in moderate tones, evoke contempla
tion and introspection. The third and fourth express grati
tude and hope, in tender and reassuring strains. The fifth
voices confidence, in cheerful and rhythmical tones, which
stimulate the legs to dance, and the hands to rise upwards
in accord with the temperament of the tune.
One further noteworthy custom of the Chasidim is to
stay up two nights in the week, on Thursday night and on
Saturday night. On these nights they study the Talmud and
Codes until midnight, and sometimes they engage in a far-
brengen (get-together), over glasses of liquor and refresh
ments. After Tikun Chatzot, they spend the rest of the night
in the study of Chasidut.
The Rebbe’s house, or, as the Chasidim call it— the
“Sanctuary,” is situated in a spacious courtyard, in which
there is a garden lined with trees, a vegetable plot and var
ious structures.
The house occupies an area of about twenty-five by
twelve meters and has an upper structure. The living quar
ters are divided into two sections, separated by the
entrance hall. On the right side of it are the Rebbe’s private
living quarters, while on the left is a small synagogue,
which the Chasidim affectionately call the “Lower Gan
Eden.” It also serves as the waiting room for those who have
been granted an interv'iew with the Rebbe. The upper floor
consists of two rooms, separated by the entrance room.
One is the Rebbe’s private study, and the second is the
reception room for those received in audience. The
Chasidim reverently refer to it as the “Upper Gan Eden.”
During the first few days after my arrival in Liozna, I
was unable to see the Rebbe. 1 was told that during week
days he appears only for the reading of the Torah, and
when he gives a Torah discourse in the “Lower Gan Eden.”
As a rule, the Rebbe himself reads the Torah. He could also
be seen, I was told, on erev Shabbat, when he goes to the
mikvah for immersion.
I had hoped to see him on erev Shabbat. However, I
112
F i rs t E n c o u n t e r W i th H a s k a l a h
awoke on Friday morning with a high temperature and was

confined to my hed for three full days. Fortunately, my host
took good care of me, gave me vari()us medicines, a rub-
down, and covered me with blankets, all of which made me
perspire profusely. On the fourth day, a Monday, 1 was able
to get out of bed, but 1 still felt very weak. On Wednesday
it was my turn to be received in audience by the Rebbe.
As I entered the Rebbe’s room, I was overcome with an
overpowering sense of awe. His impressive face, penetrat
ing eyes, and strong voice as he said to me, “What is your
wish?” left me speechless for a moment. However, soon I
was able to recover my composure, and 1 replied, “1 am a
melamed of small children in my town. I teach them
Chumash with emphasis on the principles and laws of dik'
duk. My fellow teachers oppose my method and criticize
me for teaching them also the Hebrew language. In defense
of my position 1 cited the grammatical punctiliousness of
the Rebbe’s new edition of the siddur. Nevertheless my col
leagues are not convinced. It would be of geiteral benefit if
I could obtain a letter to commend the use of the gram
matical method, to train the children to read correctly, as
well as to teach them the T ’NaCh.”
For a few minutes the Rebbe seemed engrossed in con
centrated thought. Then he raised his head, opened his
eyes, and said, “True, the prayers, particularly the Sherm
and the Shemone'Esrei, should be recited carefully and cor
rectly. However, the method of interpreting the Torah
mainly on the basis of grammar and linguistics could come
too dangerously close to misinterpretation.”
The Rebbe again immersed himself in thought for a
few moments, and then posed the question to me: “How do
you explain to your pupils the verse, ‘And Yitzchak trem
bled very exceedingly’ (Gen. 27:33)?”
I replied, “According to the first interpretation of
Rashi— in the sense of astonishment.”
“And why not also tell your pupils of Rashi’s second
interpretation, in the name of the Midrash, that Yitzchak
saw the Gehinnom open at Esau’s feet ?”
113
“In my opinion . . . I think that the tender minds of the

children should not be crammed with aggadic material in
general, particularly with such a horrifying subject as
Gehinnom and the like, which are beyond a child’s imagi'
nation. Moreover, the child would find it hard to believe
that the great and fiery Gehinnom would suddenly blaze
forth in Yitzchak’s room, while both Yitzchak and Esau
remained alive, and not even their clothes were singed!”
“But where did the Midrash get this idea?” he asked me
again, to which 1 made nc5 reply.
After a brief pause, during which he was again deeply
immersed in thought, he raised one of the two candles
which were burning on the table— for it was his custom,
when he received people in audience, even during the day,
to have two lighted candles on his table, on which were
also a Chumash and a volume of the Zoliar. He looked into
my face with his deep and penetrating eyes, then solemnly
and deliberately said to me: “When a man comes from
Vilna and says he comes from Zamut; When he leads
Jewish children to the Moloch’’ of the Haskalah and says
that he is a melamed—Gehinnom opens before him. How
many souls have you led to perdition? Yet you obstinately
persist in your rebelliousness! You have gone the way of
apostasy from which there is no return.”
I hastily withdrew from the Rebbe’s room, the “Upper
Gan Eden," determined to return at once to my lodgings
and to leave town forthwith. I realized that 1 had been
caught, and 1 did not cherish the idea of being stretched
out on a table, with my pants down, taking a lashing like a
truant schoolboy-—as has been done to some of my fellow-
emissaries who had been discovered in certain Chasidic
strongholds.
However, as 1 passed the small synagogue, the “Lower
Gan Eden" as they called it, 1 was surrounded by some five
or six young men, who dragged me into the synagogue. You
can imagine my fright! To my great relief, however, 1 soon
realized that all they wanted was to do the “Yechidut
Dance” with me! Needless to say, 1 did not feel like danc-
114
ing. I was badly shaken by my encounter with the Rebbe,

and I had not fully recovered from my illness. Several times
I tried in vain to wriggle myself out: of their affectionate
embrace, but they held on to me firmly and whirled around
with me until 1 was welbnigh exhausted. Finally, the ordeal
was over. I was barely able to walk— crawl would describe
it more accurately— to my lodging. I waited for daybreak in
fear and trembling, and at the crack of dawn, I took my
belongings and walked out on my tiptoes. I walked to the
nearby village, where 1 hired a horse-and-wagon driver for
my speedy departure, blessing my stars that I was able to get
away without a scratch."
Shimon went on to report that he spent the following six
weeks traveling through the districts of Mohilev, Minsk, and
Tchemigov, and then went to Lvov, where he had arranged to
meet with his colleagues. After hearing his account of the grow
ing strength and rapid expansion of the Chasidic movement, the
group decided that it was necessary to take stringent measures to
combat the Chasidic expansion. Among the first steps to be
taken in this direction was the renewal of the cherem (ban)
against the Chasidim with redoubled vigor, so as to truly isolate
them from the rest of the Jewish community. The next step was
to denounce the Chasidic leader to the highest authorities as a
traitor and seditionist. The charges were to be that he was col‫׳‬
lecting large sums of money and sending them to Turkey, with a
view to eventually proclaiming himself the Jewish Messiah and
King, as the false Messiahs Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank bad
done in the not-too‫׳‬distant past.
Betzalel Baruch told Baruch Mordechai that insofar as he
gathered, Shimon brought with him a ready text of the cherem,
which required only the signature of the Gaon, and that Joseph
Peseles was confident that he could obtain tbe Gaon’s consent
and signature.
A t the termination of Shabbai'Shuvah, Baruch Mordechai
and Moshe Meisels convened a meeting of the leaders of the
Chasidic community and informed them of Shimon’s machina‫׳‬
tions. It was then decided that a public meeting should be called
by the Community Council during ChobHaMoed Succot, when
115
the evidence of Shimon’s true character would be made public

and he would be completely unmasked.
In the meantime, on Thursday, the day after Yom Kippur
(5557/1796), news spread with lightning speed throughout the
city that the Gaon had pronounced a strict cherem against the
Chasidim and their Rebbe. According to this cherem, it was said,
everybody was permitted, nay urged, to take all possible repres
sions against the Chasidim, without mercy or compassion, and
anyone having any friendly dealings with them would be put to
the pillory.
News of the cherem aroused not only the Chasidim, but also
the moderates among the Mitnagdim. Later that day a new
rumor sped around town that the cherem was issued without the
Gaon’s knowledge, for he was old (seventy‫׳‬seven and a half years
of age) and frail, and the fast of Yom Kippur had further weak‫׳‬
ened his condition. The ban was therefore issued by the militant
anti‫ ׳‬Chasidic committee headed by Peseles. For this reason it
was pronounced during the early morning in the presence of only
a few bystanders.'‘*
On the following day, Friday, the 12th of Tishrei, Meir
Refaels, a Chasidic member of the Community Council, who
happened to be the ParnasS'Chodesh (Monthly President), made
a public announcement for the Jews of Vilna and its suburbs, to
the effect that (a) the purported cherem against the Chasidim
had not been approved by the Beit‫ ׳‬D1n, in the absence of a clear
directive from the Gaon, and (b) that on Wednesday, the first
day of Chol'HaMoed Succot there would be a mass meeting
called by the Council, which everyone, men, women, and chil‫׳‬
dren over Bar Mitzvah age, were urged to attend.
Indeed, the meeting was overcrowded and tense with antic‫׳‬
ipation. Present were all the members of the Community
Council, the Beit Dm, and the most prominent members of the
community. Two pious Jews then ascended the podium and
solemnly gave testimony that the man known as Shimon the
Grammarian is an emissary of the Maskilim, sent for the purpose
of raiding the yeshivot and talmnd'Torahs, with a view to indue‫׳‬
ing some of their most promising students to leave their Torah
studies and secretly join the schools founded by Maskilim in
116
F i rs t E n c o u n t e r W i t h H a s k a l a h
Galicia and Germany. The accusers substantiated their charge by

the documents which had come into their possession, and which
were there and then presented in evidence. These included a list
of the students which Shimon succeeded to win over during the
past four years (5552-5556), the account of the expenditures
involved, and various documents written in Shimon’s own hand,
or received by him. The accusers further declared that they were
ready to take a solemn oath on the veracity of their testimony,
and demanded that Joseph Peseles should likewise be adjured to
reveal all he knew of Shimon’s treacherous deeds.
The unexpected revelations stunned all present, and most of
all Shimon himself. There followed a tremendous uproar as the
impact of the testimony struck home. The parents of the boys,
who had been beguiled into believing that their sons would one
day return home with attestations of excellence in Torah schol
arship and certificates of rabbinic ordination, were ready to give
vent to their violent feelings against the treacherous impostor.
From the women’s gallery there came a terrible wail. Shimon was
trapped. Two beadles and several young Chasidim made sure that
he would not escape, nor be set upon by the enraged people.
The scandal of Shimon’s uncovered treachery completely
eclipsed the cherem, which was all but forgotten in the new
excitement. For the next three weeks the Beit-Din was engaged
in studying the documents and papers which came to light at the
public meeting, as well as the additional material which was
uncovered by a search of Shimon’s home, while Shimon was held
in the community guardhouse. The investigation left no doubt as
to Shimon’s true character and misdeeds. The Beit'Din then pro
nounced their verdict. Three days at the pillory, followed by dis
graceful expulsion. The sentence was duly carried out, and on
the 23 rd of MarCheshvan, Shimon and his family were led
through a jeering crowd, and expelled from the city.‘^
The Shimon affair cast a shadow on many a prominent
member of the community, who had been taken in by Shimon’s
deceptions. Most embarrassed was Rabbi Abraham, the son of
the Gaon, and the Gaon’s brother. As for Joseph Peseles, the
wealthy and prominent communal leader, he could not easily
remove the stigma of being a collaborator with the despised
117
R a b b ! S c hne l i r Z a l m a n
Maskilim of Berlin.
If the Chasidim of Vilna had gained a moral victory over
some of their most outspoken adversaries, it did not help to soft
en the attitude of their opponents towards them. The influential
Joseph Peseles, in particular, could not forgive the Chasidim for
the coup which they so neatly executed against him and his
friends.
In the meantime, the Gaon’s health steadily deteriorated.
Already during the festival of Succot he was unable to sit in the
Succah. He was confined to his bed a great deal, and his foremost
disciples, headed by the celebrated goon, Rabbi Chaim of
Volozhin, took turns at attending on him all the time.
Nevertheless, most of the day, the Gaon Rabbi Elijah was
wrapped in his tallit and tefillin, and words of Torah incessantly
flowed from his lips. His eyes dimmed, and with his concentra
tion failing at times, he did not trust himself to recite the prayers
alone, and he begged his disciple in attendance to read the
prayers with him word for word.
The condition of the Gaon’s health caused great concern to
the Beit'Din and the Community Council. They ordered public
prayers and the recitation of Tehillim for the Gaon’s health. In all
the synagogues of Vilna and its environs, including the Chasidic
synagogues, Jews earnestly prayed for the recovery of the saintly
and revered Gaon.
In the first days of Tevet, the Chasidim of Vilna received the
first-printed copies of the Likutei Amarim (Tanya), which had
come off the press in Slavita on the 20th of Kislev. This was a
cause for great rejoicing among the Chasidim. It so happened
that on the night of this Chasidic celebration, the Gaon had a
relapse and fainted twice. The following day, on learning of the
Gaon’s condition during the night, Peseles and his friends stiffed
up the tempest against the Chasidim by accusing them of rejoic
ing at the Gaon’s illness. N ot content with a virulent verbal
campaign against the Chasidim, Joseph Peseles bought several
copies of the Likutei Amarim, and in the presence of his friends
and sympathizers, ceremoniously consigned them to the flames
of a bonfire in the court of the synagogue, claiming to do so with
the approval of the ailing Gaon.'‫״‬
IIS
Despite the extreme provocation at seeing the sacred book

trodden upon and burnt, the Chasidim exercised restraint, hav
ing been sternly admonished by their leaders not to allow them
selves to be drawn into open hostilities. Though many promi
nent individuals in the Mitnagdic community dissociated them
selves from the militant anti-Chasidic group, and some of them,
particularly the goon, Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, even praised the
Chasidim for their remarkable self-discipline, the irreconcilable
opposition was steering towards a head-crn collision.
119
C h a pt e r IX
Publication O f T he Tanya
A;
s early as 5552 (1792) handwritterr copies of essays and
discourses— which eventually made up the book of
.Likutei Amarim (Tanya) by Rabbi Schneur Zalman—
began to circulate among the Chasidim. Word spread quickly
among the Chasidim that their Rehbe had written a work on
practical, religious ethics, as a “guide” for the seekers of religious
devotion. There was a great demand for copies of this work. In
various towns, such as Liadi, Haditch, Rudnia, Lubavitch,
Dobromysl, Kalisk and Dubrovna, qualified copiers were busy
copying the book.
In the course of several years, copies of the book found their
way also to Rumania and Galicia. News of the appearance of a
written work on Chasidut and its widespread distribution, also
reached various rabbinic convocations which convened in
Vitebsk, Minsk, and other White-Russian cities, as well as in the
Ukraine.
In the Mitnagdic camp the news aroused renewed concern
about the spread of Chasidic influence. A group of zealous oppo‫״‬
nents contrived to introduce certain passages into the book and
make certain other forgeries, which would raise questions and
doubts in fundamental matters of faith, and stamp the book as a
work full of heretical tendencies. Such a forged copy was sub
mitted to the Gaon of Vilna, in the year 5555 (1795) for his
judgment.
A t the time there lived in Slutzk a hoary sage, a centenari'
an, Rabbi Tanchum Porush (“The Hermit”). In his youth he had
P u b l i c a t i o n of T anya
been one of the outstanding Talmudic prodigies of his time. A

contemporary of Rabbi Elijah’s grandfather, from whom he was
said to have received a blessing for longevity, Rabbi Tanchum
was a vehement opponent of the Baal Shem Tov. A t the rabbinic
convocations in Minsk and in his hometown Slutzk, Rabbi
Tanchum was an outspoken foe of the Chasidim. He demanded
that the most stringent cherem (excommunication) be imposed
against the Chasidim, with all the paraphernalia of black candles
and the sounding of the shofar (ram’s horn), and that it should
include, not only the members of the “Kat” (sect), but also their
abettors and associates. He was supported in his views by the
other Geonim of Slutzk, including his son Rabbi Yaakov
Klonymos Kalmen, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel and Rabbi Betzalel
Azriel, and their disciples.
The leading Mitnagdim of Shklov were headed by the famed
gaon and preacher. Rabbi Pinchas Zeira, son of the gaon and
preacher Rabbi Yehuda Porush; the venerable preacher Rabbi
Tuvia Kalmen Faivush Porush, celebrated for his weekly fasts
from one Shabbat to the next (breaking his fasts only at night);
and famed preacher Rabbi Avraham Porush. They proposed that
a new work on Mussar (religious ethics) be published that would
compete with the book published by the head of the Chasidim.
Indeed, a suitable work was found, entitled Lekach Tov (“Good
Doctrine”).'
Rabbi Yaakov Klonymos Kalmen republished it in the year
5556 (1796). It bore the imprimatur of the Geonim Chanoch
Henoch, son of Rabbi Schmuel Schick; Tzvi Hirsch, the son of
Rabbi Mahdam; and Pinchas the son of Rabbi Yehuda. The book
aroused much interest and was distributed gratis in the thou
sands.
In the meantime. Rabbi Schneut Zalman had received
inquiries from various places in Galicia and Rumania for eluci
dation of certain passages in the Tanya. It became apparent that
the reason for the inquiries was the fact that many copyists’
errors had crept into the copies, or that the copies had been
forged by Mitnagdim in Brisk and Vilna.
Two Chasidim, Pinchas Schick and his brother-in-law
Binyamin of Kletzk, attending the fair at Leipzig, were very
121
pleased to see pamphlets of the Tanya being circulated there.

They were soon dismayed, however, when they discovered that
the text had been tampered with, and that the pamphlets were
forgeries. Further inquiries led them to the distributor. The two
Chasidim, presenting themselves as Mitnagdim, won the distrib
utor’s confidence. They learned that the man had brought with
him six hundred forged copies, of which he had sold about one
hundred and fifty. Pinchas and Binyamin bought all the remain'
der of his stock from him.
Seeing the danger inherent in the proliferous copying of the
Tanya, and in order to forestall any further tampering with the
text by unscrupulous opponents. Rabbi Schneur Zalman finally
consented to have the Tanya printed. There were two conditions
attached to his consent: (a) The printed edition must have the
approbation (haskamah) of both Rabbi Meshulam Zusia of
Anipoli^ and Rabbi Yehuda Leib HaKohen,’ both of them disci-
pies of Rabbi Dov Ber of Miezricz and the author’s senior col
leagues, (b) The book must appear anonymously.
Towards the end of the year 5556 (1796) the written appro
bations arrived, and the printing of the Tanya was commissioned
to the Slavita printers by Rabbi Shalom Shachna, Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s son-in-law, and his partner Rabbi Shmuel
HaLevi. On the 20th of Kislev (Tuesday, Dec. 20, 1796), the
printing was completed. The first edition numbered 15,000
copies. In the following year a second printing, with 5,000
copies, and a year later a third printing, with 20,000 copies, came
off the printing press. Thereafter new reprints of the latter edi
tion appeared frequently, as the demand for this Chabad classic
continued to grow.“*
The first edition appeared under the title Likutei Amarim
(“Collected Essays”) and contained only the first part, entitled
Sefer Shel Benonim (“Book of the Intermediate”) and the second
part, Ska’ar HaYichud VehaEmunah (“Portal of Unity and
Belief’).
A new edition of the book, bearing the title Tanya (after the
initial word with which this work begins) appeared in 5559
(Aug. 9, 1798, according to the official stamp of the censor) in
Zolkiev, which included also the third part Iggeret HaTeshumh
122
(“Epistle of Repentance”), as yet not divided into chapters. The

second imprint of this edition appeared in 5565 (1805), also in
Zolkiev. Subsequently it was reprinted twice again.
A similar edition, but bearing the title Likutei Amahm
appeared in Shklov in 5566 (1806), and was reprinted in the
same year.
In 5574 (1814) the first posthumous editions began to
appear in Shklov and elsewhere, now with the name of the
author printed on the title page, and with the approbation of the
author’s sons by way of an introduction.
The first complete editions of the Tanya, including also the
last two sections, Iggeret HaKodesh (“Sacred Epistles”) and
Kuntres Acharon (“Latest Discourse”), came off the press in
Koenigsberg, in 5571 (1811).
Altogether the Tanya has seen more than sixty editions in
print to this day, of which at least eight were printed in the
author’s lifetime anonymously.
The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak
Schneersohn, in a letter about this work, makes the following
observations:
The Book of Tanya is the “Written Torah” of the teach
ings of Chabad Chasidut, in that not only has each sen
tence been carefully and concisely composed, but also each
letter has been carefully chosen. The work is punctilious in
every detail, so that each word and each letter is meaning
ful. Among the leaders of Chabad and the early genera
tions of Chasidim the Tanya commanded a reverence sec
ond only to the Chumash (Pentateuch).^
The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe records several traditions relat
ing to the publications of the Tanya. One of them was transmit
ted by the Chasid Chanoch Henoch, as he received it from the
Chasid Tzvi of Smilian, known among Chasidim as “Hershel der
Waremer” (the “Warm O ne”) and “Hershel Bren” (the
“Firebrand”),‫ ’׳‬who, in turn, heard it in his youth from a contem
porary Chasid of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, Yaakov of Smilian (of
whom mention has already been made).
It was the Rebbe’s custom— ^Yaakov of Smilian relat-
123
ed— to lead in prayer on the yahrzeit day ( 19th of Kislev) of

the Maggid of Miezricz. Rabbi Schneur Zalman acted as
Reader during all three daily services. After the Evening
Prayer he usually gave a Chasidic discourse in his own
room to a select group, while after Minchah he gave a pub-
lie discourse.
In the year 5557 (1796) the day of yahrzeit occurred on
a Monday (Dec. 19th), and the Rebbe observed his annual
custom. Some three months earlier, towards the end of the
month of Elul (5556), the emissaries Moshe, Pinchas, and
Yitzchak Moshe, whom the Rebbe had sent to the saintly
Rabbis, Yehuda Leib HaKohen and Meshulam Zusia of
Anipoli, returned with the written approbations of the two
Chasidic leaders to be published with the Tanya.
Thereupon the Rebbe informed the printers in Slavita to
proceed with the printing of the book, requesting that the
book come off the press not later than the beginning of
Kislev (5557), and that the copies be delivered forthwith to
Liozna. He was anxious that the printed copies of the book
be in the hands of the Chasidim before the yahrzeit of the
Maggid of Miezricz, so that it could be studied on that day.
Word of the Rebbe’s consent to the printing of the
Tanya spread quickly among the Chasidim and evoked
jubilation in their circles.
However, when mid'C/teshvun came and it was learned
that the last print-sheet could not he put into the press in
time for the book to be completed on or before the sped-
fied date, the Rebbe was visibly upset.
During the Morning Prayers on the yahrzeit day, it
being a Monday, when the first section of the weekly por
tion is read from a Sefer-Tcrrah, the Rebbe read from the
Torah scroll himself. The first aliyah (calling up to the read
ing) was given to the Kohen, Elimelech of Yanov; the sec-
ond— to the Levi, Zelig of Ulla, and the third was taken by
the Rebbe himself. He read the portion (dealing with
Joseph’s dreams) with especial fervor, emphasizing particu
larly the last verses, “And he related [the dream] to his father
and brothers . . . and his brothers envied him . . . hut his father
kept the matter [in his mind]” (Gen. 37: 10-11).

Completing the reading, he sighed deeply, and as he
recited the benediction after the Torah reading, followed
by Kaddish, his voice shook with emotion. He remained at
the shulchan (reading table) for quite a while, in deep con
templation. All of us present were overawed.
On the second day of Chanukah (26th of Kislev) a spe‫־‬
cial messenger arrived from Slavita, bringing the first 200
copies of the printed Tanya which had come off the press
on the previous Tuesday (Kislev 20th). When the first copy
was handed to the Rebbe, he looked at it for a long time
and then said, ‘“Many are the thoughts in a man’s heart,
but it is the counsel of G-d that prevails’ (Prov. 19:21). It
was my desire that the book be completed by the beginning
of the month of Kislev, so that it could be studied on the
day of my master’s yahrzeit. But G-d willed it otherwise, and
the printing was completed on the 20th of Kislev . . . the
20th of Kislev (he repeated again, and a third time). And
all that the Merciful One does is for the good.”
None of us, not even the Rebbe’s sons, could under
stand why the Rebbe was so upset by the delay in the
appearance of the printed Tanya, a delay of only some two
weeks. Nor could we understand what was significant about
the 20th of Kislev that the Rebbe meaningfully repeated
the date several times.
In the beginning of the month of Cheshvan, in the fol
lowing year 5558 (1797)— Yaakov Smilianer continued— I
was to leave on my annual round trip to collect contribu
tions for the support of the Jews in the Holy Land. The
Rebbe instructed me to tell all the Chasidim they should
study the book diligently, and on the 20th of Kislev (occur
ring on Shabbat that year) they were urged to learn at least
two chapters of the first part, and one chapter of the sec
ond part; again, all of us were mystified. The mystery
cleared up, however, the following year, when the Rebbe
was released from prison on the 19th of Kislev, after being
cleared of the slanderous charges made against him by his
malicious opponents. On that occasion he was mistakenly
!25
R ae5bi S c h n e u r Z a l m a n
taken into the house of one of the vicious Mitnagdim, and

only late that night of the 20th of Kislev was he finally
released from his predicament. That is when we realized
the significance of the date of the 20th of Kislev.
Subsequently, we heard it explicitly from the Rebbe’s
son and successor, Rabbi Dov Ber, that the vitality which
the printed Tanya had instilled into Torah study and reli
gious conduct of the Chasidim in the two years since the
book’s appearance in print, had stood his father in good
stead and saved him from certain death, and that the
countless myriads of angels which had been created by the
reading of the sacred words and letters of the Tanya had
intervened for him On High to bring about his triumphant
vindication.^
Another tradition was transmitted by the sixth Lubavitcher
Rebbe’s uncle Rabbi Zalman Aharon, as he heard it from his
great uncle Rabbi Nachum, who in turn received it from his
father Rabbi Dov Ber, Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s son and succes‫׳‬
sor. It gave the following account:
Rabbi Schneur Zalman worked on the Tanya for about
twenty years. He wrote and rewrote it many times, perfect
ing its text to the last letter. Finally, he permitted it to be
copied for wide distribution. However, being copied and
recopied in the many thousands, by many different hands,
copious errors had crept into the text. Then Rabbi Schneur
Zalman sent emissaries to the saintly Rabbi Yehuda Leib
HaKohen and Rabbi Zusia of Anipoli to consult with them
as to whether to have the book printed. Obtaining their
written approbation, the Rebbe consented to have the
book printed. He wrote a letter to the printers in Slavita
imploring them to be meticulous in setting up the type,
spelling out each word exactly as written, since each word
and letter had a particular significance.**
A third tradition was transmitted by the father of the sixth
Lubavitcher Rebbe as it was conveyed to him by the Chasid
Rabbi Shmuel Dov Ber (RaShDaM), the mashpia (teacher of
Chasidut in the Lubavitcher Yeshiva), who had heard it from the
!26
saintly Rabbi Eizik of Homel:

Having heard the news that the Rebbe (Rabbi Schneur
Zalman) was released from prison’ and was on his way
home, we set out for Liozna. Arriving in Liozna, we found
there hundreds of Chasidim from near and far. When the
Rebbe reached Liozna, we all went out to welcome His
Holiness.
Several days later, the senior Chasidim gathered for a
celebration. The Rebbe’s son— Rabbi Dov Ber—joined the
Chasidic get-together. He related that when the Tanya
appeared in print, the Adversary On High raised a storm of
protest against the Rebbe, which did not pass unheeded.
Thereupon the Rebbe offered himself for whatever sane-
tions that lay in store for him, even mortal agony, provid
ed his books would be well received among the Jewish peo-
pie, to stimulate a higher degree of dedication and rever
ence in the service of G-d.
For two years, the agitation of the Adversary On High
persisted, because the Rebbe had succeeded in disseminat
ing the Baal Shem Tov’s way of Divine worship among the
masses, enabling every Jew to rise to a high level of devout
ness, each according to his capacity. On the first day of
Rosh Hashanah, at the time of the sounding of the shofar,
came a critical moment, when the Rebbe and the entire
Chasidic community faced the gravest of peril. Divine mer
cies were evoked which mitigated the Supreme Heavenly
Court’s sentence. The Rebbe was to be spared, but only
after suffering mortal anguish. Indeed, as we have seen, he
suffered the utmost mortification for fifty-three days (of
imprisonment), a day for each chapter of the Tanya.
However, in view of his self-sacrifice for the teachings of
Chasidut, the Heavenly Court ruled that his adherents and
followers should henceforth be successful in overcoming
every obstacle tn all matters of Torah, piety and good
works.‘®
A fourth tradition was transmitted by the Chasid Dov Ze’ev
Kazabnikov, who related what he had heard from the saintly
Rabbi Hillel of Paritch, who in turn received it from his master
127
R abbi S o h n e i i r Z a l ma n
Rabbi Zalman Zezmer:

In my youth•—Rabbi Zalman related— 1 studied at the
feet of the venerable sage and goon, Rabbi Elimelech Shaul
of Polotzk. Some four years before his death— 1 was then
about sixteen years old—he revealed to me that he had fre
quently visited the Baal Shem Tov and later his disciple
and successor, the Maggid of Miezricz, and that he was an
associate of the saintly Rabbi Yisrael and Rabbi Azriel of
Polotzk. That is when he began to teach me the ways of
Divine service as taught by the Besht.
In the year 5543 (1783) my teacher Rabbi Elimelech
Shaul passed away. Before his passing, he instructed me to
go to Liozna, to study under the wings of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman. The following year I was accepted as a student in
the Third Cheder of the Rebbe.
From time to time my departed teacher would appear
to me in my dreams, when he would speak to me words of
Torah and give me instructions in the practice of Divine
Worship.
When the Tanya was published, my departed teacher
appeared to me one night in my dream and said to me:
“Know that the book of Tanya by your master is designed
in its chapters to correspond to the number of sidrahs in the
Five Books of the Torah. And just as the portion of Bereishit
is a comprehensive one, so is the Introduction to the
Tanya; and each subsequent chapter directly corresponds to
the subsequent portions of the Torah.” Awaking from my
dream, I decided to study each week a chapter of the Tanya
in the same way as I reviewed the weekly Torah portion.
When the Rebbe was released from prison, it became a
widespread custom among the senior Chasidim to review
each week a chapter of Tanya, following the custom of
reviewing the weekly sidrah of the Torah.'*
The next tradition was transmitted by Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac
of Vitebsk to Rabbi Shmucl (great-grandson of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman). It concerns an episode which took place on the 19th of
Kislev, 5560 (Dec. 16, 1799), the first anniversary of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s acquittal. The Chasidim were gathered in the
128
synagogue of their leader to celebrate the occasion. They were in

an elated frame of mind. Suddenly the Rebbe’s young grandson
(the future Rabbi Menachem Mendel, author of Tzemach
Tzedek) came in, banged on the amud for silence, and called out,
“Prepare for Atah Hareita!'^ He continued, “It is Simchat Torah
today!” and began to distribute the honors of reading the verses
in the manner of Simchat Torah before hakafotJ^
The above-cited traditions (and others'‘*) surrounding the
publication of the Tanya, provide a penetrating commentary as
to the esteem and reverence in which this work is held among
Chabad Chasidim. Indeed, its preeminent status as the “Bible” of
Chasidut has never waned.*’
129
C h a pt e r X
Imprisonment A nd V indication -
T he N ineteenth Of K j s l e v
n 1796, the storm of opposition broke loose again. Two caus
es sparked the renewed attack. One was a rumor, said to have
1 emanated from Chasidic quarters, that Rabbi Elijah had
reversed himself in his attitude towards the Chasidim. When the
rumor reached Vilna, Rabbi Elijah sent out two emissaries' with
a letter reaffirming his unequivocal opposition to the “wicked
sect.” The Chasidim countered the move by denouncing the let
ter as a forgery, pointing to the fact that the two emissaries could
produce only what purported to be a copy of an original letter.
When the leaders of the Jewish community in Minsk turned to
Rabbi Elijah for a verification of his letter, Rabbi Elijah replied
with a manifesto to all the communities of Lithuania, White
Russia, Podolia, Wolhyn aiad others, condemning the “heresies”
of the movement in no uncertain terms and demanding the most
stringent measures against its followers.'
The other cause, which added much fuel to the conflagra
tion, was the publication of the first edition c‫ר‬f the Tanya towards
the end of the same year, as mentioned in the preceding chapter.
In Vilna, the printed copies of the Tanya were received with jubi‫׳‬
lation by Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s considerable following, among
them some prominent members of the community. The opposi--
tion to the emboldened Chasidim flared up. The Chasidim were
subjected to abuse and economic sanctions. They appealed to
Rabbi Schneur Zalman to come again to Vilna in an effort to
130
I mprisonment and V i ndicati on
meet with Rabbi Elijah. However, Rabbi Schneur Zalman reab

ized that a personal interview with Rabbi Elijah, even if it mate-
rialized, could no longer settle some fundamental differences
which came to light in their respective interpretations of certain
doctrines of the Kabbala.^ Being much younger than his adver-
sary (Rabbi Elijah was 25 years his senior), and well aware of the
latter’s inflexibility, Rabbi Schneur Zalman could not hope to
convert him, nor even to arrive at a modus vivendi. The fact that
Rabbi Elijah stipulated as a condition of his receiving Rabbi
Schneur Zalman that the Chasidim place in escrow a huge
amount of money for a charitable cause, “so that his time would
not have been altogether wasted,”‘' further convinced Rabbi
Schneur Zalman of the futility of attempting to sway Rabbi
Elijah’s opinion. Nevertheless, in an effort to exhaust every
avenue of a peaceful solution. Rabbi Schneur Zalman proposed
that both he and Rabbi Elijah submit their differences in writing
to the leading Kabbalists in Turkey, Italy, Germany and Poland
“since none in our country would dare contradict Rabbi Elijah,”
and let them decide who was right and who was wrong. But, as
could have been expected, Rabbi Elijah would not agree to any
terms but his own. And so the two spiritual giants of the age
never met,’ and the conflict widened and intensified.
In the autumn of 1797 (during the Festival of Tabernacles,
5558), Rabbi Elijah died. While the community was profoundly
shaken, some Chasidim in Vilna were gathered at the succah
(Tabernacle) of one of their members to celebrate the tradition-
al Simchat Beit Hasho'evak.^ The Mitnagdim accused them of
rejoicing at the death of their great opponent.^ Filled with rage,
they raided the place of gathering, dispersing the Chasidim with
violence.® News of this incident, undoubtedly somewhat colored
to suit the purpose of the particular source of information, spread
far and wide, and gave rise to further excesses in various com-
munities. As the Mitnagdim generally outnumbered the
Chasidim, the latter usually were the victims, but where the
Chasidim were preponderant, the Mitnagdim had cause for com-
plaint too.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman tried his utmost to calm the heated
spirits. He exhorted his followers to avoid conflict at all costs and
131
R a b b ! S c h n e u r Z al man
to answer every provocation with peaceful and conciliatory ges

tures. He strictly forbade them to make any disparaging remarks
about the late Rabbi Elijah (to whom he referred in most respect‫׳‬
ful terms, calling him “the saintly pious one”), and warned them
against provoking their opponents in any way.*’ However all
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s conciliatory efforts failed to appease the
opposition. The rapid growth of the movement was sufficient
provocation in itself.
While the conflict had previously been confined within the
Jewish community, some hot‫׳‬heads of the opposition now resort
ed to a very desperate measure: to denounce the Chasidic move
ment before the Czarist government.
These militant opponents came to the conclusion that fur‫׳‬
ther attempts at slander and defamation on the local level would
no longer be effective. The Chasidim were, by and large, already
known to be pious and honest Jews, whose sincere adherence to
the Jewish orthodoxy could not be impugned. Nor were there
any grounds for inducing provincial governments, or local city
administrations, to adopt restrictive measures against the
Chasidim.
On the other hand, the central government in Petersburg
was far removed from Jewish life in the pale of Jewish settlement,
and its suspicion against any Jewish element could be more easi‫׳‬
ly aroused. Besides, a “case” could be made against the leader of
the Chasidim at least in some areas of his activity as well as doc‫׳‬
trinal preaching. Thus, it was common knowledge among the
Jews of Russia that Rabbi Schneur Zalman was collecting and
sending funds to Palestine. After the first Chasidic emigration to
the Holy Land,'‫ ״‬Rabbi Schneur Zalman organized a special fund
for the support of the Chasidic rabbis and scholars who migrated
to the Holy Land, where they dedicated themselves to Torah
study and Divine worship. Rabbi Schneur Zalman had made it
the obligation of every Chasid to help support the many
Chasidic families in the Holy Land. His personal emissaries reg‫׳‬
ularly visited Chasidic communities everywhere, with a dual
function: to stimulate their spiritual life through the dissemina‫׳‬
tion of the Rebbe’s teachings, while at the same time to collect
their contributions towards the maintenance of the Rebbe’s
ID
I mp r i s o n m e n t and V i ndi c at i on
institutions, particularly that of the Holy Land Fund.

Now, it so happened that Palestine was under Turkish rule,
and Russia had been at war with Turkey (17871792‫)־‬, and
relentlessly continued to press towards the Mediterranean.
Under the circumstances the opportunity presented itself of
accusing the Chasidic leader of betraying his country by sending
funds to a hostile foreign power.
This “inimical” political activity was coupled with the accu‫־‬
sation of inimical doctrines, such as the concept of “royalty”
(malchut) in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s teachings. His enemies
charged him with preaching that the attribute of malchut is not
an independent attribute per se, but rather an outlet for the high‫־‬
er attributes (se/iroc);*‘consequently it was the last and least sig‫־‬
nificant of the Ten Sefirot. In other words, it was charged, this
doctrine tended to undermine the royal status and authority of
the Czar, and was tantamount to high treason.
These were the crucial charges, thcDugh there were also other
accusations and denunciations designed to place the whole
Chasidic movement in disrepute.
At the same time it was subtly suggested that the govern‫־‬
ment would be well advised to handle the matter directly in
order to bypass the local authorities, since the latter might be
favorably disposed towards the Chasidim.
In 1798 a formal denunciation was submitted before the
authorities in Petersburg, accusing Rabbi Schneur Zalman and
other leading Chasidim of activities inimical to the Czar and the
country. Political conditions resulting from the strained Russo‫־‬
Polish and Franco‫־‬Russian relations were conducive to lend
some credence to the charges. The territory had not long since
been annexed from Poland and the Czar was highly sensitive to
any possible activities by Polish nationalists. It was also in that
year (1798) that the governor of Vilna, Bulgakov, informed the
palace about treasonous activities carried on in those provinces
in favor of the French, whereupon Emperor Paul ordered the
“rebels” captured and brought to Petersburg.'^The denunciation
of Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his movement as subversive ele‫־‬
ments was thus well timed. Czar Paul lost no time in ordering the
governor of the White Russian province to arrest Rabbi Schneur
133
R abbi S c^hne ur Z a l ma n
Zalman and send him under heavy guard to Petersburg. An order

was also sent to the governor of Lithuania to investigate the
charges, which had originated in Vilna, and to have the leaders
of the conspirators brought to the capital under the most strin
gent precautionary measures.
One may conjecture, with some measure of plausibility, that
had Rabbi Elijah lived he would not have permitted such a dras
tic step. The fact that throughetut his years of opposition to the
Chasidic movement, the conflict remained an internal Jewish
affair, seems to support such an assumption. Indeed, as we have
seen, the weapons used against the Chasidim were the cherem
(excommunication) and the pressures which the autonomous
kahal (community administration) could bring to bear against
rebellious members of the commuiaity. However, the powers of
the kahal had been greatly curtailed, especially in such commu
nities as Minsk and Vilna, where prominent Chasidim succeed
ed in inducing the local governors to protect them against the
kahal, which was dominated by the Mitnagdim. If the Chasidim
could resort to outside help, albeit in self-defense, their oppo
nents felt justified in going direct to the Czarist regime in the
capital, since there seemed no other way of curbing the Chasidic
movement.'’
In the autumn of 1798 (on the day after the Festival of
Simehat Torah, i.e., the 24th day of Tishrei), Rabbi Schneur
Zalman was arrested and taken under heavy armed guard from
Liozna to Petersburg. He was placed in the Peter-Paul fortress,
pending an investigation by the Secret Imperial Council, which
was to present its report to the Senate for judgment. At the same
time twenty-two of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s followers in Vilna
were also arrested, of whom seven were brought to Petersburg, to
await trial on charges of conspiracy aivd high treason.
The arrest of the leader threw panic into the hearts of the
Chasidim.
According to accounts which may be culled together from
the family records, the new attack on the Chasidic leader did not
take him by surprise. Whether he had learned of the impending
peril through his own channels or had a premonition of it, it was
evident from his manner during the services on Rosh Hashanah
C4
I mp r i s o n me n t and V i ndi cati on
preceding his arrest that some deep concern weighed heavily on

his mind. His close Chasidim did not fail to notice it.
One interesting vignette is provided by Rabbi Menachem
Mendel, author of the Tzemach Tzedek, the grandson of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman. As we had occasion to note in a previous chap
ter he was orphaned of his mother, Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
daughter, at an early age, and was raised by his grandfather. As a
result, there developed a very intimate relationship and spiritual
affinity between grandfather and grandson. Rabbi Menachem
Mendel once related to his son (and eventual successor) Rabbi
Shmuel of his extraordinary experience on that Rosh Hashanah
of the year 5559, when he was ten years old.
It was my grandfather’s custom to take me under his
tallit for the blowing of the shofar, until I reached the age of
nine years, and for the Benediction of the Kohanim until
my marriage (at the age of fourteen). That year, in 5559, at
the time of the blowing of the shofar, I sensed that a grave
danger threatened my grandfather. Moreover, I could not
see his escape from it. Maybe because the salvation was not
a complete one (for two years later he faced a similar
predicament).'"'
During the Intermediate Days of the Festival of Succot the
shocking fact of the Rebbe’s impending arrest was confirmed. An
imperial officer accompanied by a detachment of armed soldiers
had arrived in Liozna with orders to arrest the Chasidic leader
and take him to Petersburg. Soon the officer presented himself at
the Rebhe’s httuse. The Rehhe, however, wished to consider the
situation undisturbed, and left his house by a back door, to med
itate in the field. Presumably, the family entreated the officer to
return after the conclusion of the festival, so as not to disturb the
celebration of the Festival of Rejoicing. The officer, undoubted
ly assured also by the local authorities that the saintly rabbi was
not a dangerous criminal, agreed to postpone the arrest for sev
eral days. Leaving a few of his agents to keep watch on the situ
ation, he left town.
In the meantime Rabbi Schneur Zalman had decided on a
course of action: Should the officer return, he would surrender
himself and hear whatever was in store for him. He revealed his
135
decision to his intimates, particularly his devoted Chasid,

Shmuel Munkis, who was known for his great wisdom and wit.
According to a reliable source, Shmuel Munkis said to him:
“If you are indeed a ‘Rebbe,’ you will come out none the worse
for it; if you are not— by what right have you deprived tens of
thousands of Jews of their worldly pleasures? . . ’
The festivals of Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah were
marred by the impending arrest. The Chasidim were under
standably bitter and agitated. The spirit of rejoicing which usu
ally came to a climax during hakafot was dampened. There was
an undercurrent of sadness in everybody’s heart as the Rebbe led
the hakafot, as well as during his reading of the Torah (the Rebbe
usually acted as Reader himself). There was no doubt in anyone’s
mind that the Rebbe was not worried about himself, but what
would happen to the Chasidic movement. His readiness to suffer
martyrdom for the sake of the cause was reflected in the choice
of his text for his Chasidic discourse, namely, the verse, “You
have been shown, to know, that G-d is the Almighty, and there
is none beside Him’’ (Deut. 4:35). This he interpreted in his
characteristically Chasidic manner: “You— Who are the True
Esserrce, the En Sof (Infinite)— have been revealed, through
man’s painful experience (Jud, 8:16), in order to establish the true
Unity of G-d (both transcending and immanent), so that there
is nothing beside Him.’’"’ Rabbi Schneur Zalman made a point
ed reference to Jud. 8:16 (where the verb ‫ ידע‬is used in the sense
of punishment), emphasizing that every person should be ready
to accept bodily suffering for the sake of true monotheism, as the
concept is explained in Chasidut.
On hrU'Chag (the day after the Festival)— it was a
Thursday— many of the Chasidim who had come from the
neighboring towns of Vitebsk, Rudnia, Kalisk, Liadi, Yanowitz,
Dubrovna, and others, to spend the festival in Liozna, returned
to their respective communities, bringing the sad news of the
Rebbe’s impending arrest. Everywhere there was profound con
sternation among the Chasidim, and excitement ran high.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, a strict disciplinarian and excep
tional organizer, rose early that morning and addressed a pastoral
letter to all Chabad-Chasidim, cautioning them against any
136
I mp r i s o n m e n t and V i ndi c at i on
retaliatory action. He urged them to be strong in their faith and

trust in G-d, and to have confidence in the merits of the saintly
founders of Chasidut, that their cause will be vindicated. As for
himself he expressed his readiness to bear patiently whatever he
might be called upon to suffer. He went on to say that now he
understood the hint which his master Rabbi Dov Ber of Miezricz
had once indicated to him that he was destined to suffer hard
ships and critical times. He admonished the Chasidim most
strictly and emphatically to remain calm, and to conduct them
selves with forbearance towards the Mitnagdim, come what may.
He called upon the older Chasidim to watch and restrain the
younger Chasidim, while the latter were ordered to obey their
elders.
The epistle was copied immediately, and copies were dis‫׳‬
patched by special messengers to all Chasidic communities near
and far.
Later that night the news of the return of the arresting offi‫׳‬
cer spread among the Chasidim in Liozna. The Chasidic leader
calmly waited for him.
A black carriage, one usually reseiwed for dangerous rebels,
pulled up in front of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s house. The prison
er was ordered into the carriage, and it pulled away under heavy
armed guard. It headed for Petersburg, by way of Vitebsk and
Nevel.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s calm composure was extraordinary.
It was not a passive resignation to overpowering forces that was
reflected in his demeanor, but rathet a firm determination to
meet a challenge which would put his leadership and all that he
stood for to the supreme test. He was determined to pave the
road of self-sacrifice for the Chasidic ideals and way of life, a road
which, he knew, his successors and followers would have to tread
time and again.
On the following day, it being a Friday, when six hours were
left to the time of lighting the Shabbat candles, the prisoner
requested the officer in charge to halt the journey until after the
termination of the Shabbat. The officer refused to accede to the
request. The next moment an axle of the carriage broke.
Undismayed, the officer sent for repairmen who were brought
137
from the nearest village. The axle was repaired, but when they
were ready to proceed, one of the horses collapsed and died. The
dead horse was replaced by a fresh horse from the village.
However, strangely enough, the horses could not budge the car
riage. The officer was now convinced that this was no ordinary
situation. In a more conciliatory mood, the officer suggested to
his prisoner that they proceed only as far as the nearby village
and rest there. The Rebbe refused to proceed any further.
However, he permitted the carriage to be turned off the highway
into the adjacent field. There he spent the Shabbat.
The resting place of the Rebbe on that Shabbat, which was
about two miles distant from the village of Saliba-Rudnia, on the
outskirts of the town of Nevel, in the county of Vitebsk, became
a landmark for the Chasidim of Nevel. They used to point out
the place where the Rebbe observed the Shabbat on that fateful
journey.'^
Years later, a hoary Chasid, Micha’el of Nevel, used to relate
that he had known elder Chasidim in his town who could point
out the spot where the Rebbe had spent that Shabbat, and that
he went to see it with his own eyes. According to his description,
the highway led through lines of old and broken trees on both
sides, but that near the place where the carriage was parked grew
a majestic and vigorous shade-tree. Whenever the said Chasid
related of his visit to that spot, he would fall into a state of ecsta
sy and reverence, as he vividly recalled his sensation when stand
ing there, which in turn greatly infected his listeners.'®
n the very night of the Rebbe’s arrest, a group of dedicated

O and active Chasidim, former seminarians of the Rebbe’s
chadarim, gathered to take counsel on a course of action. The
conferees decided that all of them, together with a number of
other prominent Chasidim there and then named, would with
draw from all personal and family affairs, in order to dedicate
themselves wholly and exclusively to a concerted effort of saving
the Rebbe and the Chasidic movement. They pledged their total
support to this effort, with body and soul and all material posses
sions.
Thereupon an executive committee was selected to direct all
138
I mp r i s o n me n t and V i ndi c ati on
activities concerned with the saving of the leader and the preser
vation of the Chasidic establishments throughout the country.
Compliance with the directives of this committee was made
obligatory upon all the Chasidim, young and old, on the penalty
of exclusion from the Chasidic community.
An “order of the day” was then drawn up, signed, and sent
out to all the Chasidic communities. It included the following
directives and resolutions:
I. For the duration of the Rebbe’s imprisonment—
I. All adult Chasidim should observe a fast on Mondays

and Thursdays, excepting those who would normally be
excused on grounds of health.
II. During the entire week only bread and boiled water
were to be consumed, while at the Shabbat repasts only
one cooked dish was to be eaten.
III. Throughout this period, no engagements or wed
dings were to be arranged. Weddings already arranged from
before should take place on the pre-arranged dates, but
without music, with no more than ten participating in a
meatless wedding repast.
IV. Every melamed (teacher) should gather his pupils
for a daily recital of Tehillim (Psalms), preceded by an
explanation of the calamity that has befallen the sinful
generation through a treacherous libel upon the tzaddik
hador (“saint of the generation”).
V. Each and every Chasid is to relate to his wife and
children and other members of the household all that has
happened. He is to explain to them how much the prison
er is suffering, how great is the sin of the slanderers, and the
great reward awaiting those who share in the suffering of a
talmid'chacham and tzaddik.
VI. Every one of the Chasidim must faithfully keep up
his contributions toward the maintenance of the Rebbe’s
household and towards the funds for the poor in the Holy
Land.
VII. Everyone of “Anash” (Chasidic fellowship) should
139
R abbi S c m n e u r Z a l m a n
make a detailed list ot all gold and silver objects and other
valuables in his possession.
VIII. In every Chasidic community and settlement a
trustee is to be selected to supervise the execution of all the
above-mentioned directives, and to him are to be brought
the contributions and valuables mentioned in articles vi
and vii, above.
IX. In case of a death, G-d forbid, during the entire
period, the whole adult Chasidic community is to gather,
undergo immersion and, following the preparation of the
body for burial, they are r(‫ ו‬adjure the soul of the dead per
son . . . to ascend to the heavenly abodes of the Maggid and
the Baal Shem Tov, and to inform them the Rebbe is
imprisoned, and the future of Chasidut is in danger. This
solemn oath is to be administered three times: after shroud
ing; at the cemetery; and before filling the grave. The
whole congregation is to fast that day.
II. The committee appointed three groups for action:
A. Those who would concentrate their activities upon

saving the Rebbe.
B. Those whose efforts would be directed towards the
raising of funds for the Rebbe’s release; for the maintenance
of his household; and for the support of the poor in the
Holy Land.
C. Those whose concern would be with the defense of
Chasidut and strengthening the morale of the Chasidim.
III. The committee named the members who would comprise

each of the said groups, and assigned to each its respective
tasks.
Group A, whose task was the saving of the Rebbe, were

divided into three sections;
One was to operate in Petersburg, to keep themselves
informed of all developments, and to do all that might be
necessary.
140
I m p r i s o n m e n t and V i n d i c a t i o n
The second would be in Vilna, secretly to gather infor

mation as to what was doing among the Mitnagdim.
The third was to dc‫ ו‬the same as the second, but in
Shklov.
The three groups were to maintain intercommunica‫׳‬
tion by way of special messengers only, and never through
the mail. All their activities were to be conducted in the
utmost secrecy.
Group B were to travel throughout the country to raise

the necessary funds for the Rebbe’s release, including the
expenses of the Chasidim stationed in Petersburg, Vilna
and Shklov, as well as the upkeep of the Rebbe’s household.
They were also to collect the regular contributions for the
support of the poor in the Holy Land.
The fund'taising was to be carried out by means of an
assessment, in conjunction with the local trustee and two
local senior Chasidim. In addition to collecting the ready
cash, the representatives were to examine the lists of jew
elry and valuables submitted by the local Chasidim to the
trustee. The owners of these valuables were to give written
authorizations to use the valuables as collateral, and should
be informed that if circumstances required it— in the event
of the Rebbe’s arrest being prolonged, G-d forbid, they
would make the said valuables available to the trustee, so
that there would be no delay in raising the funds, if and
when necessary.
At the same time, a list should be drawn up of all
dowry-monies held in safe-keeping for newly-married
young men of the Chasidic community, and written
authorizations should be obtained from them, whereby
those monies could be transferred to the trustee in case of
need.
The lists and authorization notes were to be kept by
the trustee, and a c(‫י‬py sent to the central committee.
Group C, whose task was the defense of Chasidut and

the strengthening of the morale of the Chasidim, were to
141
travel from city to city, and from village to village and set‫־‬
tlement, to disseminate the teachings of Chasidut among
the masses. They were to preach and lecture publicly on
the philosophy and way of life of the Rebbe, with a view
also to attract new adherents to the Chasidic ranks.
At the same meeting certain territories were designat‫־‬
ed and divided among the members of the group, to be vis
ited by them in pairs, or in groups of three, with the sug‫׳‬
gestion that wherever necessary one .should stay behind for
a while longer. These emissaries were also to visit places
known to be centers of opposition.*'*
n the meantime, Rabbi Schneur Zalman was brought to

I Petersburg and incarcerated in the Peter‫־‬Paul fortress, a maxi
mum security prison reserved for the most serious offenders
charged with rebellion or subversive activity against the Czar.
Subsequently he was transferred to a more comfortable cell in
the same fortress.’**
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was curious to know if any prisoner
held in that fortress was ever found innocent and released. He
surmised that a direct question on that point would meet with a
rebuff, so he obtained his desired information in a more subtle
way. Having established a friendly relationship with the guard,
he engaged him once in a friendly conversation, inquiring as to
the length of his service and similar innocent questions, in the
course of which he also asked him if he ever received any gifts tir
tokens from grateful prisoners following their release. The guard
answered in the affirmative, which was reassuring.‫‘־‬
Among the various episodes relating to Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s imprisonment, the following is of particular interest:
The chief investigator who visited Rabbi Schneur
Zalman in his cell to interrogate him, was greatly impressed
with the prisoner, who, obviously, was no ordinary' rebel.
This high official was a man of higher education, who was
also well versed in the Bible. On one occasion the inter
rogator asked the prisoner the meaning of the biblical verse,
“And G'd called unto Adam, and said him, ‘Where are
you?”’ (Gen. 3:9). Did not G-d know where Adam was?
142
I mp r i s onme n t and V i ndi cati on
Rabbi Schneur Zalman explained the text in the light

of the biblical commentaries, particularly that of Rashi,
that it was in a manner of opening the conversation, so as
not to overwhelm the man who was cowering in fear of
punishment.
The interrogator replied that he was aware of this
explanation, but wondered if the prisoner had something
more profound to say on this question.
Thereupon, Rabbi Schneur Zalman asked the official if
he believed in the eternal truth of the Holy Scriptures, and
that the contents of the Holy Book had a validity for all
times and all individuals.
The official replied that he did so believe.
It was immensely gratifying to the prisoner to know
that his investigator was a G-d-fearing man, and he pro
ceeded to explain the text to him in the following terms;
The question which G-d asked the first man, “Where
are you?” is an eternal Divine call to each and every man,
demanding constantly, “Where do you stand?” Every man
is allotted a certain number of years and days to live on this
earth, in order that every day, and every year, the person
fulfill his duty to G-d and to fellow-man. And so the
Divine call goes out every day to each and every individ
ual, demanding introspection and self-examination as to
his standing and station in life. For example, you are so
many years old (he mentioned the exact age of the offi
cial); ask yourself, what have you accomplished in all these
years, how much goc5d have you done. . . .
The official was amazed that the sage should have
divined his exact age. He was deeply impressed also by the
meaningful explanation. He questioned the sage further on
various matters pertaining to the Jewish faith, to which
Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied point by point with extraor
dinary wisdom and erudition. The amazed official
exclaimed, “This is truly divine!”’■^
It is characteristic of Chabad to interpret didactically every
experience and episode in tbe life of the founder, as well as in the
lives of the succeeding generations of Chabad leaders. Any such
143
experience or episode becomes part of the Chabad tradition, and

therefore assumes a far'reaching implication for the Chabad
flock on an individual level, as a practical lesson in the daily life.
The episode of the dialogue on the meaning of “Where are
you?” is a case in point, as explained by the seventh Lubavitcher
Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem MendeP^ in the following terms:
The Alter Rebbe (as Rabbi Schneur Zalman is usually
referred to by Chabad Chasidim) was given to mystic
flights of the soul— kelot hanefesh. The thought of having
been chosen by Divine Providence to suffer martyrdom in
behalf of the truths revealed by the Baal Shem Tov and the
Maggid of Miezricz entranced him with ecstatic bliss, and
brought him dangerously close to Icebt hanefesh. It was
while in such a state of mystic rapture that the question was
presented to him by the chief investigator, and this brought
him back to earth. For, reflecting on the questions, “Where
are you? Have you accomplished your soul’s destiny on
earth?” made him realize that his life on earth must go on.
What this means, in terms of moral instruction, is that
every Jew should be aware of the question “Where are
you?” on his own level.
To one individual, this call may be an admonition not
to withdraw completely from the world, in order to fulfill
his soul’s mission on this earth: the task of helping to make
this material world a fitting abode for the Divine Presence.
To another, on the opposite side of the pole, this call may
be an admonition not to permit himself to be submerged by
the temptations and distractions of the material life, but to
devote more time to the eternal values of the Torah and
Mitzvot.
This very call, issuing as it does from the eternal spirit,
in itself provides a source of strength upon which the sen
sitive individual may draw, in his effort to reestablish the
balance which is essential to the attainment of one’s des
tiny with joy and gladness of heart.
Another interesting episode in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
imprisonment is presumably connected with the one mentioned
above. It is related that—
144
Czar Paul, sensitive to anything that smacked of rehel

lion, was personally intrigued by the Jewish rebel accused
of high treason. He was even more intrigued by the
account of the chief investigator, who reported to him on
the progress of the investigation. According to this
account, the prisoner was a man of exceptional wisdom and
saintliness, a man of the spirit, who was not likely to be
involved in a conspiracy against the Emperor. The Czar
was very curious to meet this extraordinary person. He
decided to visit him incognito in his cell.
Disguised as one of the investigators, the Czar entered
the prisoner’s cell, whereupon the prisoner rose to his feet
and, with the respect accorded to royalty, greeted the visi‫׳‬
tor with a benediction.
Asked to explain his conduct, the Rebhe declared,
“Our Sages state that kingship on earth is a replica of the
Kingship in Heaven. When Your Imperial Majesty entered,
I felt a sense of awe and trembling such as I have not expe
rienced with any of the officials that have visited here. I
knew you were the Czar in person.”^''
During his imprisonment Rabbi Schneur Zalman succeeded
in establishing contact with his Chasidim in the capital. Of this
we have the following account:
From the moment the Alter Rebhe was taken into cus
tody, he was held incommunicado. The Chasidim knew
only that he was taken to Petersburg, but where he was
held was unknown to them. Nor did they know what had
happened to him since.
Having won the good graces and sympathy of the chief
investigator, it was not long before the latter was amenable
to do the prisoner a personal favor. The Alter Rebbe asked
the official to pass on a message to one of his Chasidim, in
order to reassure his family that lie was alive. Contact
could be made, the Rebbe suggested, simply by meeting a
Chasid in the street. However, in order to make sure that
the right party be contacted, and not just any Jew, who
might even be one of the Mitnagdim responsible for his
predicament, the Rebhe told the official that if he met a
145
R abbi S c h n b u r Z a l m a n
strange-looking jew, dressed in country-style, that would be

the man. “His name,” the Rebbe said, “is Israel Kosik, and
he is my brother-in-law. He was present at the time of my
arrest, and I told him to go at once to Petersburg. I am cer
tain that he went the way he was.”
The official took a ride through the main streets of the
capital. In due course he saw a Jew that answered the
description given him by the imprisoned Rabbi. The offi
cial stopped him and asked his name. The stranger gave
him a name which was not Israel Kosik. The official looked
at him suspiciously and said, “I think you are lying,” and
went on his way.
When the official told the Rebbe that he had met the
individual whom he had described, but that the name he
mentioned was not Israel Kosik, the Rabbi was not sur
prised. He surmised that his brother-in-law had traveled to
the capital on a borrowed passport. He begged the official
to go out again into the street the following day, and to
accost the same man again when he met him.
In the meantime Israel Kosik excitedly informed his
colleagues of his encounter with a high official. They real
ized that their Rebbe was trying to pass on a message and
they agreed that Israel Kosik was to go out again the fol
lowing day, but this time tell his true name.
The following day the two met again. This time Israel
Kosik replied truthfully to the official’s question. The offi
cial said nothing further, but moved on leisurely. Israel
Kosik followed him, at a distance, to his house. The official
entered into his house, while Israel Kosik remained out
side. Presently something was tossed out of the window.
Israel Kosik picked up the object and put it in his pocket.
He returned to his colleagues and they were delighted to
find a note, on which was written, in the Rebbe’s hand
writing, the verse of Shema— “Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our
G-d, the L-rd is One.” Israel Kosik and his colleagues real
ized that the verse was well chosen. It proved to them that
their Rebbe was alive, and also gave them an indication
that there was hope for his eventual vindication.-^
146
It is related also that the prisoner succeeded in obtaining

food from one of his prominent followers in Petersburg, again by
means of the friendly investigator. It came about several days
after his imprisonment. The prisoner consistently refused to eat
the prison fare, as he would not eat non-kosher food. The war
den of the prison assumed that the prisoner was bent on suicide
in fear of the outcome of his trial, and ordered that the prisoner
be fed forcibly. The Rebbe clenched his teeth tight, and the
prison guards attempted, unsuccessfully, to force the prisoner to
open his mouth. During the ensuing commotion, the chief inves‫״‬
tigator arrived on the scene. He dismissed the guards and tried to
persuade the Rebbe to eat, adding that his situation was far from
hopeless, but it would take time, and there was no sense in plac
ing his life in jeopardy by his own hand.
When the Rebbe explained the reason for his abstinence and
that on no account would he eat non-kosher food, the chief
investigator offered to procure kosher food for him. The Rebbe
then said that since his stomach had been weakened, the only
food he would eat would be a fruit preserve, or jam, if prepared
by a Jew.
In the capital there lived a prominent Jewish purveyor who
had dealings with government officials and was well known in
their circle. His name was Mordechai, a native of the small town
of Liepla, and he was one of the Rebbe’s earliest and most devot
ed Chasidim. It is from the kitchen of this Mordechai Liepler
that the preserves were procured for an unnamed Jewish prison
er. Mordechai had no doubt, of course, as to the identity of the
prisoner, and a clandestine communication was established
between the two.^*
'he investigation of the charges against Rabbi Schneur

T! Zalman was carried out by a special commission of the
Secret Council {Tainy Soviet)— whose headquarters were in
another part of the city. In addition to studying the material
involved in this case, the commission also required the prisoner
to make a number of personal appearances before it. In such a
case, the prisoner was taken from the Peter-Paul fortress and fer
ried across the Neva River. In this connection, the following
147
interesting episode has been related by the sixth Lubavitcher

Rabbi, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn:
One night, as the Rebhe was being ferried across the
river, he requested the accompanying officer to stop the
boat in order to permit him to recite the prayer for the
Sanctification of the New Moon. The official refused the
request, whereupon the boat stopped suddenly, and the
Rebbe recited the introductory Psalm (Ps. 148). The boat
then moved on. Again the Rabbi requested the officer in
charge to halt the boat, to permit him to recite the main
prayer. Convinced that his prisoner was a saintly man, the
officer agreed to halt the boat on condition that the Rabbi
give him a blessing. The Rebbe wrote a blessing on a piece
of paper and gave it to the officer. The officer halted the
boat and the Rebbe recited the prayer.
That officer was subsequently promoted and rose to a
high rank. He lived to a ripe old age, in honor and riches.
He cherished the note which he had received from the
Rabbi, and which was preserved by him under glass in a
golden frame.
The prominent Chasid, Dov Ze’ev of Yekaterinoslav
related that he had occasion to see the Rebhe’s note, then
in possession of the officer’s son.
When the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe told this story, he
added that he first heard it when he was a young boy, and
he wondered why it was nece.ssa17 for the Alter Rebbe to
ask the officer to halt the boat a second time, since he
could have completed the prayer when it stopped for the
first time. When he grew up, however— Rabbi Yosef
Yitzchak continued— and was more deeply versed in
Chasidic teachings, he realized that the Divine precepts
had to be fulfilled in the natural order of things, and not by
means of supernatural miracles. Hence, the Alter Rebbe
acted the way he did. But that a sacred manuscript, written
by the Alter Rebbe’s own hand, should have fallen into the
hands of a gentile— this is one of the iriscrutable mysteries
of Divine Providence, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak concluded.-^
Confronting the investigating commission, Rabbi Schneur
i4 8
I mp r i s o n me n t and V i ndi c at i on
Zalman was asked, first of all, whether he was a follower of the

Baal Shem Tov. All he had to do. Rabbi Schneur Zalman relat
ed subsequently, was to deny his connection with the Baal Shem
Tov and his Chasidic movement, and his position would have
been much easier. But he did not wish to dissociate himself from
the Baal Shem Tov even for a moment, and even if only by word
of mouth. So he replied that he was indeed a follower of the Baal
Shem Tov.
He could also have stated that if anyone was to defend the
teachings of the Besht, it should be the Besht’s grandson who was
then alive and the head of a large following.^®
It is related that one day he had unexpected visitors,
his teacher and master, the Maggid of Miezricz, and the
Baal Shem Tov.
The Alter Rebbe asked them, “Why is this happening
to me? What is demanded of me? What wrong have I
done ?”
“You have incurred displeasure in Heaven for teaching
and revealing too much of the esoteric wisdom of
Chasidut,” they replied.
“Shall 1 then refrain from spreading Chasidut when I
am released from this imprisonment ?”
“Since you have started, do not terminate it. On the
contrary, when you will be freed, continue with increased
vigor.
The Baal Shem Tov then asked the Alter Rebbe to
deliver before them a Chasidic discourse. Thereupon the
Alter Rebbe delivered the Chasidic discourse beginning
with the words Mar’ehem u’Ma’asehem (published in Torah
Or, p. 69 f.). When he concluded, the Besht remarked to
the Maggid, “Indeed, it is a meticulcjusly faithful transmis‫׳‬
sion of the teaching you had received from me!”
Before leaving, the visitors from the Other World told
the Alter Rebbe that when he would be brought before the
judges, he should answer all their questions, and assured
him that his answers would, with G-d’s help, be well
received. Finally, they blessed him to regain his liberty.®“
149
uring the interrogation the Rebbe was requested to answer

D many questions on the Jewish faith and religious practices.
Included among them were questions about the innovations
which he allegedly introduced into the religious life of his fob
lowers, such as certain changes in the order of the daily prayers;
substituting steel knives for wrought-iron knives for ritual
slaughter; encouraging to spend much time in prayer at the
expense of study; about his Chasidic doctrines, particularly about
the sphere of Royalty, which allegedly was degraded to the low‫׳‬
est of the spheres. He was also required to explain the meaning
of the w'ords haf, af, af which he interpolated in his prayers,
something which the Baal Shem Tov also used to do, and which
the denunciation alleged tt) mean that he was invoking G ‫׳‬d’s
anger (a/, in Hebrew, means anger) against the government. The
question of his alleged sending large sums of money to the
Turkish Sultan also figured prominently in the interrogation.
The last question was on the statement at the end of the first
chapter of his work, the Tanya, quoting the Talmud, to the effect
that the souls of the gentiles derived from the “unclean kelipot’’
(“shells”) devoid of good, and that all their benevolent acts were
tainted with selfishness.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied to each question in terms
which would be within the grasp of his interrogators, whose
minds were far remc‫ו‬ved from the subtle and profound subjects
under question. He pointed out to them that the Chasidic doc‫׳‬
trine and way of life did not constitute a radical and schismatic
movement among the Jewish people, but that it was well within
the mainstream of Jewish tradition; that the innovations were
more a matter of emphasis than radical changes.
Thus, in reply to the question why the Chasidim devote
“excessive” time to prayer, leaving for themselves less time for
the study of Torah, Rabbi Schneur Zalman explained that there
have always been among the Jews those whca were predominant‫׳‬
ly men of scholarship, while others spent most of their time in
prayer and devotion. He cited Talmud sources by way of illustra‫׳‬
tion, attributing this diversity to the psychic make‫׳‬up of Jewish
souls, and their particular destinies.''
The question concerning the meaning of Ha/, af, a/present‫׳‬
1SO
ed a painful predicament for Rabbi Schneur Zalman, for it com

pelled him to reveal certain mystic aspects of the Baal Shem
Tov’s ways and ideas, too abstruse for his gentile interrogators.
He could have invented some other explanation which would
have satisfied them, but this he would not do.^^
In one of his talks relating to the imprisonment of his ances‫׳‬
tor, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn,
stated:
It is well known that the last twelve days of the Alter
Rebbe’s imprisonment were the most trying for him.
During those days it was sheer torture for him to be com‫׳‬
pelled to explain many questions of a theological and inti‫׳‬
mate nature, such as. What is a Jew? What is G ‫׳‬d? What
are the ties that hirid Jews to G ‫׳‬d and G ‫׳‬d to the Jews? To
have to listen to these and similar questions, couched as
they were, moreover, in crude terms, was acutely painful to
him, and often brought tears to his eyes. N ot less painful
for him was the necessity to answer all such questions in
simple and lucid language, to make the subject compre‫׳‬
hensible even to the obtuse minds of his inquisitors.”
In reply to the question why he preached that the cat‫׳‬
egory of Royalty (malchut) is the last of the ten Divine
attributes, thus denigrating the concept of kingship. Rabbi
Schneur Zalman said that this question required an elabo‫׳‬
rate answer which he would prefer to give in writing. He
was given time tc) prepare his written reply. Upon comple‫׳‬
tion, the Hebrew text was sent to two different translators,
one of them in Vilna, to be translated into Russian.
When the last question about tbe statement at the end
of the first chapter of the Tanya came up. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman offered no defense. He merely smiled knowingly,
and the interrogators apparently accepted his meaningful
smile in lieu of an answer, and did not press him further.
Later, when freed, Rabbi Schneur Zalman, while
telling his closest Chasidim about his experiences,
explained to them why he chose tct remain silent on the
last question. He felt his answers to the preceding twenty‫׳‬
one questions had been well receiveiJ, and that he had con‫׳‬
151
vinced his interrogators of the truth of his words. In

responding to the last question with merely a smile, the
Rabbi indicated to his judges that, just as he had convinc‫־‬
ingly explained his position on all the previous questions,
so he could give them irrefutable proof of the truth of the
Talmudic statement which he had quoted in the Tanya. If
that be so, it was surely better that this question remained
unanswered. . . .
Rabbi Schneur Zalman added that he felt certain that
the judges had fully grasped the message which he meant
to convey to them, and that they had taken it in good
grace.
By that time Rabbi Schneur Zalman was already quite
confident that he would be vindicated and released.’“‫י‬
B ack in Liozna, the family of Rabbi Schneur Zalman was in

great distress, unaware of his fate. His wife, sons and daugh
ters fasted and prayed daily. Particularly distressed was the grand
son, nine-year-old Menachem Mendel, who was very much
attached to his grandfather. He, coo, young as he was, partidpat-
ed in the prayers and fasting. As he related years later, a Beit'Din
of ten Chasidim daily went to the grave of his mother Dvorah
Leah, who had given her life for her father. *’There, at her grave,
the whole Book of Psalms was read by this visiting congregation.
It was followed by the reading of a declaration, the text of which
had been prepared by Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s oldest son. Rabbi
Dov Ber. It outlined the circumstances of the Alter Rebbe’s
arrest, and concluded with a plea that read:
We, the Beit-Din (the names were mentioned aloud,
though nor written in the text), enjoin you to make our
distress known to his teacher and master, the Maggid, and
to the Baal Shem Tov, that they beseech On High in his
behalf, that the imprisonment have no ill-effect on his
health and that he be freed triumphantly.
Of the various members of the family, the old lady Rivkah,
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s mother,*'' seemed to bear the tragedy
most stoically. Her confidence and serene manner were a source
of inspiration and strength for all. On one occasion (it was the
Im p r i s o n m e n t a n d V i n d i c a t i o n
Shabbat of the weekly portion of Vayyishlach), when Rabbi Dov

Ber fainted twice from anguish and exhaustion, she declared, “I
swear that it will come to pass exactly as my father^’ had told me,
namely, that during this coming week your father will be freed.”
The most excited and impatient member of the family was
Rabbi Moshe, the youngest son of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. A
wise and handsome youth, and an eloquent speaker in both
Russian and French which he had mastered to perfection,^® he
pleaded to be permitted to go to Petersburg to defend his father.
He felt confident that he would be a successful advocate of his
father’s innocence; that he could even win an audience with the
Czar, if need be, to obtain his father’s release. However, they had
their father’s express orders that no member of the family should
go to Petersburg except his brother-in-law Israel Kosik, and that
neither should any other Chasidim go there except the members
of the special committee. There was nothing the family could do
except wait and hope.
he final phase of the investigation entailed the translation

T of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s replies to the questions put to
him by his interrogators, which Rabbi Scbneur Zalman had put
down in writing in Hebrew. The Hebrew text was therefore sent
to Vilna, to be translated there by the official government cen
sor. In this connection we have the following account:
One of the Chasidim sent to Vilna secretly to follow
any developments there, spent most of his time in the syn
agogue which was the center of the militant Mitnagdim.
There he overheard the news of the arrival of the docu
ment for translation by tbe censor. He also discovered that
the plotters of the Rebbe’s arrest were now determined to
bribe the translator to slant his translation so as to put the
Rebbe in an unfavorable light. The Chasid went to the
translator and pleaded with him to make a faithful transla
tion of the text. The translator assured him that he would
do so— regardless of pressure, since his conscience and his
duty compelled him to render a correct and faithful trans
lation. Indeed, all the attempts of the plotters to persuade
the translator to join in the conspiracy failed.®^
153
R a b b i S(.: h n e u r Z a l m a n
With the return of the French translation of the document,

(Nov. 1, 1798), the investigating commission completed their
investigation and turned over the material with their recom
mendations to the Senate, for final disposition by a panel of
judges.
On Friday, 15th of Kislev (November 23rd), Mordechai
Liepler learned, through his friends in the higher spheres of the
government, that the Senate investigation was completed, and
that a favorable verdict was to be expected within a few days.
Indeed, the following Tuesday, 19th of K i s l e v , 5559 (Nov. 27,
1798), fifty-three days'" after his arrest. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
was informed that he had been found innocent of the charges,
and he was released. Moreover, the Chasidic movement was offi
cially sanctioned by the authorities and permitted to carry on its
practices as before. Simultaneously air order was sent to
Governor Bulgakov of Lithuania to release all the twenty-two
Jews who had been imprisoned in Vilna, as leading collaborators
with Rabbi Schneur Zalman, and had been held there pending
the outcome of the investigation of their leader. By order of Czar
Paul they were to he released at once, “Since nothing was found
in the conduct of the Jews belonging to the Chasidic movement
that was inimical to the State, nor anything that might be con
sidered as depravity, or disturbance to the general peace.” The
release was conditioned on the provision that the future conduct
of these people would remain above suspicion.
The official sanction of the Chasidic movement was con
tained in a special directive from the Governor of White Russia,
Simon Zhegulin, to the chief ot the Vitebsk district, dated
December 15, 1798, stating that; “By order of his Imperial
Majesty, directed to me by the most honorable privy counsellor
and attorney general. Cavalier Peter Vasilyevitch Lapuchin,
freedom was granted to Rabbi Zalman Boruchovitch, who had
been arrested in Liozna, after the investigation of the circum
stances. The Jewish sect, called Karlinist, retains its former sta-
tus. ” 41
Upon his release from prison in the late afternoon. Rabbi
Schneur Zalman was asked where he wished to be taken. Rabbi
Schneur Zalman replied that he wished to be taken to the house
154
I mp r i s onme nt and V i ndi cati on
of Mordechai Liepler.
It so happened that on a lower floor in the same apartment
house there lived one of the bitter opponents of the Chasidic
leader, and by error Rabbi Schneur Zalman was brought to this
apartment. It was a painfully embarrassing situation for both the
surprised host and the unexpected visitor. Nevertheless, the host
prepared the samovar (tea um) and offered refreshments to the
visitor. This did not, however, restrain the host from giving vent
to his feelings of disappointment at the outcome of the trial. He
warned the Chasidic leader that the opposition would not rest
until the Chasidic movement was crushed. “Chasidim, indeed!”
the host ranted derisively. “By what right have you assumed the
title Chasidim?”
“We have not assumed it; it has been bestowed upon us by
the Mitnagdim themselves,” Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied,
continuing, “You can see that it is, like everything else, a matter
of Divine Providence. For, indeed, it shcDuld have been expected
that the Mitnagdim would call us Mitnagdim, since they accuse
us of opposition to the established order. Yet, Divine Providence
has bestowed upon the Mitnagdim a glimmer of truth in that
they themselves called us Chasidim and themselves Mitnagdim."
The host continued to berate the Chasidic leader, attacking
the innovations which he had introduced in the order of the
prayers and in other aspects of Jewish life. In the meantime, the
Chasidim, who had gathered at Mordechai Liepler’s house, were
anxiously awaiting their Rebbe’s arrival. As the hours passed and
the Rebbe did not appear, it occurred to Mordechai Liepler to
look into the home of his downstairs neighbor. Accompanied by
another Chasid, he entered his neighbor’s apartment, where he
found the Rebbe being abused by his ungracious host. The two
Chasidim were ready to pounce upon the Mitnagid, but the
Rebbe motioned to them to calm down. “Let us do honor to our
host,” he said. He finished his glass of tea and then accompanied
Mordechai Liepler to his home. Later he told Mordechai, “What
a relief it is to be out of that man’s house. Believe me, through'
out my imprisonment in the Tainy Soviet, I never felt so bad as
during those three hours which I spent in the house of that
Mitnagid.■•^
155
R abbi Si:HNHUR Z a l m a n
he news of the Rebbe’s release electrified the Jewish com

T munity in the capital. The jubilation of the Chasidim was
boundless. There was dancing in the streets, and some of the
Chasidim even rolled in the snow. Towards evening of the fob
lowing day, many Chasidim gathered in the house of Mordechai
Liepler, and filled the courtyard outside. Despite the bitter cold,
they waited for the Rehbe to come out. He did so, and delivered
a discourse, beginning with the verse, “As water reflects the face,
so does a man’s heart respond to another’s” (Prov. 27:19).
When Rabbi Schneur Zalman set out on his journey home'
ward, he was accompanied by many Chasidim. Their number
continued to grow as they were joined by others on the way. By
the time he reached Vitebsk (on the following Tuesday, 2nd day
of Chanukah), his entourage numbered several thousand
Chasidim. Here he spent the rest of Chanukah, and then went
on to Liozna, where hundreds of Chasidim awaited his arrival,
and many more were flocking from the surrounding communi'
ties. Everywhere there was great jubilation among the Chasidim.
Immediately after his return. Rabbi Schireur Zalman wrote a
letter to Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev in which, after
acknowledging the latter’s greetings, he writes:
. . . It is beyond description to relate and recount all the
wonders which G ‫׳‬d has wrought, which have magnified
and sanctified His great and sacred Name in public, partiC'
ularly among all the King’s men . . . But who am I that C3'd
has brought me hither, and that the Name of Heaven
should be magnified and sanctified through one so lowly
among men, like myself. F(‫ו‬r the main battle was directed
only against the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his
disciples, and the latter’s disciples. But G'd willed it to
bestow upon us this distinction in the merit of the Holy
Land and its inhabitants. It is this that stood us in good
stead, and will continue to protect us in any emergency in
the future, to deliver us from distress and uphold our honor
for the honor of G‫ ׳‬d, Who delights in His creatures.
Indeed, this merits to be known, namely, that the day
on which G-d dealt wondrously with us, is the day on
which “it was good” is repeated twice,*‘• [Tuesday], the 19th
156
day of Kislev, the hillulo and anniversary of the departure of

our saintly masterd’And as I was reading in the Book of
Tehillim'*^ the verse, “He has redeemed my soul in peace”
(Ps. 55:19), before I began the next verse, I was liberated
in peace. 1 conclude on this note of peace— from G-d Who
is Peace.'*^
A similar letter was addressed by Rabbi Schneur Zalman to
Rabbi Baruch,‘'* the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov.
The agitation which the arrest of the Chasidic leader had
evoked throughout the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe
was not always unfavorable for the cause of the Chasidic move
ment. If the implacable opponents had hoped to put an end to
the Chasidic movement by means of the denunciation to the
Czarist government, this very drastic measure had the effect of
eliciting sympathy for the martyred leader among the moderates
and the non‫׳‬committed. Many of them felt that the opposition
had gone too far in resorting to calumny and denunciation to the
government. The well-organized rescue campaign, on its part,
kept alive the note of sympathy for their leader. As a result, new
“converts” to Chasidut joined the ranks of Rahbi Schneur
Zalman’s followers. When, finally, the Chasidic leader was vin
dicated and, moreover, came out triumphant from his ordeal,
many, who had been wavering in their attitude towards
Chasidut, saw in it the “Hand of G-d,” and became convinced of
the justice of the Chasidic cause.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was well aware of the cross-currents
in the camp of the opposition. He did not delude himself that
the militant opposition would give up their fight against
Chasidut. Indeed, an allusion to this effect can be found in the
above quoted letter when he expressed the prayerful hope in
Divine protection “in any emergency in the future.”
Nevertheless, he resolved to try his best to bring about a rap
prochement. Above all, he was determined to restrain his own
followers.
Being apprehensive lest this triumph go to the heads of some
excitable Chasidim, and in order to forestall any revengeful
impulse. Rabbi Schneur Zalman, immediately upon his return
from Petersburg, sent an encyclical to his followers. It was per-
157
R abbi S chneur Z alman
meated with humility and love, and it appealed to his followers

to exercise the utmost restraint and forbearance towards their
opponents, and to seek a rapprochement with their fellow‫]׳‬ews
at all timesd‘'
The encyclical begins with the biblical verse, “1 am unwor‫׳‬
thy of all the kindnesses” (Gen. 32:! 1), and reads as follows:
“1 am unworthy 1)f all the kindness, etc," The meaning
of these words is that eacli and every kindness which the
Holy One, blessed be He, bestows upon a person should
make him ever more humble. For “chesed (kindness) repre
sents G'd’s right arm,”’° and it is written, “His right arm
embraces me,”‫ יי‬indicating the very proximity of G ‫׳‬d,
more closely than before. And the closer one is to G ‫׳‬d
Above, the more humble one must feel here below, as it is
written, “From afar— G-d appeared unto me.”’’ It is also
known that “all is like nothing in His presence,”’* precise‫׳‬
ly [because of His presence]. Hence, the more one feels in
His presence, the more one is like nothing and nought.
This is the category of right (dexter) in the realm of holi‫׳‬
ness, chesed of Abraham'’‘*who said, “and I am but dust and
ashes.”‫ יי‬Such is also the quality of Jacob. This was the rea‫׳‬
.son he feared Esau, notwithstanding the Divine promise,
“Behold I am with you,”*‘' etc. He considered himself
entirely unworthy and undeserving of being rescued, etc.,
lest sin be a cause, as our Sages of blessed memo1‫־‬y observe,
since Jacob imagined that he had sinned.
On the other hand, in the opposite order’‫ ׳‬it is repre‫׳‬
sented by Ishmael, chesed of Kelipah, where the more kind‫׳‬
ness received, the more swells the arrogance and pride.
Therefore, I came to inform publicly all our Chasidic
fellowship about the abundant mercies which G ‫׳‬d has
bestowed upon us, in order to follow the humble ways of
Jacob, the “residue of His people, the remnant of Israel,”‫ייי‬
who veritably considers himself as a useless “remnant” and
“residue.” Let nett yctur hearts rise to scorn your brethren,
nor let loosen your tongues, nor whistle at them, Heaven
forbid and forfeitd, on awesome interdiction' Rather
should you humble your spirit aitd heart, witli the ciuality
of the “truth of Jacob,’“’‫ י‬in humility of spirit in the pres

ence of all men; and “a soft answer tumes away wrath,"“
and so forth. And after all this, perhaps G-d will enlighten
the hearts of your brethren, for “as water reflects the face
[so does a man’s heart respond to another’s].”'’'
hus came into being the historic festival of Yud-Tet (19th)

T Kislev, the anniversary of the liberation of the founder of
Chabad, the Alter Rebbe. The fortunate outcome of this crisis,
which, as we have seen, the victim of the calumny considered as
nothing less than miraculous, was not merely a personal triumph
for himself. The future of the entire Chasidic movement had
been in the balance. With the vindication of its leader, the
Chasidic movement received a new lease on life; moreover, it
came out stronger than before.
With historic insight, this day attained the status of “Rosh
Hashanah (New Year) for Chasidut,” indicating the measure of
its significance in the Chasidic calendar. Indeed, the Chasidim
claim, with a great deal of justification, that this day should be
celebrated even more solemnly by the noO'Chasidic community.
For, had the outcome been different there: would have been most
serious consequences for Jewry as a whole, and an indelible blot
upon the conscience of the non-Chasidic: community.
It is related that some leading Chasidim desired to write a
special “Yud Tes Kislev Megilah,” to be read on that day, in a man
ner similar to that of the Megilah (Scroll) of Esther. Texts were
prepared for such a scroll, and the Alter Rebbe was approached
for his approval, hut he did not permit them to do this. However,
he did say, according to the tradition transmitted by the Chasid
Abha Pearson, grandson of Ze’ev Wilenker, one of the leading
Chasidim of Rabbi Schneur Zalman:
This day will be permanently instituted as a festival in
Jewish life, an occasion for celebrating and sanctifying
G'd’s Name, when thousands of Jewish hearts will be
inspired to repentance and prayer; for the event has heen
engraved upon the heart of Israel Above, and inscribed
upon the heart of Israel below.
For the first anniversary of the Chag HaGeula (“Festival of
159
Liberation”) many Chasidim came to Liozna, to celebrate the

occasion with their revered leader. There were also many new
faces of new Chasidim, including erstwhile opponents, who had
joined the Chasidic ranks. On that occasion Rabbi Schneur
Zalman delivered a discourse, beginning with the text, “Blessed
is He Who has wrought miracles for our forefathers.”‫ ^’׳‬In it he
extolled the virtue of intellectual concentration in Divine wor‫״‬
ship over the emotional and ecstatic mode of worship. His delib
erate emphasis on intellectual worship and de-emphasis of emo
tionalism was something of a temporary departure from his usual
doctrine which calls for a harmonious blending of the two. It was
obviously designed to counteract the exaggerated enthusiasm,
and to tone down the excitement, which had held sway over his
Chasidim during the entire year since his liberation.
160
C h a p t e r XI
Second Crisis
R abbi Schneur Zalman’s conciliatory action succeeded in

reducing the tension between the Chasidim and
■Mitnagdim in most Jewish communities which came
under his sphere of influence. In Vilna, however, the situation
took its own course. As the Chasidim were gaining in strength
and influence in this great Jewish center, they began to press
more vigorously for representation in the Community Council,
and the rivalry between the two sections of the Jewish commu
nity was on the ascendancy.
The Council consisted of seventeen members. Acting on the
ban issued against the Chasidim on Hoshana Rabba, 5558 (Oct.
11, 1797),' the Council had passed a resolution barring any
avowed Chasid from being elected to any office in the commu
nity administration. The Chasidim were nevertheless deter
mined to obtain a foothold in the Community Council. Some of
them were important tax-payers, and they demanded a voice in
the Community administration.
The procedure of the elections to the Community Council
was as follows:
Upon the expiration of the term of office of the elected com
munity officials, a meeting was convened of the leading members
of the community for the purpose of electing the succeeding
administration. The slate of candidates comprised all those of
the previous administration running for re-election, plus other
prominent individuals. This made it possible for some names of
161
prominent Chasidim to be inciuded in the slate. From all these

names, written down on pieces of paper, nine were drawn. These
were the “electors” who selected five of their most outstanding
members as “elders,” and the latter chose from their ranks, hy
ballot or lottery, the PamasS'Chodesh, the monthly community
chairman or president. The nine communal leaders constituted
the administration of the community, who decided all commu‫״‬
nal affairs. In addition, eight other prominent members were
elected, so that the community council consisted of seventeen
members altogether.
The opportunity for the Chasidim of Vilna to capture some
seats in the Community Council came in the early part of 1798
(5558), when the Chasidim discovered malfeasance in the han‫׳‬
dling of the community chest. This is how it came about:
One of the important functions of the Community Council
was the supervision of the collection of the government tax. The
tax assessment was made by the government, and the Council
was responsible for its collection and payment to the govern
ment. The tax amounted to a very substantial sum. For 1798
(5558) the tax assessment for the Jews of Vilna and environs
amounted to 22,000 golden rubles. Fiowever, the Community
Council actually collected over 36,000 golden rubles, of which
only 10,000 was paid into the government treasury.^
In view of the fact that the “Committee of Five” which had
been organized in Vilna to combat the Chasidim included three
members of the Community Council, the Chasidim had good
reason to believe that the Council had been channeling large
sums of community funds to that committee.^ Consequently, the
Chasidim informed the authorities of the misuse of the commu
nity funds by the council. Tliis resulted in an official order by the
authorities on the 26th of April, 1798 (lyar 21, 5558), prohibit
ing the Community Council to collect, henceforth, taxes from
the Jews over and above the official tax levy.
The Council, however, disregarded the order, and early in
1799 the Chasidim again informed the authorities of the contin
ued violations of public trust and financial irregularities on the
part of the Community Council. This time the authorities took
more stringent action. On the 4th of Februaiy‫ ׳‬of that year (10th
162
S econd C risis
of Adar 1, 5559) all the members of the Community Council

were arrested, and all the documents and books of the Council,
as well as those of the Council memhers personally, were
impounded.
After being in custody for one day, the Council members
were released.
According to a complaint lodged by a Moshe Osherowitz,
dated February 20, 1799, leading officials of the local govern
ment, accompanied by militiamen, as well as by some
“Karlinists,” burst into the synagogue that evening (it was
Friday), disrupting the holy service. One of the officials.
Councillor Eliashowitz, announced that the Community
Council was dissolved. The complaint also charged that he dis
tributed blows to some of the worshippers, with his fists and
walking stick. Two days later, according to the said complaint,
the City Commandant Falkin, with some “Karlinists . . . deviates
from our faith,” from Vilna and from the suburb of Antokol,
appeared in the council chamber. Under his supervision a new
election was carried out “contrary to our accepted customs, pro
cedures, and established privileges,” electing a new council. One
of the leading members of the Karlinist sect, Meir Refaels, was
appointed as president, while several relatives of his, and others,
were elected, again contrary to law and custom, as elders. All this
was carried out under the initiation of two Chasidim, Nachum
Itzkovitz and Moshe Morduchovitz, “without the consent of the
community,” so the complaint charged.
Thus, the Chasidim of Vilna gained eight seats on the
Community Council. While this was one short of a majority, the
Chasidim were now firmly entrenched in the Community
Council.
The deposed communal leaders, with Moshe Osherowitz at
their head, lodged a complaint with the chief public prosecutor
against the local authorities, as already mentioned. They
demanded, a) reinstatement, b) the rem(3val of the eight newly
elected Chasidim, c) the appointment of an impartial Beit-Din in
the province of Lithuania ter deal with disputes between them
and the Karlinists, d) the appointment of an impartial commit
tee to examine the financial records of the Community Council,
163
and e) restraining the Karlinists from organizing spurious sects

and inventing new customs.
At the same time, Itzik Milentowitz, another member of the
Council, petitioned the highest authorities to grant the
Community Council of Vilna the power of judging civil cases of
local Jewish residents. This would have given the Community
Council authority to curb the Chasidim.
The results of all these complaints and petitions were as fob
lows;
The charge against Eliashowitz for his offensive conduct
against the community was turned over to the Circuit Court of
Vilna. The final disposition of this case, if there was one, could
not be traced. Presumably, the desecration of the communal
service, as charged, was somewhat exaggerated.‫י‬
The petition of Osherowitz to restrain the Karlinists from
organizing new sects, as well as the petition of Milentowitz for
communal authority to judge local civil cases resulted in an offi‫׳‬
cial declaration of January 1800 (5551) “to tolerate, by order of
his Imperial Majesty, the Karlinist sect, and that the authority of
the Kahal should be limited to matters of religious observance
and worship, without interference in civil cases, for which there
were appropriate legal agencies.”*’
Once again, the opponents of the Chasidim failed in their
attempt to prevail over them. However, they were in no mood to
give up their efforts to suppress the Chasidic movement, even if
it required the intervention of the highest government authori
ties.
n the meantime, Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s attention was con

I centrated on a new danger that threatened to bring about rad
ical changes in the economic and cultural life of Russian Jewry.
The threat became imminent when a powerful influence in the
highest spheres of the government was about to assert itself in
regard to the Jewish position. The person behind this influence
was the famous Russian poet and statesman Gabriel R.
Derzhavin.
Derzhavin, who was state-secretary and senator during the
reign of Catherine II, member of the Supreme Council and state-
164
S e c o n d C ri si s
treasurer under Paul, and finally Minister of Justice under

Alexander, was a man of considerable influence at the Court. He
was decidedly anti-Jewish, and when he was entrusted with the
task of finding a solution to the “Jewish question” in Russia, the
fate of Russian Jewry seemed quite precarious in his hands.
The son of a low-ranking officer and a mother who belonged
to the lower nobility, Derzhavin was orphaned at the age of
eleven years. His childhood was an unhappy one, with a goodly
measure of poverty, misery and maltreatment. Part of his child
hood he spent on an estate near Disna, and there he made the
acquaintance of a Jew, Dov Ber Moshe, who was an ardent fol
lower of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. In the house of this Jew the boy
often found friendship and protection. Many years later, when
the two met again in Petersburg, Derzhavin as tbe influential
senator, and Dov Ber Moshe as a member of a twelve-man com
mittee set up by Rabbi Scbneur Zalman in the capital to protect
the Jewish interests, Dov Ber Moshe tried to influence Derzhavin
in his attitude towards the Jews. But Derzhavin’s prejudice was
deep-rooted. “If all Jews were like you, I would not hate them,”
he said to his only Jewish friend.^ Derzhav'in’s prejudice undoubt
edly sprang from his earliest teachers whcr were churchmen, and
a German convict serving a lifeterm at hard labor.®
Derzhavin was first sent to White Russia by the Attorney
General Lopukhin, to investigate com|51aints by the Jews of
Shklov against their local overlord Zoritsch. He found nothing
substantial in tbe charges and counter-charges, and he was
recalled without completing the investigation. But the following
year, in the summer, Derzhavin was again sent to White Russia,
this time by order of Paul, to investigate the famine that ravaged
that area.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s committee in Petersburg, who were
to work secretly and make connections with officials at the court
in order to find out everything that was brewing in the high
spheres relating to Jewish affairs, reported to Rabbi Schneur
Zalman of Derzhavin’s appointment as the one-man investigat
ing committee, and the detailed itinerary of his tour.
Being well aware of Derzhavin’s anti-Jewish prejudices.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was determined to see to it that
165
Derzhavin would find no excuse to justify these prejudices in the

course of his investigation. Accordingly he mobilized his leading
followers in the various areas lying on Derzhavin’s route, with a
view to securing promises from the local nobility and authorities
that they would speak favorably about the jews when the inves‫׳‬
tigator arrived on the scene. Rabbi Schneur Zalman had also
requested the above named Dov Ber Moshe to see Derzhavin
before his departure and plead with him for an impartial report.
It was then that Derzhavin replied in the terms quoted above,
the kind of alibi behind which many an anti-Jewish bigot has
sought refuge.
While Rabbi Schneur Zalman tried to do his utmost to safe
guard the interests of the Jewish population as a whole, some
Mitnagdim sought to take advantage of the situation to discred
it the Chasidic leader and movement. This is evidenced from the
unfavorable references to the Chasidic leader, which Derzhavin
makes in his report, though he does not conceal the latter’s great
influence. Thus Derzhavin states;
A Jew, Zalman Boruchovitch, has gained fame as an
arbitrator and enjoys authority even among foreign Jews.
He lives in a small town, Liozna, where, under his very
nose, 1 raided a still carried on by Jews on the basis of a
privilege granted them by the nobility. In him believe
especially the Chasidim, whose patriarch he is considered.
His word is law for them— , they are sectarians with new
ways and customs of their own. Some Jews complain about
them that they alienate their children, also take away their
gold and silver, which he is said to send to Palestine in
expectation of the Messiah and the rebuilding of their tern'
pie in Jerusalem.'^
Derzhavin returned to Petersburg in October of that year
(1800) and presented his report, his so-called “Opinion”
(Mnenie), consisting of two parts. The first part dealt with con
ditions in White Russia in general, and the second part outlined
his opinion about the Jews, and his recommendations, which
consisted of a number of economic restrictions. Derzhavin’s
report contained a mixture of truths, half-truths and fiction, and
was obviously prejudiced and biased. There was at least one
166
S econd C risis
favorable view in it regarding the Jews, that of Prince

Lubomirsky, a prominent nobleman and estate owner of White
Russia, and highly influential at court, whose friendship Rabbi
Schneur Zalman had cultivated through one of the latter’s
prominent followers. Lubomirsky stoutly defended the Jews and
their importance to the economy of his estates. If there were
more favorable opinions which were expressed by other nohle‫׳‬
men and estate owners, Derzhavin passed over them in silence.
We do know, however, that there was a concerted effort on the
part of a number of estate owners to discredit Derzhavin by
means of a complaint lodged against him with the Czar.
However, being highly sensitive to the slightest suspicion of
rebellion, Paul dismissed the complaint. Nevertheless, it is
remarkable that Derzhavin’s elaborate report was received unen
thusiastically by the Czar. Derzhavin was not even granted an
audience to present the report to the Czar in person, and
Derzhavin, in his diary, complains bitterly about the intrigues at
the Court.'° Be it as it may, nothing radical came of Derzhavin’s
suggested reforms, thanks to the opposition of the local estate
owners. For the next few years at least, the position of the Jews
remained status quo. The events seem to indicate that Rabbi
Schneur Zalman substantially contributed towards the frustra
tion of Derzhavin’s plans concerning the “Jewish question.’’’'
These activities of Rabbi Schneur Zalman were not general
ly known even among his followers, except among those who
were directly involved in them, since all his work was done in
strict secrecy.*^
hile Rabbi Schneur Zalman was preoccupied with the

W Derzhavin affair, the leading Mitnagdim of Vilna were
preparing for another attempt to deal a death blow to the move
ment by means of a second denunciation of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman before the government in Petersburg. The initiative
came from a certain Avigdor Chaimovitch (the son of Chaim),
who had been the rabbi of Pinsk and its environs.
Avigdor Chaimovitch had a personal grievance of long
standing against the Chasidim. He had bought the rabbinical
position in Pinsk in the year 1772, and, as a further considera-
167
tion, had advanced a substantial sum of money to the kahal, as he

claimed later. Bitterly anti-Chasidic, he took a leading part in
the efforts to suppress the movement, not only in his own com
munity, but in Lithuania in general. It was he who in 1781 large‫׳‬
ly persuaded Rabbi Elijah of Vilna of the dangers of the move
ment, as a result of which a certain Chasidic book^^ was burnt
publicly in Vilna by order of Rabbi Elijah. Avigdor’s efforts to
suppress the Chasidic movement in Pinsk and its environs
proved futile. The Chasidim grew in number and in influence, so
much so that about the year 1796 he was ousted from his post
and driven from town. (There is reason to believe that Avigdor
was behind the denunciation of Rabbi Schneur Zalman in 1798,
which led to the latter’s arrest, as mentioned earlier, although the
signature of the informer was other than Avigdor’s.)‫ ״‬Avigdor
began a legal battle against the community of Pinsk for indem‫׳‬
nification, taking his case to the highest spheres in Petersburg.
He blamed the Chasidic sect in his community, whom he iden‫׳‬
tified as “Karlinists,”‘‫יי‬for his ouster. Four years later, in 1800, his
claims had still produced no results. Now the Mitnagdim of
Vilna found in him a convenient tool to spearhead another
attack against the Chasidic movement. Avigdor was to lodge
another appeal to Petersburg, ostensibly to obtain redress for the
“injustice” done to him by the Pinsk community, but primarily to
induce the Czar to suppress the Chasidic movement.
Armed with the published Chasidic works Tzavaat
HaRiBaSh,^^ containing teachings of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem
Tov; Toldot Ya’akov Yose/by Rabbi Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye; Or
HaTorah, by Rabbi Dov Ber of Miezricz, and the Tanya by Rabbi
Schneur Zalman-—the latter being the surviving leader of the
Chasidim— Avigdor arrived in Petersburg in the spring of 1800,
where he lodged an appeal to the Czar to take up his claim
against the “new sect” in Pinsk. His appeal was accompanied by
a number of supporting documents and a lengthy polemic against
the teachings of the sect.' ‫ ׳‬He accused the above-named leaders
of the sect of being followers of Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank,
and charged them with spreading obnoxious doctrines which
tended to undermine the morality of the Jewish people and their
loyalty to the Czar, In support of his charges he “quotes” from the
168
SEt: 0 ND C r i s i s
above-named works, often distorting the text through interpola

tions of his own, or taking them out of context and putting them
in a bad light. Pedantically, and sometimes incoherently— fea-
tures aggravated by the Russian translator, since the original text
of the material was in Hebrew or Yiddish— Avigdor tries to show
that the Chasidic teachings contradict the Holy Scriptures “hal
lowed by all the nations,” and contain ideas which are harmful
to the Jews, their Christian neighbors, and the Czar himself.
Thus, for example, Avigdor cites, among other excerpts, the
following teachings of the Chasidim to illustrate his charges; a)
It is incumbent upon a person to be always in a state of gaiety
and cheerfulness; b) to believe with complete faith that G-d’s
benevolence hovers over him, and that G-d is his protector and
shield; c) that man sees G-d as G-d sees him.'®
Innocent as these doctrines appear, yWigdor provides a com
mentary of his own to each of them to distort their import. To
the first citation Avigdor adds that in order to induce in them
selves a feeling of joyfulness, the Chasidim arrange frequent
gatherings. “A t their gatherings they do nothing but eat and
drink excessively, which leads them to licentiousness in particu
lar, and to the establishment of secret orders, inspiring them to
extraordinary brazenness and evil deeds.”
The second quotation elicits Avigdor’s observation that it
teaches “to fear no human authority of law and order.”
From the third, Avigdor deduces that “the members of the
sect deny Mosaic Law, the very Bible in which all the nations of
the world believe; hence they oppose all the nations.”
Taking other statements from the teachings of the Baal
Shem Tov and the Maggid of Miezricz out of their context,
which he embellishes with his interpretations, Avigdor endeav
ors to “prove” that these condone murder and theft and similar
immoral acts.
A ll these extracts, with his commentaries, Avigdor append
ed to his petition to the Cizar.
One of the most serious charges which he leveled against the
head of the sect was the sending of substantial sums of money to
Palestine. Although admitting that it has been a custom of long
standing for Jews to send financial support for their needy
169
R abbi Sc h n e u r Zalm an
brethren in the Holy Land, Avigdor charged that only a small

part of the funds sent by the Chasidim went for the support of
the needy, while most of the vast sums went in support of their
own fellow-sectarians in the Holy Land.
Included in the petition was also an appeal by Avigdor that
the elections of dayanim (members of the Jewish ecclesiastical
courts) be subject to official confirmation by His Majesty’s gov
ernment. This was a desperate and dangerous move on the part
of the Mitnagdim, since it invited direct government interven
tion in Jewish religious affairs. However, the Mitnagdim, stung
by their defeat in Vilna and Pinsk, were apparently fearful of los
ing out completely to the Chasidim in the religious and lay
administration of community affairs. Hence they authorized
Avigdor to include also the said appeal to the highest authorities.
Had Czar Paul acceded to this petition, it would have deprived
the Jews of their religious autonomy—
Fortunately, Paul was reluctant to act personally on the con
troversy within the Jewish community. Instead, he decided to
turn over Avigdor’s petition to the chief public prosecutor, to
look into the charges of the plaintiff about “the pressure and per
secution which he claims to have suffered from some new sect.’’^^
On the 23rd of April (1800), the office of the Czar sent all
the material to the Attorney General, Obolyaninov, suggesting
an investigation through the local authority in the Lithuanian
province. The Attorney General sent the material (June 7th) to
the Military Governor of Lithuania, Golenishtschev-Kutuzov,
with an accompanying request to investigate the complaint of
the plaintiff, and to report on the sect. Kutuzov, having found no
evidence in his territory to substantiate the charges, sent the
material over to the Governor of Minsk, Kornev, since the town
of Pinsk, the locale of the case, came under the latter’s jurisdic
tion. At the same time Kutuzov informed the Attorney General
of his action. Thereupon the Attorney General again wrote to
the Governor of Lithuania, poirrting out the fact that the com
plaint referred to a certain Elijah in Vilna, on whose instructions
certain heretical books by the sect had been publicly burnt in
front of the synagogue in Vilna. The Attorney General therefore
suggested that the records of the previous Governor should con-
70
S f-C o n d C r i s i s
tain some pertinent information on the subject.

In a dispatch dated July 12th (1800), Kutuzov conveyed to
the Attorney General the information he had received from the
Governor of Minsk. The latter’s report referred to the sect in that
area in favorable terms, describing its adherents as peaceful and
law-abiding subjects, like the other Jews. As for the plaintiff’s
claim for damages, it recommended no action, since there were
no documents to substantiate the claim. On his part, Kutuzov
added that he fully concurred with the report of the Governor of
Minsk. He, too, recommended that the suit be dismissed on all
counts.
Subsequently (July 30th) Kutuzov sent a detailed report on
the results of his own investigation in regard to the activities of
the sect mentioned in Avigdor’s charges, insofar as his province
was concerned. In it the Governor of Lithuania stated that the
Shabbatian sect which originated in Smyrna, Turkey, had never
found followers in his province. He surmised, therefore, that the
sect accused by Avigdor was not to be identified with the
Shabbatian movement, but with the so-called “Karlinists” men-
tinned in the official records of his predecessor. Count Lopukhin,
who in 1798 had received a denunciation relating to alleged
inimical activities by that sect. The denunciation came from a
certain Hirsh Davidovitsch of Vilna, where, however, no such
person could be found. As a result of that denunciation, the
report continued, the leader of the sect, Zalman Boruchovitch of
Liozna, in White Russia, was arrested and sent to Petersburg,
while twenty-two followers of the sect were also arrested in Vilna
and its surrounding district. A ll the accused were eventually
released and cleared. It is to be presumed that the “Solomon”
identified in the complaint by the former rabbi of Pinsk was none
other than this Zalman Boruchovitch.
Kutuzov’s report goes on to refer to the late Elijah, who had
been venerated by the Jews, and who was an enemy of the sect.
Before dying in 1797, the said Elijah declared to the Jews present
at his bedside that he was leaving them with one regret only,
namely, his failure to stamp out the sect completely while be
lived. Accordingly, the Jews swore at his grave that they would
carry out their rabbi’s request, and new persecutions against the
171
R A B n 1 S C 11N E U R Z A L M A N
sect began under the leadership of a committee of five members

in Vilna, headed by a certain Moshe Osherowitz, one of the most
zealous disciples of Elijah. This committee was subsequently dis
solved in the same year, when the heads of the Vilna Kahal were
ousted.“ Referring to the incident of the burning of the book
called Tzavaat HaRiBaSh, Kutuzov de.scribes it as “the last will
and testament of the founder of the sect, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem
Tov, meaning ‘Kabbalist,’ a book containing a new code for his
sect.” This is followed by a brief accxrunt of the history of the
movement. Kutuzov concludes his report by reiterating his opin‫׳‬
ion that the accusation of Avigdor was unfounded, and that his
claim for damages had no merit whatever."'
It is not difficult to gather from the repcrrt, summarized
above, how Avigdor had at first succeeded in confusing the
authorities in regard t(r the identity of the “sect" and its contem
porary leader, as otherwise his charges would have received no
hearing at all in view of the failure of the first accusation only
two years previously. Secondly, the report indicates that
Kutuzov’s information, in many respects detailed and intimate,
could have come only from Chasidic stturces close to him. His
views, as well as those of the Governor of Minsk, point to the
fact that the Chasidim were quite firmly entrenched in those
provinces, and were looked upon with favor by the local author
ities.
Notwithstanding the unfavorable— for Avigdor— reports by
the local authorities, his suit was not dismissed. Whether
Avigdor had succeeded in ingratiating himself in the eyes of the
Czar, or whether the Czar suspected that the Chasidim exerted
undue influence on the local authorities, or perhaps yet for some
other reason, the Czar decided to keep the case open. He ordered
the Attorney General to instruct the local authorities to look
into Avigdor’s claim for the retuim of a loan and payment which
he alleged to have made. Instructions to this effect went out on
October 7th (1800). However, Avigdor’s demand to have Rabbi
Schneur Zalman brought to Petersburg to confront him and
answer his charges, elicited no action until October 30th (1800),
when Attorney General Obolyaninov sent an urgent order to
Governor Severin of White Russia to apprehend “the head of
17:
Second C risis
the Karlinists, or Chasidim, the Jew Boruchovitch,” and to send

him to Petersburg.
This order followed closely upon the heels of Derzhavin’s
report, which was submitted to Obolyaninov on October 26th,
containing, among other things, the unfriendly reference to
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, which we quoted earlier. From this
sequence of events, some historians conclude that Derzhavin’s
report had a decisive effect upon the arrest of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman for the second time.^^ Perhaps the most damaging refer
ence to Rabbi Schneur Zalman in Derzhavin’s report was the
allegation that the leader of the sect was sending huge sums of
money to Jews in Palestine, which, quite understandably, was all
the more serious since only the year before, Napoleon had been
in Palestine, and called upon the Jews to rally to his support,
promising them to rebuild their Temple. At a time when Russia
and France were at war, such an allegation had extremely serious
implications. On the other hand, it is doubtful, in my opinion,
whether Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s second arrest was a direct
result of Derzhavin’s report, which, on the latter’s own testimo
ny in his diary, had not been received with enthusiasm, as we had
occasion to mention. Moreover, the same accusation and insin-
nation had already been made by Avigdor. There is room here to
surmise that the investigation into Avigdor’s allegations was car
ried on independently of Derzhavin’s report, and that the deci
sion to bring Rabbi Schneur Zalman to Petersburg for the second
time, had actually been taken earlier, through the Czar’s person
al interest in the case. This conclusion seems to be borne out by
the account of Rabbi Schneur Zalman s second arrest preserved
in the family tradition,‘^ which relates that his committee in
Petersburg had learned of the imperial order to bring Rabbi
Schneur Zalman to the capital, and used their influence to alle
viate the manner of his arrest. According to this account Rabbi
Schneur Zalman was “requested” to come to Petersburg to appear
before the Senate. He could travel on the post-chaise at the
expense of the Government, instead of being taken in the black,
grilled carriage reserved for the worst criminals and traitors,
under heavily armed guards, as on his first arrest. Rabbi Schneur
Zalman was in no hurry to go. He wanted to find out the full
173
R a b b i S c,:h n e u r Z a l m a n
details of the new accusation against him, in order to prepare his

defense in the best possible way. The delay irked the authorities
in the capital, and the stricter order followed.
On November 9th, Rabbi Schneur Zalman left for the capi'
tal, accompanied by two special couriers, as Severin duly
informed Obolyaninov by dispatch of that date.
Four days later Governor Severin of White Russia sent a dis
patch to the authorities in the capital, reporting on “a careful
and secret investigation” into the activities of the Chasidim
which he had undertaken on his own initiative. He states
emphatically that there was no basis for suspecting the members
of the sect of any activity inimical to the government; that their
leader Boruchovitch had never engaged in anything but the
study of the holy books and in prayer, and is a successful arbitra
tor between disputing parties to their mutual satisfaction, never
giving any cause for complaint.
It may be safely assumed that the Governor sent this dis
patch at the behest of leading Chasidim in the area. However, in
(trder not to appear too partial, the dispatch refers favorably also
to the sect of the “dissident Russians” in that area, which had
been the cause of some anxiety in the higher spheres.^'^ This dis
patch was eventually of considerable help to Rabbi Schneur
Zalman in clearing himself from all the charges of a political
nature, which Avigdor had brought against him.
n arrival in the capital. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was placed

O under a milder form of arrest than on the first occasion,
being this time confined in the Secret Department of the Senate.
Here he was confronted with Avigdor m order to answer his
charges.
In the presence of the Senate committee which was desig
nated to act as judges in the case, Avigdor began to outline his
charges, to which Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied point by point.
The debate that ensued between the two contestants was carried
on in Yiddish and left the panel of judges completely in the dark,
since they did not understand that language. The judges then
ordered Avigdor to present his charges in writing in Russian, to
which Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied in the same manner. These
n-
documents covered the first two of Avigdor’s nineteen charges.

These documents have not been discovered to this day, and their
contents are thus not known.’^
The document containing Avigdor’s other seventeen charges
has been preserved in its original Hebrew text. It contained the
following brief preface and charges:
Concerning points one and two, they have already
been presented by me in writing, in Russian, and Rabbi
Schneur Zalman replied to them 318(‫ נ‬in Russian. Here fob
low, in the Hebrew language, the other points which I
charged against him and all the Karlinists:
3. In that same book‫ ’*^־‬of the Karlinists it is written that
man should fear no creature. Although it may happen that
a man or beast cause certain harm to a person, it is all
caused by G-d, Who is present in that creature and metes
out the punishment for the person’s actions. This is con
tradictory to the Jewish faith, for it would absolve any
wrongdoer, inasmuch as the Creator was present in him
and caused the particular harm.‫"־‬
4. The same book contains an admonishment to fear
no man or other creature, nor to praise or flatter any man,
save G'd alone. This, too, is at variance with our faith and
our Torah, for in our holy Torah we find that our Patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our teacher Moses, and King
David, all feared men.
5. In the same book it is stated that if a person craves a
certain thing, it means that that thing is necessary to him
for the edification of his soul, inasmuch as in all things
there is vitality. This is contradictory to our religion, for
sometimes a person may crave a sinful thing.^®
6. In some passages of the book of the Karlinists the
terms “thought,” “speech,” and “vitality” are used to per
sonify the Creator. This is contrary to the Jewish faith.
Moreover, they write that a person may sometimes be in
unity with the Creator, hence they call their rabbis “G-d.”^‘’
7. Although the rabbi of the Karlinists, Zalman
Boruchovitch, justifies himself saying that from bygone
175
years it has been customary to donate money for the sup

port of Jews dwelling in Jerusalem and praying there, it will
become obvious from an examination of the financial
records that the amount collected in olden days was only
about one hundredth of the amount collected nowadays.
They thus disregard the obligation according to Jewish law
to retain nine‫ ׳‬tenths for the local poor, leaving only one
tenth to be sent for the poor of Jerusalem.
8. With regard to other matters in which the
Karalinists^^ deviate from the Jewish religion, and the evil
acts of the said sect, 1 do irot wish to, nor can 1 alone, bring
the proofs concerning them. Therefore, 1 request that all
the rabbis of that sect he summoned here to face an equal
number of rabbis of the orthodox Jewish faith.
9. Rabbi Chaimovitch,” and others, call Boruchovitch
and his cohorts by the name of “Karlinists” because upon
the death of the two leaders, namely, the Baal Shem Tov
and Rabbi Ber of Miezricz, their leading followers were
Aaron and Solomon,’’‫ ־‬who lived in the community of
Karlin, in the district of Miirsk. The appellation
“Chasidim” is one that they themselves apply to them
selves. The reason they are called Kac ( “Sect”) is because
they have changed the customary Jewish ritual in their
prayers, and even in their dress, for they do not wear
woolen clothes. ’’
10. They sent three of their rabbis to the Land of Israel:
The rabbi of Shorpotovka,’‫*־‬Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk, and
Rabbi Aharon of Vitebsk,‫יי‬ whom they send large sums
of money. Their rabbis and dignitaries spend large sums in
the communities where they settled; they arrange large
feasts and gather around them the local Karlinists. The said
emissaries, together with the prominent Karlinists, visit
every Jewish household, inducing them to contribute. Out
of embarrassment the Jews make written pledges in their
books for weekly contributions towards the Land of Israel
fund. In this way all the various communities are c<3m'
pelled to give them money fcir their trouble. As a result.
176
they encroach upon the per capita taxes collected by the

communities, and the latter incur debts, while many indi
gents starve to death.‫ייי‬
The Karlinists also endeavor to become leaders in the
community councils who manage all the needs, incomes
and expenditures of the community, so that they could take
from the communal taxes to send gifts to their rabbis for
each festival and other occasions.
11. Oaths have no value with them. This can be ascer‫׳‬
tained from what happened in Vilna, provided the invited
leaders of the community should not include members of
the Karlinist sect, so that the latter should not intimidate
the witnesses.
12. They do not recognize respect for parents, declar
ing that no respect is due to the father since he hegat his
son merely in the satisfaction of his sexual desire. The same
in regard to the mother, though she deserves more credit
for having suckled the baby.
13. They all steal money from their parents and wives,
with the knowledge of their rabbis to whom they give the
money. According to our laws, one under twenty years of
age^^ is not permitted to give anything away as a gift with
out the knowledge of one’s parents.
14. From what I have written, and from the things
which I intend to substantiate according to my intelli
gence, I call them Shabbatai'Tzeviniks,^^ who have given
license to all to do anything they wish.
15. For a holiday, some 1000 to 1500 or more followers
of the sect assemble in Liozna, t(3 be with their rabbi,
Zalman Boruchovitch, so that much overcrowding results
there. It is surely reprehensible to assemble so many people
together. And who knows what they plot during such an
assemblage, for if it were for the purpose of hearing Torah,
surely he could give it to them in writing. What then is the
purpose of such a large assemblage of people in one place!
Besides, there is considerable expense involved in traveling
long distances.
177
16. Similarly, when their rabbis travel to different

places, they incur substantial expenses, for much feasting is
arranged for them, as well as gifts.
17. All that 1 have written is common talk among peo-
pie who are not of the sect.
18. And all things 1 have written are known to the peo-
pie of Vilna and Slutzk.
19. 1 have also heard that when anyone wished to join
the sect of the Karlinists, he must first appear before their
rabbi, and he is obliged to give him a list of all his sins,
transgressions and wrongdoutgs which he committed dur‫׳‬
ing his lifetime up to that day, upon which he must affix his
personal signature. Thereupon he is obliged to commit his
soul to the rabbi, for the rabbi claims that his soul embraces
all the souls attached to his. Then he must give the rabbi
as much money as demanded by the rabbi, for he is afraid
of him, having signed the said list. For the same reason the
Karlinists comply with all that the rabbi commands them
to do. And we see it clearly that the commandments of our
teacher Moshe of blessed memory have not been so well
fulfilled as those of their rabbis. Moreover, when one rabbi
dies, they appoint another one to take his place. To make
it brief, he is alst) a complete ignoramus.‫יי‬
Avigdor the son of Chaim of blessed memory.
Clearly, the above charges were, for the most part, abusive
fabrications and insinuations based on hearsay. Rabbi Scbneur
Zalman apparently refuted them without difficulty. While all but
two of these charges of Avigdor were preserved in the official
records of the Senate, only two of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
answers are known, the eighteenth and nineteenth.‘*®These are
as follows:
In respect of the 18th:
The people of the community of Slutzk are also our
enemies, who perpetrated serious persecutions against the
Chasidim of Lachowitz,‘** as the matter is well known, for
in this ctrnnection the authorities of Minsk issued a deci
sion, as it has been clearly reported.
.78
In respect of the 19th: ■

I can bear no longer his (Avigdor’s) abuses, insults and
lies, whereby he invents serious slander against us, the like
of which have never been seen or heard, except in the days
of Polish rule, whose clergy libeled the Jews that they use
human blood for Passover, and similar libels, as a result of
which much innocent Jewish blood was shed. Surely he
(Avigdor) had never seen or heard (them), but it is noth‫׳‬
ing to him to go about freely wagging his tongue at will.
Has he not himself conceded that it was hearsay and that
he has no personal and positive knowledge of this matter,
yet he troubles our merciful lord, his Imperial Majesty,
instead of first ascertaining the matter through the local
authorities. A truly obedient servant of his Imperial
Majesty, as a devoted son to his father, should not have
troubled his Majesty unless the matter was clear.
And now I rely on no one but our Imperial Majesty.
But I am confident in the abundant kindness and humility
of his Imperial Majesty, that in his great kindness he will
look from his lofty seat upon a sufferer and will discern the
truth; and finding me innocent, will liberate me and save
me from distress.
Schneur Zalman,
the son of Bamch of saintly memory.‘*^
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s answers were evidently convincing.

Governor Severin’s recommendation, coupled with the official
documents, relating to his previous arrest and discharge, had
their effect in establishing Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s innocence of
any political activity, let alone of any activity inimical to the
government. The Secret Council recognized that the case had
no political implications and was purely an internal religious
strife within the Jewish community. Accordingly, the case was
referred back to the Senate to be investigated in conjunction
witb the general question of the kahal. This was done on
November 27th (l800).'**At the same time Rabbi Schneur
Zalman was released, after being under arrest for two weeks. He
was, however, ordered to remain in the capital, pending the final
outcome of the Senate investigation.
179
R a b b ! S c h n e u r Za l m a n
he turn of events did not please Avigdor, and during the

T month of December he submitted another memorandum,
with excerpts from the Tanya which, Avigdor claimed, showed
the “treacherous” tendencies of the movement, not only in rela
tion to the Jewish faith, but also in relation to the government.
He did not refrain from taking liberties with the original text.
Thus, in his translation of the cited passages,'*'* the words “idob'
tors,” or (more correctly) “peoples of the world,” were substitut‫׳‬
ed with the word “Christians,” to make those passages more
objectionable. By revealing such misrepresentations, Rabbi
Schneur Zalman easily refuted Avigdor’s accusations.
Avigdor had requested also that Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
accounts be seized so as to reveal the considerable sums of money
sent to Rabbi Schneur Zalman by his followers, and transferred
by him to his followers in foreign countries. Avigdor also
demanded that the leaders of the Chasidim in other Russian
provinces be likewise brought to the capital, together with their
accounts. Finally Avigdor repeated the allegation that these
Chasidic leaders, “in their ignorance of Jewish law, were mis
leading their co-religionists and were especially harmful to
Jewish youth, whom they incited to rebel against their parents
and to take away their wealth.”
Tlie whole dossiet was turned over by Obolyaninov to the
so-called “Third Department” of the Senate for a final disposi
tion of the case. Supplementing this material was a quantity of
books, correspondence and records which had been seized from
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s house by the local authorities on orders
from the Attorney General, with a brief description of the con
tents of each item, translated by two official Jewish translators.
Included was a declaration by the translators that they found
nothing in the seized items which was contrary to the Jewish reli
gion or the welfare of the country.'*^
About fifteen weeks passed without any final action in the
case. Understandably, the delay caused Rabbi Schneur Zalman
considerable distress, and it might have dragged on for an indef
inite period had not Czar Paul been assassinated in the mean
time (March 11, 1801) and succeeded by Alexander 1. One of
180
S e c o n d C ri s i s
the first acts of grace of the new emperor was to order the release
of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. On March 29th, 1801, an official doc
ument to that effect was sent from Petersburg to the governor of
White Russia.'*^
Having been discharged and permitted to return home.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was not content with regaining his per‫׳‬
sonal freedom. He was determined to obtain official recognition
of his movement, so as to prevent, once and for all, the recur‫׳‬
rence of such crises as had twice threatened his life and that of
his movement. Moreover, the atmosphere now prevailing at the
Court seemed more auspicious. Alexander wished to gain the
popularity of all his subjects, including the Jews. Knowing that
the Jews comprised three trends— the Chasidim, Mitmgdim, and
Masldlim (the latter, “the enlightened ones,” were advocating
secular education for the Jews and were a small minority),'*'
Alexander made gracious overtures towards all three sections.
The release of Rabbi Schneur Zalman was an act of benevolence
towards the Chasidim. A special financial grant for the Jewish
community of Vilna was intended as a token of grace towards the
Mitnagdim. Finally, permission was granted'*®for Jewish children
to attend Russian schools, a concession to the Jewish secularists.
Being aware of the more favorable climate prevailing at the
Court, Rabbi Schneur Zalman pressed his victory further. He
stayed in the capital, now of his own volition, for another four
months. During this time he filed two petitions with the Senate.
In the first (May, 1801), he recounted the hardships which had
been caused to him by the false accusations of Avigdor
Chaimovitch. He recalled that two years earlier he had been
similarly denounced by a prejudiced accuser, whereupon he was
arrested, investigated and discharged. Yet the accuser suffered no
consequences. This emboldened Chaimovitch to try the same
thing again. The latter embarked upon the scheme. Rabbi
Schneur Zalman said, in order to avenge his dismissal by his
community, which had refused to renew his contract on the
grounds that he was misusing his position, and also because of his
frequent intoxication, as had been documented by the commu‫׳‬
nity register and by the Magistrate of Pinsk, and submitted in
evidence. Hence— Rabbi Schneur Zalman went on— if the
181
R abbi S c h n h u r Za l m a n
accuser would again get away with this evil attempt, he (Rabhi
Schneur Zalman) would not know peace, and “there would he no
fence against any evil schemer, while slander and hatred would
proliferate abundantly.” Accordingly, Rabbi Schneur Zalman
appealed that the Senate should, by order of His Majesty the
Emperor, call the said Chaimovitch to account, according to the
law of the land, in order to “restrain him henceforth, from inter
fering with me and the rest of the Chasidim in the way of our
Divine service according to our custom of old, and to indemnify
me for the slander and damage he had caused me to suffer.”
The full text of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s petition follows:
If it please the governing Senate to give attention to my
petition, it will undoubtedly see my innocence in my trial
which is before it, concerning the libelous accusation by
Rabbi Avigdor, who calls himself “Chief-Rabbi,” who slan
dered me and a great multitude of Jews whom he calls
“Karlinists.” For all the charges which he imputed to me
were not only nullified by my refutations, but were not in
themselves worthy of consideration, because they have no
substance in them whatever.
The said Chaimovitch, through his felse slander, is the
cause of my travail. In my old age 1 was taken from my home
under heavy guard, like a notorious criminal, and was sent to
Petersburg. After painful suffering here for two weeks, held
in secret imprisonment, I suffered further misery, to my great
misfortune, for about fifteen weeks, being denied permission
to leave the city, pending the outcome of my trial.
To the extent that 1 am entitled to lodge a complaint
against the slanderer Chaimovitch for this, and demand
compensation from him, 1 cannot equally pass in silence also
over the following:
Twer years ago, as a result of a false slander by one who
sought to harm me, I was taken into secret detention for
investigation. I was found innocent and released, and per
mission was given me to conduct Divine worship as before.
However, justice was not fully served in the way of compen
sation. For this reason Chaimovitch came out with slander
without fear, and he finds satisfaction iia the fact that he can
182
S e c o n d C ri s i s
again subject me to investigation and new trouble without

redress. The reascm which induces him to do this is, as it was
in the past, his hatred for the Chasidim— whom he calls
Karlinists— because those of them who lived in the city of
Pinsk, where Chaimovitch had leased the office of the rab
binate, declined, upon the termination of the period, to per
mit him to renew the lease. They did this because he used to
extort money from them excessively, and also because they
knew that he indulged in intoxicating drinks. All this was
recorded in the community resolution at the time, and is
mentioned also in the decision of the magistrate of the city
of Pinsk (a copy of which was recently sent to the Chief of
Civilian Affairs in Petersburg, to be shown to Chaimovitch).
Consequently, if the cause of strict justice will not com
pel Chaimovitch to repent of his hatred, my tranquility will
surely begin to wander, and there will be no fence against
any evil schemer, and slander and hatred will proliferate
abundantly.
In light of the above 1 humbly petition:
That by order of his Imperial Majesty the governing
Senate be instructed to accept my petition in the Third
Department; and that taking into consideratitrn all the mat
ters explained thereiir, and considering also that the
Chasidic sect— whose Divine worship and prayer conform to
the order and custom of Israel as transmitted to them from
antiquity—^faithfully preserve their allegiance to the sole
government; now therefore they should deal with
Chaimovitch fitr his invented and completely baseless
calumnies in accordance with his Majesty’s laws, and restrain
him henceforth from interfering with me and with all the
Chasidim in the manner of our Divine worship according to
our custom of old, and to indemnify me for the slander and
damage which he has caused me to suffer.
Merciful Emperor! I appeal to our Imperial Majesty to
issue an order arnceming my petition.
On this . . . day of May, 1801
(The petition was officially inscribed:
Received on May 21st, 1801).
183
No action was taken on this petition, and before leaving the

capital towards the end of July, 1801, Rabbi Schneur Zalman
decided to lodge his second appeal with his Imperial Majesty.
This new appeal, apparently submitted for him shortly after his
departure from the capital, substantially reiterated the tenor of
the first. It also expressed apprehension at the possibility of
renewed attempts on the part of Chaimovitch to bring slander‫׳‬
ous action against him. Rabbi Schneur Zalman appealed “that by
order of his Imperial Majesty, the Third Department of the
Senate be directed to act on my petition, reach a final verdict,
and order that throughout the Jewish domicile none should dare
molest me or the Chasidim, by any unfounded slander, so that I
may live in peace and not be brought, together with my family
and small children, to complete impoverishment in my old age;
nor shall the Chasidim likewise be interfered with in their busi
nesses and occupations, thereby leaving the government also in
peace.” The petition (as the previous one) concluded with a
request that Chaimovitch be duly punished for his empty
schemes and calumnies, and be adjudged to compensate for the
damages he had inflicted.
For the sake of completeness, the text of the second petition
is also given below:
The governing Senate is not unaware of the serious
losses caused to me by Avigdor Chaimovitch, who calls
himself the rabbi of Pinsk, through the baseless slander
which was brought against me during the life of Emperor
Paul, the son of Peter, of blessed memory, purporting that I
and the Chasidim, whom he called Karlinists, are inimical
to the government. As a result of this slander, 1 was taken
into secret custody, where an investigation revealed that
nothing inimical or harmful to the government or to soci
ety could be attributed to us. Consequently, the Emperor,
of blessed memory, referred the matter to the governing
Senate, while setting me free with the condition that I do
not leave Petersburg. After the demise of Czar Paul, the son
of Peter, I was freed completely, and the honorable Chief
Prosecutor Alexander, the son of Andrei Baklishov,
informed the Civilian Governor of White Russia that by
184
S econd C risis
order of the Emperor 1 was given complete freedom, and

everything remained as it was. A certificate to this effect
was furnished to me by His Excellency the Governor, a
copy of which 1 append hereto.
Also several years ago slanderous charges were brought
against the Chasidim, who were named “Karlinists” at that
time, too. 1 was then also taken into secret custody. It
turned out that there was no substance to the slander,
whereupon I was permitted to return to my home.
However, several citizens of Vilna did not rest. In their
hatred they dared trouble the Emperor, of blessed memory,
for a second time— at the time when the honorable
Alexander, the son of Andrei Baklishov served as Chief
Public Prosecutor— in an effort to destroy the Chasidim,
called by them “Karlinists.” On the basis of His Majesty’s
order, and in his directive sent to the Governor of
Lithuania in order to inform the petitioners, it was said
that the so-called Karlinists merit: toleration, as is evi
denced from the enclosed copy, the copy of Governor
Frizel’s order to the police of the city of Vilna.‘•'^
Inasmuch as my case, by reason of Chaimovitch’s slan
der, is now in the hands of the Third Department of the
governing Senate, where it was sent by order of the late
Emperor for final disposition, together with other commu
nal problems, and whereas I have reason to believe that the
said Chaimovitch is again about to trouble the Emperor
reigning over us, in order to harass me and the Chasidim,
and to ruin us effectively, I make so bold as to petition;
That by order of his Imperial Majesty, the Third
Department of the Senate be directed to act on my peti
tion, reach a final verdict and order that throughout the
Jewish domicile none should date molest me and the
Chasidim by any unfounded slander, so that I may live in
peace and not be brought, together with my family and
small children, to complete impoverishment in my old age;
nor shall the Chasidim likewise be interfered with in their
businesses and occupations; and the government be left in
peace.
185
As for his empty schemes and calumnies, and for his

troubling the late Emperor in vain, he should be dealt with
according to the law, and be ordered to compensate me for
the damages he had inflicted upon me, a thing which 1 can
honestly attest to, and swear to it.
Merciful Emperor! 1 plead for a final judgment upon
my petition.
Zalman the son of Baruch the Jew,
Rabbi of Liozna.
A ugust. . . 1801.
The petition bore the post-scriptum: “The petitioner
authorized the Jew Hertz the son of Israel of Polotzk, to
submit the petition to its proper destination.”’‫״‬
The above petitions were apparently intended more for the
record rather than for personal satisfaction in terms of damages.
What Rabbi Schneur Zalman desired most was to secure the
right of his movement’s existence and freedom.
After spending altogether nine months and ten days in
Petersburg, Rabbi Schneur Zalman left the capital. He did not,
however, return to Liozna. A t the invitation of Prince
Lubomirsky, who had been greatly impressed with the venerable
Jewish leader, and who perhaps was not unmindful of the bene
fits the latter might bring to his estates, Rabbi Schneur Zalman
agreed to take up residence in the town of Liadi, one of
Lubomirsky’s possessions. The prince provided a fine carriage for
the Rebbe with two mounted guards. Accompanied by an
entourage of close Chasidim, in four additional carriages, aug‫״‬
mented on the way by thousands of followers, (according to one
report the number was about 5,000), Rabbi Schneur Zalman
arrived in Liadi on the eve of Shahbat'Nachamu (14th of
Menachem Av, 5561). Here Rabbi Schneur Zalman spent the
remainder of his life— more than a decade— and became known
as the “Rav of Liadi.”
186
C h a p t e r X II
T he Final Years
R:
abbi Schneur Zalman’s triumph over his adversaries was
complete. He had not only succeeded in clearing himself
. and his movement in the eyes of the Czar and the
Senate, but had also won considerable respect in those circles.
Yet he was not content to let it rest at that; he wished to win
over his opponents, being convinced that their opposition
stemmed from a total misconception and ignorance of Chasidut.
Soon after returning from Petersburg, the peace-loving leader
undertook another round of visits to some of the leading rabbis
of the opposition.' By this time, some of the opponents of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman and of the Chasidim had become more moder
ate, others had terminated their opposition, and many had
become admirers and followers.
Out of the new center of Chabad in Liadi, Rabbi Schneur
Zalman embarked upon a new era of intensive activity divided
between the interests <‫ר‬f the Chasidic movement and those of
the Jewish community at large. Many of his senior disciples were
active in various parts of the Jewish pale in spreading the teach
ings of Chasidut. Some of his more erudite disciples were per
mitted to expound the discourses of the Rebbe according to their
understanding, making the philosophy of Chabad even more
accessible to the rank and file. The Rebbe’s oldest son and sue-
cessor was instructed to record the weekly discourse of the Rebbe
which was given every Shabbat. Being an extraordinarily rapid
writer, the task was usually completed by Sunday evening, and
187
R a b b i S<-:h n h u r Z a l m a n
scores of copies were made and dispatched to Chasidic commu

nities for study.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, however, never considered himself as
leader only of his Chasidic flock. He was just as vitally concerned
with the well-being of the Jewish community at large. Now that
he was liberated from the pressures and travails directed against
him and the Chasidim by the Mitnagdim, he could devote more
attention to the economic problems of Russian Jewry. He put his
youngest son Rabbi Moshe in charge of these activities, and the
latter was an able administrator. Rabbi Schneur Zalman sent spe
cial emissaries to stimulate migration from the overcrowded cities
and towns to villages and rural areas, where many families found
new opportunities for a livelihood in agriculture and trade. He
also established a fund to offer financial assistance to the families
who settled on land and engaged in agricultural pursuits.
Hundreds of Jewish families thus became small farmers in White
Russia, the Ukraine, and in the districts of Yekaterinoslav and
Poltava. Through his influential representatives in the capital,
Rabbi Schneur Zalman succeeded in calling the government’s
attention to this economic development and obtaining certain
aid for the new settlers. In this connection Rabbi Moshe occa
sionally made trips to Petersburg to further this cause.
In 1811, Rabbi Schneur Zalman instructed his representa
tive committee in Petershurg to undertake strong action to
induce the government to grant free land and homesteads in the
district of Cherson for Jewi.sh settlers, and to provide them with
agricultural implements and livestock on credit for a ten-year
period, with the remission of taxes during the first five years. The
necessary petitions w'ere duly submitted and an active lobbying
was instituted to see the matter through. However, in the tense
atmosphere resulting from the imminent Franco-Russian war
(which broke out the following year), the effort had to be inter-
rupted.^ Nevertheless, during the decade that had elapsed since
his arrival in Liadi after his second arrest, additional thousands
of Jews swelled the ranks of th(‫ו‬se who had established them
selves in villages and rural areas; and though it was a meager
livelihood that they w‫׳‬ere able to eke out, they were, at least,
spared starvation.
1H8
F in a l Y ears
abbi Schneur Zalman’s hopes and strivings for peace and

R unity were not fully realized. Ironically, disunity reared its
head within the Chasidic camp itself. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
found himself in the position of having to ward off an attack
against himself by other prominent Chasidic leaders, his own
colleagues.
The first one to come out with open criticism against Rabbi
Schneur Zalman and his Chabad system was Rabbi Abraham of
Kalisk, who, like Rabbi Schneur Zalman, was one of the disciples
of Rabbi Dov Ber of Miezricz. Rabbi Abraham did not share
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s enthusiasm for intellectual inquiry in
matters of faith. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s insistence on “wisdom,
understanding, knowledge’’ (Chabad), asserting that one could
not truly fear and love the Almighty without intellectual effort,
met with Rabbi Abraham’s distinct disapproval. The latter insist‫׳‬
ed that the virtue of simple faith should be stressed above that of
intellectual inquiry. However, despite their differences. Rabbi
Abraham and his younger colleague were ardent friends for more
than a quarter of a century. In 1777 Rabbi Abraham settled in
the Holy Land, and after the death of his senior colleague. Rabbi
Menachem Mendel,’ he became the acknowledged head of the
Chasidic colony in Palestine. Their friendship was strengthened
by the fact that Rabbi Schneur Zalman had organized, and was
in charge of, a vast fund-raising system, whereby his many fol
lowers made regular annual contributions to a special fund in
support of the Chasidic community in the Holy Land, as already
noted. It was a well-organized philanthropic endeavor, whereby
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s emissaries made their regular visits to
the various Chasidic communities, collecting these funds and
turning them in to their leader. He, in turn, remitted the funds,
first to Rabbi Menachem Mendel, and later to his successor,
Rabbi Abraham, for distribution. As has been noted, this phil
anthropic endeavor was one of the subjects of slander against
Rabbi Schneur Zalman. Rabbi Schneur Zalman himself not
infrequently took to the road, visiting the communities of his
faithful in an effort to strengthen his fund-raising organization.
Thus, the spiritual bonds between the two Chasidic leaders, sep
arated geographically, were fortified by their mutual philan-
189
thropic activity in charge of their many dependents. They

exchanged frequent correspondence and gave expression to their
mutual affinity in the warmest terms. When Rabbi Schneur
Zalman was reluctant to take over the leadership of the
Chasidim of White Russia, Rabbi Abraham (in a letter of 1786)
urged him to do so.
At that time, he wrote to his colleague, in most affectionate
terms, of the great opportunity of spiritual leadership. The letter
follows (in part);
To G'd’s beloved, may he dwell securely. The spirit of
G'd hovers over him, this is Sinai, my beloved friend . . .
great luminary . . . replete with the light of the Tctrah, the
spirit of knowledge and fear of G-d . . . our teacher and
rabbi, Schneur Zalman. . . .
. . . In the abundance of mutual affection, your soul
being bound up with mine, were 1 merely to inform you of
the joy and delight with which 1 received the glad tidings
of your well-being, through your rabbinical emissary . . . it
would have sufficed. . . . He has shown me the letter writ
ten in your own hand, and 1 was gratified by it, hut not by
its contents. For it indicated your reluctance and intention
to withdraw your hand from inspiring the hearts of our
faithful brethren and teaching them the understanding and
knowledge of G-d. But in my opinion, all the days of a
man’s lifetime, were he to live a thousand years filled with
the service of G-d, would not compare to the merit of illu
minating the eyes of the many, they and their children,
generation after generation. And if this be too small in
your eyes, put your trust in the Living G-d and taste of the
very flavor of the World to Come, for the merit of the
many is with you, so that there is no need of apprehension
of the heaviness of the burden, etc. Indeed, it is quite
beyond imagination and mental grasp how the light of the
intellect gushes forth and the heart is like an everflowing
spring in the dissemination of righteousness and the ways
of G-d. Let your words shine forth, like an axe shattering
rock, and the listeners will receive their sustenance, each
according to his need.
190
F i n a l Y e ar s
The truth to tell you, my brother, had I weighed on the

intellectual scale, before my journey to the Land of Life,
the worth of this mitzvah and its flavor, perhaps it would
have tipped the balance.
My beloved friend and the frietrd of G-d, 1 know full
well the reasons why this matter weighs heavily upon you.
. . . Go lead the people and sanctify them today and tomor
row, so to the living, to eternal redemption.
These are the words of your loving friend who seeks
your peace with sincere heart and soul,
Abraham, the son of my master and father
Alexander Katz (Kohen-Tzedek)
of saintly memory.‘*
The great affection and intimate spiritual affinity which
Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk felt for his colleague began to wane
when Rabbi Schneur Zalman published his Tanya ten years later
(in 1796). Despite the wide currency and reverence which the
work gained among the Chasidim, or perhaps because of it,
Rabbi Abraham felt impelled to criticize his colleague for
encouraging the study of the esoteric among the Chasidim who,
in his opinion, would be more secure in their simple faith. Rabbi
Abraham was apprehensive lest the author had “poured too
much oil into the lamp, which might extinguish the light alto
gether.” Consequently he wrote to Rabbi Schneur Zalman in the
following terms:
My beloved brother,
. . . I call the G'd of heaven and earth to testify for me
that I have ever desired your righteousness, and my heart
never ceased to cherish affection for you. . . .
However, as 1 live . . . were it not for the holiness of this
land and my weakened strength, I would have willingly
presented myself to you in person, to meet eye to eye to
quench my thirst and fulfill my wish for a talk and discus‫׳‬
sion in accordance with the need. But now a mountain has
risen, and a long distance separates us. So the words must
be written, yet all the words are too tedious for the mouth
to speak and for the scribe to write; and the words are too
191
profound to be conveyed by messenger, for the words go

after the intent of the heart. . . . For this reason I reconsid
ered my way, to put my hand to my mouth, for silence is
good . . . but finally decided otherwise . . . since abundant
waters cannot extinguish the love.
1 shall speak only the most essential words, barely
touching the edge, and privileged is he whose words fall
upon attentive ears. , . .
As for me, 1 find no gratification in the effort by your
Torah-excellency to push the sun into its sheath, namely,
to clothe the words of our saintly and revered teacher of
Miezricz—which are the very words of the saintly teacher,
the Baal Shem Tov—-within the words of the saintly Ari
(Rabbi Yitzchok Luria) of blessed memory, although all
diverge to the same place; the Torah speaking its own Ian-
guage, and the Sages speaking their own language.
Particularly because of the danger that the rain drives deep,
and the generation is not attuned. Hence a choice of care
ful language is necessary . . . in the ways of fear and love [of
G'd], to purify the body and midot (attributes) that they be
dedicated to G-d alone. 1 have much to recite upon the
possible consequences of this, which cannot be put in writ
ing, for I see what can come out of this, G'd forbid.
Now 1 see the Sefer Shel Benonirn^ which your Torah
excellency has printed, and 1 find not very much use in it
for the saving of souls, for they are trained with abundance
of counsel. . . and the old is stronger [than the new]. By the
level of the recipients, a single spark would suffice for them
. .. and too much oil in the lamp may be the cause of extin
guishing it, G-d forbid. . . . Such was also the custom of our
teachers, who were most careful and wary in their words,
not to let them be heard by the majority of the Chasidim,
but only in the way of admonition, and to bring them into
the covenant of faith in the leaders; for the word of Torah
should be sparing and pure, little that contains much. . . .
I shall not conceal from my beloved brother what is in
my heart. 1 fear that w'ith the multitude of Chasidim per‫׳‬
haps it is, G ‫׳‬d forbid, the counsel of the sitra achra (the
192
F i nal Y ears
“other side”) to lose the grain in the straw, the Merciful

spare us. For men of excellence are few, one in a city and
two in a family.* Especially in these times, when falsehood
has grown exceedingly strong. Some wrap themselves in
garments not theirs, speaking lofty words of wonder and
hidden secrets, while mired in all sorts of low passions and
evil traits, as I have seen at close range among newcomers
to the Land from all the four comers. . .
Now, therefore, G ‫׳‬d be with you, man of valor, be
strong and strengthen yourself for our people. Look into
the individual, the one lowly of spirit and broken of heart,
to vivify him with a spark of the Living Light, in sparing
words that flourish within him— leaving the matter hidden
to the eye. While, as for the community of the Chasidim,
suffice for them faith in the leaders, and recognition of
their own deficiency.‫׳‬
The letter continues to take Rabbi Schneur Zalman to task
for involving his young son Rabbi Dov Ber in the dissemination
of the esoteric teachings of Chasidut. Rabbi Abraham particu‫׳‬
larly decries the fact that in every city the Tanya is being studied
by Chasidic groups. “1 fear for them that they will never see the
bright light,” he declares. He further claims that their saintly
teacher Rabbi Menachem Mendel, before his demise, was much
grieved to hear about the wide dissemination of the esoteric
teachings of Chasidut carried on by Rabbi Schneur Zalman.
Rabbi Abraham sees dire consequences resulting from Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s way, and suggests that his departure from the
way of his forerunners was due to the fact that he had always
been a person of extreme modesty and reserve, shunning leader
ship; hence he had not put his mind tc3 learning the art of lead
ership from his superiors of blessed memory. Rabbi Abraham,
therefore, strongly urges his colleague to change his method
before the situation gets out of hand. He informs Rabbi Schneur
Zalman that he intends to write a pastoral letter on the subject,
for all the country, and suggests that Rabbi Schneur Zalman
write a similar letter, so that both their views would harmonize.
The letter which Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk wrote to the
Chasidim in the diaspora warns against the danger of intellectu-
193
R abbi S chneur Z a l ma n
al pursuit, the delving in the Kabbala of the AW, and the esoteric
teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and the Maggid of Miezricz. The
latter were meant. Rabbi Abraham claimed, for a few chosen and
qualified individuals, and not for public dissemination to all and
sundry. Here are some exceipts from this letter (written in the
year 5557):
. . . I am greatly concerned for you . . . lest your heart
be deceived and you turn away from the essence of faith
and truth. For all the words that touch the loftiness of the
universe— all converge to one central point, the fear of
G'd— the [true] wisdom. Whereas the reverse (i.e. when
wisdom precedes fear) results in that “the wise have no
bread,” the latter (“bread”) being the essence of fear and
faith. . . . And in order to preserve this point, so as not to
deviate from it, G‫״‬d has commanded us the practical
halachah [to live] according to the Torah, through faith in
the Sages . .. whereas the Torah and intelligences by them
selves, without prior fear [of G ‫׳‬d], are abstracts, transient
and destructive. . . .
Therefore 1 do not approve of the publication of the
heavenly secrets, the writings of the heavenly saints, whose
every word is like fiery coal, reaching the loftiest aspects of
the universe; for not every mind can absorb it. They are
meant for those who possess a saintly soul, or whose Divine
worship is out of pure love, having transcended the natural
crrder . . . but he who is not w'orthy is endangered thereby;
and who can say, “I am purified, my heart is cleansed; I will
rely on my intelligence,” G-d forbid. For the intelligence
develops according to the purity (‫נ‬f the body and spirit, and
corresponds to the degree of their preparedness. On the
other hand, faith and fear purify the body and cleanse the
spirit to be irradiated with the light of Torah and Mitzvot.
Were it up to my opinion, 1 would gather all the sacred
books which are scattered among the beginners and 1 would
put them in the custody of those who are pure of spirit, from
whom the beginners would learn little by little, according to
their intellect and after ample preparedness. . . .
The letter goes on to extoll at great length the superiority of
!94
F i nal Y ears
simple faith in G-d and in the Sages, over intellectual pursuit,

pointing out the pitfalls of the human intellect that could easily
lead one astray into outright heresy.“
Thus the stage was set for a sharp division among the two
Chasidic leaders in regard to method and approach towards the
same goal— Divine service. The system of Chahad (Chochmah,
binah, daat)— the intellectual approach, as propounded hy Rabbi
Schneur Zalman; and that of Chagat (Chesed, gevurah, tiferet)—
the emotional approach by way of fear and love of G-d and sim-
pie faith which is “above the intellect.’’ N ot that one ruled out
the other completely, for the distinction was more in the nature
of emphasis, and the opinions differed merely as to which of the
two systems was the most suitable one for the masses.
Undoubtedly, the fact that Rabbi Schneur Zalman lived and
worked in Lithuania and White Russia, where the intellectual
level of his followers was higher than that of the Jewish masses
in other parts of Eastern Europe, coupled with his own intellec
tual bent, had a great deal to do with his bolder approach to
Chasidut and its dissemination among his followers.
espite Rabbi Abraham’s outspoken objections to Rabbi

D Schneur Zalman’s publication of the Tanya and his method
of spiritual leadership, these intellectual differences did not
immediately result in a breach of their friendship. It was only
when Rabbi Abraham decided to become independent of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s financial support, and create his own fund‫׳‬
raising apparatus, that the rift widened, and their mutual friend
ship was disrupted.
As often happens in cases of a fall-out, a third party is
involved. In the controversy that ensued between the two
Chasidic leaders there were certain men who, for reasons of their
own, wished to create discord between the two Chasidic leaders.
One of the chief instigators in this case was a certain Elazar of
Disna, a man of considerable learning in both Talmud and
Chasidut, but of an impetuous and contentious nature. He came
to settle in the Holy Land, claiming to be a devoted disciple and
confidant of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. According to a lengthy let
ter of complaint which Rabbi Abraham sent to Rabbi Schneur
195
R abbi S c h n e u r Z al ma n
Zalman (in the year 5561 )Z this Elazar began a campaign of vil
ification against Rabbi Abraham, not only among the Chasidim
in the Holy Land, but also among the Sephardic Jews. That
Elazar was a man of questionable character is evident also from a
letter'® which Rabbi Dov Ber, the son and successor of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, wrote to him, requesting him to desist from
slandering him (Rabbi Dc‫ר‬v Ber), when Elazar turned against him
after the death of Rabbi Schneur Zalman.
In his campaign against Rabbi Abraham, Elazar of Disna
purported to speak in the name of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, creat‫׳‬
ing in Rabbi Abraham the suspicion that his colleague bore a
secret enmity towards him, and intended to divert the financial
aid which he had been sending through him, and send it through
other channels.
In the year 5563 (1803), Rabbi Abraham sent two emissaries
to Rabbi Schneur Zalman, requesting him to abolish his fund
raising system, so that these emissaries would themselves g1>
around collecting funds from non‫׳‬Chabad Chasidim in
provinces beyond Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s immediate sphere of
influence which centered in White Russia and Lithuania.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman saw in this attempt a serious threat
to the unity of the Chasidic community, dividing it up between
Chabad and non-Chabad adherents. He refused to accede to the
demand of Rabbi Abraham, and continued his work as before.
Rabbi Abraham, on his part, refused to accept these funds for
two years, and finally attempted to undermine the confidence of
many Chasidim in their leader in White Russia.
Rabbi Abraham also wrote a letter" to Rabbi Levi Yitzchak
of Berditchev, who had complained to him about the conduct of
his emissaries. In this letter Rabbi Abraham attempts to justify
his position by outlining what he considered were the basic
issues. According to Rabbi Abrabam the underlying cause of
their strife was Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s deviation from the way
of his teachers in matters of spiritual leadership and dissemina'
tion of Chasidut. Rabbi Abraham claimed that when he tried to
admonish his colleague in a friendly and confidential manner, to
make him change his ways, the latter turned his heart against
him, and confirmed his enmity towards him through the affair of
1%
F i nal Y ears
Elazar of Disna. This is why he, Rahbi Ahraham, felt impelled to

withdraw from the fund-raising arrangement which was previ
ously in Rabhi Schneur Zalman’s hands, much against his will
and desire, and set up his own fund-raising.
In r e p l y R a b b i Levi Yitzchak totally rejects Rabbi
Abraham’s assertions that Rabbi Schneur Zalman has in any way
deviated from the way of the Maggid of Miezricz. Thus he writes:
In reference to the matter of the complaint by Your
Eminence in regard to his (Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s) ways
[asserting] that they do not accord with the way of our mas
ter and teacher, the saintly Maggid of blessed and eternal
memory, his soul rest in Eden— first of all, you have over
looked a clear and definite Talmudic principle appearing in
many places, namely that after one has taken action in a
situation, one’s testimony is no longer acceptable.
But apart from that, it is greatly surprising to me how
it can occur to anyone to complain against the ways of our
master and teacher (Rabbi Schneur Zalman), since such
was the very essence of the ways of our saintly master and
teacher the Maggid, whose main occupation was to teach
the Torah and Mitzvot to his people, and this is the essence
of (Divine) service, as we received it from our late teacher;
and his (Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s) ways are also on the
same pattern. This is the holy way of our holy Torah, and
in precisely this way the light of G-d dwells. Would that all
the people be tzaddikim conducting themselves like him.
On the contrary, whoever does not conduct himself in this
way does not follow the way of our late teacher. And who
ever complains against this way is as though he complains,
G-d forbid, against our revered master and teacher of saint
ly memory, since essentially his whole service and saintly
ways were precisely along this way. I am indeed very sur
prised at you, that you should not be aware of this way,
since you were faithfully with us under our saintly master
and teacher, his soul rest in Eden. . . . This I attest with
absolute testimony that my mechutan,'^ the Rav and goon,
was held in extraordinarily high and boundless esteem by
our late teacher, and he always praised him exceedingly. . .
197
But only wicked and unscrupulous men have carried evil

slander to your ears for perscrnal reasons, as the end attests
to the beginning, for the men are empty-headed, devoid of
Torah knowledge, as 1 have seeir them. . . .
It is completely gratuitous on your part to praise them
lavishly and to say that they are men of scholarship, piety
and truth, for 1 have never seen amortg them men of schol
arship, piety and truth. How can you write about them
“men of truth,” when Tzvi Hamar‘‘• has spoken many false
hoods in my presence; and if he is a scholar, 1 do not know
who is an am ha’aretz (ignoramus).
As for the matter of money which you wrote, I am
much amazed at your complaint, .seeing that you yourself
sent emissaries disrupting the system and increasing the
discord, for they opened their mouths wide to discredit
such a tzaddik as he, “the mouth of speakers of falsehood be
stopped,”'’ saying in your name that you wished none of
our money. How could he have acted otherwise? Surely he
did the right thing.
In regard to your attendant Chaim, I do not know what
judgment to make, for it is surely a lie, because Chaim said
nothing to me. As for the wish which you expressed in your
own words, namely “the mouth of speakers of falsehood be
stopped,” it is an imprecation which Your Eminence
uttered againsr yourself. . .
These are harsh words, coming from a man known for his
extraordinary gentleness, affection, and saintliness. He was obvi
ously greatly hurt by the unwarranted and unjust attack against
his colleague, who had given so much of himself for the cause of
Chasidut. The mutual affection and respect between Rabbi Levi
Yitzchak of Berditchev and Rabbi Schneur Zalman was even fur
ther enhanced, since the two Chasidic leaders’ families became
united through the marriage of their grandchildren, Bela the
daughter of Rabbi Dov Ber to Rabbi Yekutiel Zalman the son of
Rabbi Levi Yitzchak’s son-in-law Rabbi Yosef Bunim, which took
place during the period between the years 5560-5563 (1800
1803), judging by the dates of their correspondence when they
began to address each other as “my rnechutan." However, their
198
F i nal Y ears
mutual spiritual affinity and friendship dated back, of course, to

the days when both of them were the disciples of the Maggid of
Miezricz, and it remained consistent throughout. This is also evi
denced from the fact that Rabbi Levi Yitzchak was the first per
son to whom Rabbi Schneur Zalman wrote of his miraculous
acquittal in 1798, as we have already seen.‘^
Further light upon the controversy between Rabbi Abraham
and Rabbi Schneur Zalman is thrown by the latter’s lengthy epiS'
tie to Rabbi Abraham, written, apparently, in 5566 (1806), since
it makes direct references to the latter’s letter to him which was
written in the previous year. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s letter is
illuminating in many respects. It reads (in free translation) as fob
lows, with but few abbreviations.
To begin with, there is the well- known dictum of our
Sages, of blessed memory, that a covenant has been made
with slander that it would be believed, if not fully, at least
partly. For many years, during which those base individuals
who descended from there (the Land of Israel) to here, and
from here to there, have sharpened their tongue like a
sword, year after year, [weaving strings] into heavy ropes,
until the measure has been filled, and a mountain has risen
between us, etc. Especially in the light of what 1 have heard
in the name of the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel of saint
ly memory, that the place [the Holy Land] is susceptible to
it, warning very earnestly to beware of groundless hatred,
saying that the place does not tolerate it, since the
Destruction took place because of groundless hatred, and a
residue of it has been left, etc. Baseless hatred is due only
to tale-bearing and slander, for it is not the nature of a per
son to hate another one, who has done him no harm, either
by deed or word. Behold, need we cite anyone greater than
Saul, the chosen one by G-d and His anointed. Yet, by
accepting calumny, he destroyed Nov, the City of Kohanim.
As a result, you have changed your heart, as an error
issuing from a ruler, and have raised your hand to write
tedious and disparaging letters, seeking to entangle us in
false accusations which are clearly transparent, in an effort
to change what has been known, and well known, to all, in
199
R a RR! Sc: HNRLi R ZAL. MAN
the area of spiritual matters, making a mockery of all the

epistles sent to our Chasidic fellowship, and to me person
ally, over the course of twenty-two years'‫ ׳‬to strengthen and
encourage me [such as]: “Open your mouth and let your
words shine forth,” and set on, ;md much more in a similar
vein. These were recctgnizable words of truth, coming from
the depth of the heart, and not just to gratify my wish. So
you have also written to my mcchutan, the saintly gaon, the
Chief Rahbi of Berditchev. For 1 have never requested your
approbation on my teachings of Chasidut, since they are
the words of the saintly mouth of our great teacher of
Miezricz and his son, of saintly memory. As a matter of fact,
1 tried to escape many years ago and to migrate to the Holy
Land, whereupon 1 received the letters from the rabbis in
the year 5546.'** What fool can fail to understand this? For
had you intended merely to gratify my wish, you could have
confined your writing to our Chasidic fellowship, without
writing to me in particular to strengthen and encourage me.
All the letters which you have written to me personal
ly testify and declare that tliat they were truly genuine
coming from the depth of the heart, especially the letter
more recently transcribed, wherein you trffer testimonial in
my behalf in the name itf “G-d Who searches the heart,”
and so forth. But many (letters) have been lost by me.
Now, how can one imagine that all your letters over
the course of twenty-two years were only ostensible, for the
purpose of strengthening the settlement in the Land of
Israel, and not truly genuine? If this be so, how much more
likely is it to assume that ysjur present letters are designed
merely for the strengthening of the settlement in the Holy
Land, in compliance with the wishes 1.)f the men of Vilna,
and Lachowitz, Lubavitch and Miedzibosz.'‘‫ ’׳‬Indeed, this is
what I think.
As for the letter which you sent to my mechuian, the
gaon named above, and seeing that the letter failed, the
messengers w'hich you sent to him [to induce himj to take
me to task in the matter of spiritual leadership, etc.— it is
common knowledge that, much to the contrary, no sooner
200
F i nal Y ears
had they come to us in the winter of 5562, than they began

to speak only well and to console me for your letters of the
year 5558F° I did well to have consigned them to conceal
ment. They begged me to burn those letters in their pres
ence. I replied, “But the persons contradicting you declare
that they are only ostensible!” Whereupon they bitterly
lamented, saying, “How can anyone think such a thing of
a great man like him, may they multiply in Israel, that for
the sake of financial consideration he would cause thou
sands of Jewish souls to be abandoned, G-d forbid, were he
not satisfied with [your] way, G-d forbid. Moreover, it
would be rather wretched for the Holy Land were its foun
dation to rest on such a state, G-d forbid.” They tried very
hard to convince me of the truth of these words, and also
obtained letters from me, requesting that they be written
precisely in these terms. And when they made the rounds
in many towns in our country, they loudly declared the
same thing from the depth of their heart, as is known and
well known to all.
Also in the winter of 5563, they challenged me only in
the matter concerning the Holy Land, to abolish the emis
saries in our country, so that they themselves will make the
rounds in our country; but they did not take me to account
in spiritual matters, for they are not men of introspection,
and are poor accountants.
The truth to tell, their words during the winter of 5562
did enter my heart, apart from the fact that “words of truth
are recognizable.” Besides, how can one even admit the
thought that a G ‫׳‬d‫׳‬fearing man could engage in such guile
and deception, namely, to write letters of peace, affection
and friendship every year for twenty-two years, in order to
extract a gigantic sum year after year, reaching in the many
thousands, while inwardly harboring evil, G-d forbid.
Clearly, had most of our Chasidim known this, they would
not have given so generously; perhaps a small amount as
was customary in bygone days, but giving the rest to the
renowned tzaddikim in the diaspora. Consequently, you do
not degrade and vilify us, but yourself and your own honor.
201
R a b b i S c h n e u r Z a l .v i a n
It is a profanation of G-d’s Name in the eyes of the masses;

may G-d forgive it.
Furthermore, your writing to my said mechuUm that you
have repeatedly tried in various letters to correct me on
one point, namely [the meaning of] “the tzaddik lives by his
f a i t h , i s a matter that can easily be exposed. Your letters,
year after year, show that you have written to me only once
on this subject, in the year 5558,^* after R.A.K.^’journeyed
thither (the Holy Land) and slandered our Chasidic feh
lowship in your presence. In the year 5559, because of the
stringent times, I did not find time to answer you properly,
until the year 5560. To this you replied nicely in the year
5561;^'* also in the year 5562 your letters to me were friend
ly. Likewise in 5563 came a friendly letter.^‘’ Only those
critical of me did not reach me, as is known.
Now, the meaning of the verse, “the tzaddik lives by his
faith” was well explained on Shabbat-Nachamii of this year,
and it was in part alluded to in Chapter 33 of Likutei
Amarim. However, according to yt‫ר‬ur conception, the die-
turn of our Sages “Habakuk came and based [the 613 pre
cepts] on one, as it is written, ‘the tzaddik lives by his
faith,’^‘’ is understood literally, that simple faith is all that is
needed, as you wrote in your letters of 5558. But you have
overlooked the dictum of our Sages of blessed memory,
“The thief, upon breaking in, prays to G-d [for success]”
(Ber. 63a). Thus one may believe in G-d, yet have no con
trol over his passion to stop him from theft and murder;
[murder, too] for the law is well known that killing a thief
in the act of breaking in is not a capital offense, because
the thief is himself prepared to murder the owner if discov
ered in the act. Thus, in order to attain fear of G-d, it is
necessary to have deep contemplation, etc., as explained in
Likutei Amarim. Anyone in the provinces of Wolhynia and
the Ukraine who has the merest smattering of the teach
ings of the Baal Shem Tov, of blessed memory, and of his
disciples, knows the meaning of the passage in the holy
Zohar (Introduction to Tikunei Zohar) that “Binah (under
standing) is the mother of the banim (children),” the “chil-
F i nal Y ears
dren” being love [of G-d] and fear [of G-d] . . . and what
begets them is knowledgeable contemplation in depth on
the subject of G-d’s greatness, each one according to one’s
capacity. And just as no children can be bom without a
mother, so it is impossible to be G-d-fearing without con
templation. You put your finger on it well in your letter of
556P ’ addressed to our Chasidic fellowship, especially in
the matter of contemplation. How, then, can one presume
to take issue with it?
According to your letter to my mechutan the goon, you
sent [your emissaries] to investigate me in spiritual matters,
and to deal with me as they saw fit in the light of their find
ings, authorizing them to speak in your name whatever
they considered proper. If so, our pursuers were light
(unworthy),^® these low-minded individuals of scanty
knowledge. You gave them authority because they consid
er themselves erudite in the Torah, hut we recognize them
and know them from their youth and until now. They are
not versed in Torah learning, neither the revealed nor eso
teric; suffice it to call them [merely] literate. 1 was tremen
dously astonished— whoever saw such a thing: To place
such a great and tremendous matter, as that of taking issue
with thousands upon thousands of Jews, into the hands of
messengers, placing a sword in their hands to use according
to their mind and reckoning; messengers who are certainly
not qualified to determine and judge. . . . Even you your
self, with all due respect, cannot singly outweigh the many,
especially as you are partial in this matter, and after the
deed one’s testimony is worthless, as my mechutan the gaon
has w ritten .W ere you here, you would have to weigh
yourself on the scale of holiness whether to discourage
thousands of Jews and disturb them from the Divine serv
ice, G-d forbid, saying, “Accept my opinion.”
Moreover, you are no longer trustworthy to recant your
letter of the year 5561 on the excuse expressed in your gen
eral letter, as has been ruled in the second mishnah of
Ketubot, that witnesses are not permitted to plead compul
sion by reason of [threatened] monetary loss, because a per-
203
R A B B i S c: H N F U R Z A MA N
son is partial to himself, and no person incriminates him'

self to protect money in his possessioia, certainly not to
enforce a monetary claim. Is complete license to be sane-
tioned for the sake of the kwe of the Holy Land, or, in the
words of the Prophet Jeremiah (7:11), “Is this house
become a den of robbers?”
1 am further astonished how the living can deny the
well-known occasion of my traveling together with you to
Rovno to our great teacher, liis soul rest in Eden, in the
summer of 5532, and you feared because of our teacher’“ to
enter the town, remaining in the outskirts. You asked me to
see the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel, who had already
been in that town for some time, to ask him to intervene
in your behalf with lUir saintly teacher to permit you to
come to him. The late Rabbi [M.M.] immediately went to
our saintly teacher and obtained his consent. Thereupon 1
immediately went to the end of the tttwn to call you. 1 went
with you together to the room of our great teacher, and my
eyes saw and my ears heard how he rebuked you sternly for
your bad influence upon Chasidim in Russia, which led
them to indulge in idle talk and frivolity, and to make fun
of the scholars, degrading them with all sorts of insults; also
turning somersaults head over heels in the market-places
and streets, profaning the Name of Heaven in the presence
of gentiles; and engaging in other kinds of foolish play in
the streets of Kalisk. Consequently, during the dispute in
Shklov in the winter of 55,32, you found no defense for this
and the like.’■Then the rabbis of Shklov wrote to inform
the late Gaon of Vilna, and persuaded him to condemn us
in the category of those deserving to forfeit their lives, G-d
forbid, and in the category of an epikores, humiliating
Torah scholars; as for turning head over heels, he said it
was of the idolatry of Pear, and so on. Whereupon they
wrote from Vilna to Brody to that effect, and the pamphlet
Zemir Aritzim^’ was published there that summer. It result
ed in great distress for the tzaddikhn of Wolhynia, and they
could not stay at home, and flocked at that time in Rovno,
to our great teacher, his soul rest in Eden, to deliberate and
204
F i nal Years
seek counsel. This is why you were so afraid to enter the

town lest you incurred the wrath of our great teacher, G-d
forbid. The Maggid of Zlotchev was also there at that time
and he interceded in your behalf with our teacher the
Maggid [of Miezricz], his soul rest in Eden. I know all this
well, and it is common knowledge. Thus, all the troubles
which were visited upon us in the year 5559 were by order
of a Beit'Din who relied completely upon the personal sig‫׳‬
nature of the Gaon of Vilna in 5532, as was made public
there.
How could the Rav of Tiberias forget all this and
remove the cover of shame from the face, and haughtily
write against me to my mechutan that 1 do not walk in the
path of our saintly teacher, but he does, etc? . . . As for
mundane matters concerning the Holy Land, is this the
way of a G-d-fearing man to let loose mouth and tongue
with arrogance on the basis of mere hearsay, as you write in
your letters,” “1 have heard it,” etc? What you have heard
was only half of the matter, etc. And although according to
scriptures and the teachings of our Sages in the early chap
ter of the tractate Shabbat,^‘* it would be unworthy to
answer you in any way, I am impelled to answer you at
length and briefly, for the sake of remaining innocent
before both G-d and Israel.
It was in the winter of 5563 that those lowly persons
came to me and requested me to abolish in our country all
the authorized collectors and regular contributions of old,
so that they themselves would make the rounds and estab
lish new regular sources among true friends not belonging
to Chabad. I asked them, “How can you manage to cover
all the provinces previously covered by my emissaries?” To
this they replied that they would be content with the mis‫׳‬
sion of R.Y.S. (Yaakov Smilianer),” approximating a third
of the total collections, seeing that their numbers have
decreased, for the majority have gone to their eternal rest
and they did not need any more than that approximate
amount. They told me explicitly that they were acting
upon instructions of their rabbi, wh(‫ נ‬ordered them not to
205
R abbi S c h n i:;: u r Z a l m a n
accept [money] from those calling themselves as above

[Chahad], since the latter give !.)nly because of my written
appeal and not out of true love [to the recipients]. . . .
1 refused to heed their request, so as not to increase dis
sension among the Jewish people and create separate
groups in every town and congregation, as I had firmly
announced in the winter of 5558.
To this they declared that if 1 would not let them make
the rounds in our country, they would not accept a single
copper coin from cxir country, of the money collected on
my authority, for this is what you commanded them.
I asked them, “And it you say, what shall we e a t T o
which they replied that they have a firm assurance by the
tzaddikim of Wtrlhynia and the Ukraine for the approxi
mate amount that will take care of their needs, as men-
tinned above, and they would not depend on our country
altogether, nor be subjected to Chabad. However, after a
strenuous intervention by R.Y.S., he succeeded in inducing
them to agree to receive [our help] at least this year, until
the tzaddikim were able to fulfill their promise to deliver
the money, and then they would receive no more from our
country. With this they departed from me in peace.
However, after visiting Vitebsk, they changed their
minds, and sent a stringent letter from that province, with
a most stem warning that no emissary go around collecting
for them in our country. Moreover, they spread the rumor in
all the towns that the money given to our emissaries will
undoubtedly not reach the Holy Land. All this they did in
the name of their rabbi. They also hurled many insults at
me and all our Chasidim and friends. . . . Upon hearing this,
the ccnitributors were very angry, and refused to give even a
small coin for the Holy Land. Bur our emissaries implored
and persuaded them to send the money direct to me to do
with it as I personally will see fit. The gabbairn (local treas'
urers) sent letters to this effect for the emissaries to deliver
to me. I still have all the letters from all the gabbaim, which
can be produced. [One of my emissaries] Israel Chatzi'
Rav'Telated to me that iir some places he heard the follow-
Z06
F in a l Y ears
ing expression: “To give, we must, by order of the Rav of

Liadi, but would that the money be stolen from you, so that
none of it reaches the Holy Land because of the vilifica
tions, may G-d spare us.”
Nevertheless, my heart was filled with misgiving.
Perhaps it was all done without your knowledge. And if
they have sinned [why should others suffer]; perhaps the
money should after all be sent to you. So 1 asked R.Y.S.,
and he replied that in his opinion it was quite impossible
that they should have acted and spoken the way they did
on their own accord, and undoubtedly they were com
manded to do so by you. . . . 1 suggested that he should
write to you to inform you that all the collected sum is in
his, R.Y.S.’s, possession, but because your trusted emissaries
declared in your name that you will certainly not accept it,
he had not sent the money, lest it get lost, G‫׳‬d forbid. But
it is most astonishing that there should have been such an
angry outburst to the extent of deeply offending all the
donors by refusing to accept their contributions. However,
if your Torah-eminence will wish to accept the money,
then write to us a friendly letter to this effect, and all the
money will be sent to you, both the principal and the prof‫׳‬
it, for it has been invested in most trusted hands. . . .
Rabbi Schneur Zalman goes on to reiterate his inevitable
conclusion that Rabbi Abraham was intentionally seeking pre‫׳‬
texts to create dissension in the Chasidic community. He con‫׳‬
eludes his long letter by warning the Chasidim, both near and
far, to keep away from the mendacious and deceitful group, and
speak to them neither good nor evil, and certainly provoke no
strife or argument with them, but keep at a distance from them
as “from a goring ox.”
In the face of what clearly appeared as a calculated effort on
the part of Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk to break away from the aegis
of his colleague the Chabad leader. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was
unable to heal the rift. Nor was he able to prevent a cooling off
between the Chasidim of White Russia and those of the Ukraine
and Wolhynia, who sided with Rabbi Abraham in this contro‫׳‬
versy.
207
he rift within the Chasidic community extended also in

T another direction, again as a result of jealousy. This time
Rahbi Schneur Zalman’s antagonist was Rabbi Baruch, a grand
son of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. Rabbi Baruch objected to
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s “trespassing” on his domain in Podolia,
when the latter included it in his itinerary in his fund-raising
campaign to help the numerous Jewish families who had been
dislocated by new anti-jewish measures on the part of the
Russian government.
This new development in the economic position of Russian
Jewry, which provides another instance of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman’s concern and work for the economic welfare of his co
religionists, Chasidim and non-Chasidim alike, calls for a brief
review of the major events that affected the Jewish position in
Russia at the beginning of the 19th century.
Ever since the Derzhavin report, the government was trying
to find a way of “regulating” the position of Russian Jewry. By a
ukase of Czar Alexander (November 9, 1802), a special
“Commission on the Welfare of the Jews” was established, with
Derzhavin as one of its members. Jewish communities were invit
ed to send representatives to attend hearings hy the Commission.
A final recommendation by the Commission was made to the
Emperor in October 1804, when the Commission recommended
the expulsion of the Jews from the rural areas. The order to carry
it out was duly given hy the Czar, and caused great panic among
the Jews. It meant the immediate expulsion of some 60,000 of
the poorest Jewish families from the villages to the towns, with
out providing any measures to alleviate their plight, leaving this
problem entirely to the Jews.’'*Owing to representations by local
authorities concerning the hardships created for the Russian
population, the cruel order was not fully implemented. In 1806
Alexander ordered the creation of a new committee to look into
the matter. The following year this committee came up with a
recommendation calling for the resettlement of the Jews from
the rural areas to the towns of the Pale to be carried out in three
stages, and completed in 1810. On October 19, 1807, an order
was sent to the governor of Kamenetz-Podolsk to expel the Jews
from the villages.” As a result, additional thousands of Jewish
208
F inal Y ears
families found themselves suddenly uprooted, cut off from their

means of livelihood, and crowded into the already overcrowded
cities of the Pale of Settlement,‘*®exposed to starvation and mis
ery.
In the late winter of 1810, Rabbi Schneur Zalman set out to
visit many towns of the Pale in an effort to raise financial sup
port for the rehabilitation of the dislocated families. It was dur
ing his visit in Tultschin, in the district of Podolia, that Rabbi
Schneur Zalman paid his respects to Rabbi Baruch, and the lat
ter vehemently accused Rabbi Schneur Zalman of “trespassing
on his territory,” fearful that the latter’s popularity might detract
many of his personal followers.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman ignored the haughty attitude of the
Baal Shem Tov’s grandson, and went on with his mission of
mercy. He was even prepared to ignore the malicious rumors
spread by some jealous followers of Rabbi Baruch, designed to
undermine Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s influence. However, on the
insistence of his children and disciples. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
eventually decided to send an encyclical to his followers, point
ing out the true facts about his controversy with Rabbi Baruch.
In it. Rabbi Schneur Zalman stated, with characteristic candor,
“I rebuked him [Rabbi Baruch] in his face for his ingratitude, for
have I not been twice [summoned to appear] in Petersburg for
the sake of his grandfather the Baal Shem Tov? I could have said,
‘Is not his grandson among the living? Let him come and answer
all the charges against him!”’ Rabbi Schneur Zalman then went
on to explain that he dismissed Rabbi Baruch’s objection (“Why
did you come to my province?”) with a twofold answer: “First, it
is written, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’
Secondly, I could not bear the plight and suffering of the vil
lagers who had been driven from their places to the towns, and
are thrown into the streets in the throes of hunger, and are dying
of starvation.” Seeing that Rabbi Baruch remained unmoved and
skeptical. Rabbi Schneur Zalman goes on to say, “I could only
conclude that Rabbi Baruch had accepted the malicious slander
originating from certain Chasidic quarters in Palestine.”'*' Rabbi
Schneur Zalman concludes:
A t first I intended not to reveal the letter to our
209
Chasidim in order to avoid a Chilul Hashem in sight of the

Mitnagdim, and others. Later, however, I changed my
mind. Moreover, I gave instructions to have the said letter
copied and sent to all (uir Chasidim, in order that all
should know that the falsehood was with the other side.
For in the said letter it was alleged that I requested of Rabhi
Baruch his consent to my going to Petersburg, and he said
that whoever goes to Petersburg must don German clothes
and grow a hair lock,“*‫ ־‬whereupon I agreed to do this for
the benefit of the Jewish people. But this is a well known
lie, widely known in our province, for many Oews] travel
from our province to Petersburg and are not obliged to do
all this. Besides, why should 1 need his consent, seeing that
1 have in my possession a document of freedom from his
Imperial Majesty for all my practices?
With this I conclude and wish you shabm (peace) from
the Master of Peace, for “their shadow (defense) is depart
ed from them, and G-d is with us; fear them not,”'*’ etc.
Thus, it would seem that jealousy, more than anything else,
was at the bottom of the coolness that had set in among other
trends of the Chasidic movement towards that of Chabad.
There were, however, also certain important doctrinal differ
ences. Perhaps the most important of these was Chabad’s ten
dency to play down the role of the tzaddik which was so basic
among the Chasidic trends in Polish provinces, where various
dynastic Chasidic groups had multiplied. Here, where the mass
es were on a much lower intellectual level than in Lithuania and
White Russia, the Chasidic leaders placed more emphasis on the
heart than on the mind, and on the simple faith in the Chasidic
leader, or tzaddik, as the intermediary between the Chasid and
his Heavenly Father. These Chasidic leaders believed that intel
lectual inquiry into matters of faith could be more harmful than
beneficial to their followers, as we have already noted in the case
of the opposition to the Tanya voiced by Rabbi Abraham of
Kalisk.‘•‘*
abbi Schneur Zalman’s life was a very busy one; his concerns
R and pursuits were many. He was, and always remained, an
!10
F in al Y ears
assiduous student; he was also a devoted teacher; a dedicated

leader and a personal counsellor of a vast following, and a leader
and defender of Russian Jewry as a whole; he was also a philan
thropist and a benefactor on a vast scale. Yet, with all these
claims on his time and attention, he was also a prolific author.
His major contributions as already noted, were his Shukhan
Aruch in the field of halachah, and his Tanya, or Likutei Amarim
in the field of Kabbala, Jewish ethics, and philosophy. These
were followed by the Siddur (Jewish prayer book), first published
in Shklov, in 1803, in two volumes, arranged in accordance with
Lurianic tradition (Nusach A h ). Rabbi Schneur Zalman was par‫׳‬
ticularly interested in ascertaining the correct recension of the
text. He is said to have used and sifted as many as sixty different
editions and versions of the Prayer Book for this purpose.'*^
Much of his literary work was edited by others and published
posthumously. His published works‘^*’ include Biurei HaZohar
(“Commentaries on the Zohur”), edited by his son and successor.
Rabbi Dov Ber (Kopust, 1816); Torah Or (“Torah-Light”),
Chabad-Chasidic discourses on the first two books of the
Pentateuch and on the Book of Esther, edited by his brother.
Rabbi Yehuda Leib (Kopust, 1837); Likutei Torah (“Torah
Gleanings”), in two volumes, on the remainder of the
Pentateuch and on the Birok of Shir HaShirim (Canticles), edit
ed by his grandson Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch
(Zhitomir, 1888). The headquarters of the Chahad movement in
Brooklyn, NY, is continually editing and publishing Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s literary material which has not been published
hitherto.‘*^
One of the lasting contributions of the founder of Chabad

was in the sphere of sacred music, or more precisely— Chasidic
and liturgical music, known as neginah. Rabbi Schneur Zalman is
the creator of a cadre of neginah with a distinctive character and
temperament of its own, which has come to be known as
Chabad-neginah. It stands in relation to general Chasidic negi‫׳‬
nah as the Chabad philosophical system stands in relation to
general Chasidut. For, while Chasidic melodies in general are for
the most part light and joyful, Chabad melodies are compara‫׳‬
211
tively of slower movement, subtle and meditative, as well as rich

er in nuance and mood. If general Chasidic melody stems, so to
speak, from the heart and appeals to the heart, Chabad melody
has its source in meditation and the inner depths of the soul.
In the Chabad philosophical system of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman, neginah receives considerable attention. He traces it to
the Divine service in the Beit HaMiMash of old, where the
Levites accompanied it by vocal and instrumental music. This,
in turn, he explains as the counterpart of the Heavenly music
with which the angels constantly serve and adulate their
Creator. Indeed, the very existence of rhythm in nature is due to
the fact that there is a Heavenly rhythm which serves as its
supernal source, just as everything else in the material world has
its counterpart and source in the spiritual world. Just as the
human body responds to the rhythmic beat of the heart, so does
the soul respond to the rhythm of sacred melody. The pulse of
the heartbeat itself is but a reflection of the worshipful rhythmic
movements of the angels in their constant swaying to and fro, in
a manner of “advance and retreat,” as described in the Heavenly
vision of Ezekiel (1:14)•“*®
Rabbi Schneur Zalman therefore made neginah part of his
philosophical system, and here, too, we see how harmoniously he
was able to blend the rational with the mystical.
To the soul, as the “lamp of G-d” (Prov. 20:27), neginah is a
natural quality of communion with its Maker. Neginah is superi
or to the other forms of communion— thought and speech.
Words are inevitably limited and limiting, and so are the “letters
of thought,” though to a much lesser degree. It is through negi-
nah— pure melody, without words— that the soul can express its
highest aspiration and come closest to communion with G-d,
Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains. For this reason, most Chabad
melodies are tunes without words. Sound and rhythm, beat and
movement, meter and tempo— all have their place in the ana
lytical exposition of neginah in the Chabad system of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was a gifted composer of Chasidic
neginah. He was also endowed with a fine melodious and awe
inspiring voice.'^^ According to Chabad tradition, Rabbi Schneur
21.
F in a l Y ears
Zalman composed ten nigunim. They are greatly revered by

Chabad followers. These are the “classics” of Chabad neginah.^“
Most famous among them is the so-called “Nigun of Four
Movements.” It is also known as the “Nigun of the Alter Rebbe.”
This nigun is profoundly moving, rising in a crescendo of soulful
outpouring. It is regarded by Chabad Chasidim as highly mean
ingful and expressive, full of mystic symbolism. This nigun is so
hallowed by Chabad Chasidim that they only sing it on special
occasions, and they are careful to sing it with meticulous faith
fulness to detail and nuance. It is sung at the climax of only cer
tain Chasidic celebrations (“Farbrengen”), such as those held on
the final days of the Three Festivals (Pesach, Shavuot and
Succot), as well as on Purim, on the principal Chasidic festivals
of the 19th of Kislev and 12th of TammurJ' at weddings and sim
ilar festive and solemn occasions.
The “Nigun of the Four Movements” is said to correspond to
the “four worlds,” known in Kabbala and Chasidut as Atzilut
(Emanation), Beriah (Cteation), Yetzirah (Formation) and Asiya/t
(Action), and to the four sacred letters of the Tetragrammaton,
from which the “four worlds” emanate, and, finally, is related also
to the four categories of the Divine soul, namely, nefesh, ruach,
neshamah and chayah.'^^
The said nigun has been the subject of interpretation and
exegesis by the successive heads of Chabad in the manner of a
basic Chabad doctrine. It is said to reflect, generally speaking,
four stages in Divine service according to Chabad teaching. The
first movement inspires metastasis and introspection. In other
words, a shift from the mundane atmosphere, clearing the way
for intellectual inquiry into the real purpose and meaning of life.
To put it more simply, disengaging the mind from the ordinary
mundane affairs of the daily life, in otder to engage it in clear and
profound meditation on such questions as “Who am D’ and
“Why am I here?”
The second movement of the nigun is an extension of the
first, in that it inspires a sense of contrition, soon giving way to
fervent hope and aspiration.
The third movement affects a sense of spiritual uplift and
edification, or the outpouring of the soul.
213
The fourth and last movement expresses the ecstatic feeling

of the soul’s illumination as it comes closest to its Source.
Thus, the nigun is said to reflect the basic intellectual
approach in Divine service, which is the comei'Stone in Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s Chabad system.^’
It is assumed with certainty that this nigun was composed by
Rabbi Schneur Zalman when he was under the tutelage and
inspiration of his teacher the Maggid of Miezricz.^‘*
In Chabad literature and lore, neginah in general, Chabad
neginah in particular, and the compositions of the Alter Rebbe
above all, receive a great deal of attention and are given an
important place in the Chasid’s quest for moral and spiritual per
fection. It would take us too far afield to present here an exhaus
tive evaluation of the place of neginah in Chabad. Suffice it to
quote some highlights of thoughts and bans mots on this subject.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman, while still a young man, is reported
to have said on the occasion of a conclave of prominent Torah
scholars: “Speech is the pen of the heart, while melody is the pen
of the soul.’’”
This aphorism has been elaborated in Chasidic literature.
The gist of it will give us an insight into the Chabad concept of
a nigun:
Thought is the vehicle of the intellect, the latter being
expressed in terms of thought; while speech is the vehicle of
thought as well as of emotion, since words express both thought
and feelings. But melody is the vehicle of the transcending pow
ers of desire and will, which are more sublime than the powers of
reason and emotion, as is fully explained in Chabad literature. For
although the rational and emotive powers are the “inner” pow‫׳‬
ers of the soul (in contrast to the powers of speech and action,
which are termed the “outer garments" of the soul), the categories
of desire and will touch upon the very essence of the soul.
A nigun, like speech, has “letters” too, though in a more sub
tie sense. But there is an essential difference between the “let
ters” of neginah and those of speech. The latter constitute a
descent, while the former— an ascent. For the function of the let
ters of speech is to reveal and convey to others subtle thoughts
and feelings in the process of which the abstract is materialized.
214
F in a l Y ears
In the case of the “letters” of neginah the process is reversed:

their function is to elevate the self. Under the influence of a
nigun the person discards, as it were, his outer shell, at any rate
temporarily, becomes absorbed in himself and reaches out to
commune with his very soul in all its purity. Thus neginah has a
cathartic effect, purifying the mind and heart, and elevating the
Chasid to a higher level of Divine worship. Consequently Rabbi
Schneur Zalman assigned to neginah not merely a secondary
role, as an aid to spiritual elevation, but a primary role, as a mode
in spiritual advancement, since neginah is capable of arousing
and stimulating the most latent forces of the soul.
It is related that the Alter Rebbe made use of neginah to win
“converts” to Chasidut. Thus, it is related, on one occasion,
when Rabbi Schneur Zalman confronted a number of Talmudic
scholars in Shklov, who challenged him with an avalanche of
questions, the Alter Rebbe began to sing one of his inspirational
melodies. The effect upon his audience was such that before he
finished his nigun all their questions and doubts were dissipated.^*
On another occasion, when some c)f his seminarians com
plained that they found the Tanya too subtle and profound, he is
said to have advised them to try a Chasidic nigun . . . .”
Rabbi Dov Ber, the son and successor of Rabbi Schneur
Zalman, is quoted as having said, “My saintly father could pene
trate into the innermost recesses of a Chasid’s soul by either a
word of Chasidut or a nigun.
Chabad tradition lists ten major contributions by Rabbi
Schneur Zalman, among them the legacy of the ten nigunim
which he composed. All of them are endowed with the quality of
inspiring teshuvah and devekut.^'^ When singing any of these nigu-
nim, Chabad Chasidim identify themselves with the Alter
Rebbe much in the way they experience spiritual attachment to
him when they study the Tanya or any of his other literary works
and teachings. The Chabad neginah is thus an integral part of
the Chabad heritage.“
215
C h a p t e r X III
T he Last Journey
Ri
abbi Schneur Zalman was not destined to end his life in
peace. In 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia, and the route
.o f the invasion led through White Russia. The Jewish
leader, who had twice been accused of high treason, turned out
to be a most loyal patriot. Although the French conqueror was
hailed in some religious Jewish quarters as the harbinger of a new
era of political and economic freedom. Rabbi Schneur Zalman,
to whom the ultimate criteria were spiritual rather than eco
nomic or political, saw in Napoleon a threat to basic religious
principles and spiritual values.‘
In a strictly confidential letter which Rabbi Schneur Zalman
addressed to his devoted Chasid, Moshe Meisels^ of Vilna, he
writes:
. . . It was revealed to me during the mmaf prayer on
the first day of Rosh Hashanah that if Bonaparte should be
victorious, the Jews would prosper economically and polit
ically, but their hearts would be separated and alienated
from their Father in Heaven. But if our sovereign
Alexander will be victorious, though the Jews would suffer
economically and politically, their hearts will become more
intimately and securely attached to their Father in Heaven.
And this is your sign [confirming the prediction]: In
the coming days your beloved will be taken from you, and
they will begin to conscript some of our Jewish brethren for
military service.
Remember the subject on which we parted in
216
L as t J o ur ne y
Petersburg, in connection with the explanation of [the

verse] “Princes have persecuted me without cause, and
[consequently] my heart feared Your word” (Ps. 119-161).‫י‬
While Napoleon’s star had been rising with meteoric speed,
and his armies swept through the continent of Europe, Chasidic
leaders differed in their opinion of the “Little Conqueror.” Most
of the Chasidic leaders in Poland and Austria welcomed
Napoleon’s advance. The Jews of Poland in particular saw in him
a ray of hope in their dismal situation, which had a long history
of economic oppression and religious persecution. Indeed, after
the Treaty of Tilsit (July, 1807), when new principalities were
carved out at Napoleon’s pleasure in Central and Eastern Europe,
including the Duchy of Warsaw, the Jews were granted equal
rights with all other citizens of these provinces, and they began
to look forward to a new era of economic freedom and opportu
nity. It is not surprising, therefore, that the oppressed Jews were
favorably inclined towards the victoricius emperor of France.
Those Chasidic leaders in Poland who were dubious about the
new Napoleonic era were notably in the minority, and even they
were prepared to accept the inevitable.^
Rabbi Schneur Zalman had nothing but contempt for the
man whose arrogance and lust for power knew no hounds, and
who represented to the Chahad leader the embodiment of the
kelipah itself, the antithesis of humility and holiness.
Moreover, Czar Alexander, from the day of his coronation,
had shown a new spirit of liheralism, as we had occasion to note,
and in fact personally ordered the release of Rabhi Schneur
Zalman from his second arrest. The Chahad leader undoubtedly
felt a sense of personal gratitude and loyalty to Alexander. These
feelings were widely shared also by the Jews of Russia, and result
ed in important aid to the Russian war effort.
The moving spirit behind the genuine Jewish patriotism was
Rabbi Schneur Zalman. He urged his numerous followers to help
the Russian war effort against the invaders in every possible way.
With the aid of his followers behind the enemy lines, some of
whom were employed hy the French Military Command,^ Rabbi
Schneur Zalman was also able to render valuable intelligence
service to the Russian generals at the fn5nt.
217
R abbi Sc h n eu r Zalman
Even as Napoleon’s armies were poised for the invasion of

Russia, Rabbi Schneur Zalman instructed one of his devoted
Chasidim, the above mentioned Moshe Meisels, to be ready to
render intelligence service to Russia’s Military High Command.
Being able to speak and write French, he was to offer his servic
es to the French— in one capacity or another^—■gain their confi
dence, and pass on any information of military value through
confidential Chasidic channels to the Russian High Command.
As the Rebbe had foreseen, the French, after their occupa
tion of Kovno and Vilna, did in fact seek men with knowledge of
Russian and French for various duties. Moshe Meisels then
received a responsible position on the technical staff of the
French High Command. Knowing the good feelings which the
Jews of Poland harbored for the French, whom they welcomed as
liberators, Napoleon had no reason to suspect the jews of Kovno
and Vilna, former Polish provinces, of disloyalty. Moshe Meisels
won the confidence of his employers. He was given a job in the
strategic department, where Russian maps were carefully studied
and prepared for the commanders of the invading troops. He also
assisted in the translation of various documents and proclama'
tions into Lithuanian, Polish and Russian, and vice versa, since
he was well versed in these languages. Thus Moshe Meisels had
access to highly classified material in the French High
Command at the front, which he passed on, at obvious peril, to
the Russians, through trustworthy channels prepared by the
Alter Rebbe.*
These patriotic and very valuable services earned him the
grateful recognition of the Russian generals, and also reached the
attention of Alexander. Eventually Moshe Meisels also became a
“persona grata” at the court of Alexander, a position he used to
good advantage whenever a personal intercession with the Czar
in Jewish interests was required.^
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was convinced of the ultimate deba
cle of Napoleon’s armies, and predicted that Napoleon’s downfall
would be brought about by his own compatriots.®
When the French armies approached Liadi, the Russian gen
erals advised Rabbi Schneur Zalman to flee. In August (1812)
Rabbi Schneur Zalman hastily left Liadi, leaving everything
L as t J o ur ne y
behind, and fled with his family towards Smolensk. N o sooner

did the refugees reach Smolensk than they had to continue their
flight in the face of the advancing invader. For some five months
Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his family suffered the hardships and
perils of the road and of an unusually inclement winter, until
they reached a village in the district of Kursk. Here the aged
Rabbi succumbed to a severe illness which he contracted in the
final stages of the harrowing journey, and passed away at the age
of sixty-eight. Chasidic tradition has taken note of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s life-span, pointing out that sixty-eight is the
numerical equivalent of the Hebrew word chayyim (“life”).^
raditions and records preserved in the family of Rabbi

T Schneur Zalman provide interesting details in connection
with Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s last and fateful journey.
From an account by Rabbi Nachum, the son of Rabbi Dov
Ber, and grandson of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, relating his per
sonal experiences, we learn the following details:
It was on Friday (the weekly sidrah being Re’eh), 29th of
Meruxchem Av, the day before Rosh Chodesh Elul (5572/1812)
that the Alter Rebbe fled from Liadi on the advice of the gener
als commanding the Russian armies in that area. Sixty wagoas
were put at his disposal, but tbey were not enough, and many had
to walk on foot. A number of armed troops were assigned to
accompany and protect the caravan. In view of the rapid
advance of the French army, the generals suggested that the best
route for the flight would be through the town of Bayev. But the
Alter Rebbe decided to head for Krasna, urging the caravan to
make the utmost haste, in order to cross the river Dnieper at the
earliest possible time.
After covering a distance of about two miles, the Alter
Rebbe suddenly requested the accompanying troops to let him
have one light carriage with a team of good horses. He got into
the carriage with two companions and, accompanied by two
armed guards who acted as drivers, hastened back to Liozna.
Arriving at his deserted house, he ordered his men to search the
house carefully to make sure that nothing whatever, however
trivial, had been overlooked. The only things found were a pair
219
of worn out slippers, a rolling pin and a sieve, which had been
left in the attic. He ordered these to be taken along, and to set
the house on fire before the enemy arrived, first removing the
sacred Torah scrolls from the adjacent synagogue. Then he
blessed those of the townspeople that remained in the town, and
speedily departed again.
No sooner had he left the tciwn on the road leading to the
Dnieper than the avant'Coureur of Naptrlcon’s army reached the
town from the opposite end. Presently, Napoleon himself with
his entourage entered the town t>n their galloping steeds.
Napoleon inquired after the house of the Alter Rebbe, hut when
he reached it, he found it ablaze, the fire burning beyond control.
Napoleon wished to have something which belonged to the
Alter Rebbe and offered a rich reward to anyone who could bring
him anything that belonged to the Alter Rebbe or his household.
But nothing was there to be brought to him.
In the meantime, the Alter Rebbe reached and crossed the
Dnieper and soon overtook his caravan. They continued the
journey in all haste until about half an htrur before sunset, when
they reached a village. There they remained the entire Shabbat.
At the termination of the Shabbat, they resumed their journey,
travelling right through the night. The folkrwing day, the second
of Elul, they reached Krasna and rested there.
The following Friday (sidrah of Shoftim), 6th of Elul, upon
receipt of news of further French advancement, the flight was
resumed. The wagon in which the Alter Rebhe traveled was the
third in the caravan. At the head was the wagon in which Rabbi
Nachum was traveling, together with two armed soldiers.
Whenever the caravan reached a crossroads. Rabbi Nachum
would halt and turn to his grandfather for directicrns. In most
cases the Alter Rebbe would get out of his carriage and walk up
to the crossroads. There he wiruld lean on his walking staff,
engrossed in contemplation, and coming our of the reverie, he
would point to the way and give precise instructions as to the
direction and road to folkrw.
On one occasion, after receiving such instructions. Rabbi
Nachum, leading the caravan, rook a wrong turn. Serme ten
miles later, the Alter Rebhe enquired if they had not passed a
L a s t J ou r n e y
certain village on the way. Thereupon Rabbi Nachum realized

his error and in great distress informed his grandfather of it. The
Alter Rebbe sighed deeply, and remarked: “Good it is when the
grandson follows the road chosen by his grandfather, and the
reverse is the result when the grandfather is compelled to follow
the road chosen by the grandson.”
A ll the Chasidim accompanying the Alter Rebbe knew that
he had expressed the fervent hope, “May the Almighty have
mercy and enable us to reach the district of Poltava before Rosh
Hashanah.” Rabbi Nachum’s error resulted in a great deal of
added delays and troubles and perhaps was even the cause of the
fatal illness which the Alter Rebbe contracted on the way. Rabbi
Nachum never forgave himself for his error and suffered remorse
all his life.'‫״‬
According to a further account. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was
very reluctant to leave Liadi for various reasons, not the least of
them in order not to create any panic among the Jews of White
Russia. That is why he waited until the very last moment, when
he received word that Napoleon had crossed Borodino and
advanced some thirty miles in one day. The Russian strategy was
to harass the invaders rather than engage their huge forces in a
decisive battle. So the main Russian armies fell back step by step,
while they laid waste the country as they retreated. The rapid
French advance compelled the Alter Rebbe to flee in great haste.
The Rebbe took with him all the members of his family who
lived with him, numbering some thirty persons. N ot included in
the group were Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s youngest son Rabbi
Moshe, who was living with his father-in-law in the city of Ulla,
and his brother Rabbi Yehuda Leib who was then in Yanowitz, in
the district of Vitebsk. About ten of his closest Chasidim accom
panied the Rebbe on his flight.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman had to abandon all his possessions,
being able to take but a few light chattels with him. It has been
related also that in the excitement of the hasty flight, one of
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s grandchildren, a two-year old boy, was
lost. Fortunately they had not gone very far. A search all the way
back to the town discovered the missing boy by the wayside cry
ing." The flight was then resumed.
221
R abbi S c: hnf . ur Z a l m a n
According to this tradition the French, upon entering Liadi,

and finding his house in flames, were so disappointed and
angered that they burnt down also the Rebbe’s synagogue.
As already mentioned, Rabbi Schneur Zalman and his fami
ly and accompanying Chasidim, some of them with families of
their own, spent nearly five months in their flight from the path
of the invading French armies. On the 8th day of Tevet, in the
midst of a severe winter, the caravan finally reached the village
of Piena.
During all this long and arduous journey Rahbi Schneur
Zalman kept in touch with the situation of Russian Jewry caught
in the holocaust of the gigantic Franco-Russian war. Fie received
detailed information on the terrible plight of his brethren in
White Russia, the main invasion route of the enemy. The
retreating Russian armies, using the scorched earth policy in
order to deprive the enemy of vitally needed supplies, exacted a
tremendous sacrifice from its own people. At the same time, the
invading armies plundered everything they could lay their hands
on. Starvatictn and ruination were the order of the day, and the
Rebhe’s heart went out to his suffering brethren, who were the
most hard'hit victims of the invasion. Rabbi Schneur Zalman
was also greatly distressed by the reports he received from the
cities of Vitebsk, Kovno and Vilna, where there was a great deal
of fraternization with the occupational troops, and the standards
of morality and decency sank to a low ebb.
Thete was one bright laote during this painful journey, as
related hy Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s grandson, Rabbi Menachem
Mendel, the famed “Tzemach Tzedek.” On the termination of
Shabbat (Sidrah Vayyetze), 10th of Kislev, when they were in the
village of Zemievka, in the district of Tambov, the Rebbe pre
dieted that during the following week Napoleon would suffer a
debacle at Moscow, and his fate, which had been sealed on the
previous Rosh Hashanah, would actually come to pass soon.
On the following day, 11 th of Kislev, they left the village of
Zemievka and, traveling from village to village, they came to the
village of Yeseyevka on Wednesday. The following day, being the
15th of Kislev, the Rebbe observed the annual fast of the Chevrah
Kadisha, being a lifelong member of that society. After the
‫דלל‬
L as t J o ur ne y
evening service and breaking his fast, the Rebbe invited his fob
lowers to drink “L’Chayim” in celebration of Napoleon’s miser'
able retreat from Moscow that same day. His joy at the defeat of
the “Little Corporal,” whom he considered the arch-enemy of
the Jewish faith, was marred, however, by the painful thoughts of
the renewed suffering of his brethren. For the Rebbe knew that
the retreating, starved, freezing and bedraggled remnants of the
once proud French army would plunder the vestiges of the Jewish
settlements in their path. The thought of the untold new mis-
cries awaiting his brethren sent tears streaming down his face.
Arriving in Piena on the 8th of Tevet, Rabbi Schneur
Zalman decided to stay there for a rest. The village of Piena was
a large one, with fairly large houses which were half empty, inas
much as most of the male population had been mobilized into
the Russian army. The villagers were friendly and offered the dis
tinguished but destitute refugees relatively comfortable quarters
and firewood without charge.
Without losing any time, the Alter Rebbe embarked upon a
relief campaign for the Jewish victims of the war. He said that he
would take up residence for the duration of this campaign in
Little Russia. Faced with the problem of Jewish refugees from the
stricken areas, and in order not to create a shortage in housing
and food, the Rebbe planned to have them divided into three
groups, to be settled in three places, namely the towns of
Hadiacz, Krementchug and Romnia.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman appointed three delegations in order
to implement his plan. One delegation, headed by his older son
Rabbi Dov Ber, was sent to the said towns for the purpose of
making the necessary arrangements to prepare housing for the
refugees. A second delegation, headed by his son Rabbi Chaim
Abraham, was dispatched to the districts of Poltava and Cherson
to raise funds for the rehabilitation of the Jews of White Russia.
A third delegation, headed by the prominent Chasid, Pinchas
Schick of Shklov, was sent to Vitebsk to supervise the distribu
tion of the relief and to arrange the most practical ways of reha
bilitating the impoverished war victims, so that they could get
onto their own feet.
For ten days following his arrival in Piena, Rabbi Schneur
223
Zalman worked feverishly on his plans and projects to alleviate

the plight of his brethren. Then, on Monday, 18th of Tevet, he
fell ill. His condition became steadily worse from day to day. At
the termination t)f the following Shabhat (Sidrah Shmoc), Rabbi
Schneur Zalman recited the Evening Prayer and the Havdalah
with complete lucidity of mind‫ ^׳‬then he requested pen and
paper and composed the following cryptic letter:
The truly humble soul, at its root— its task is to prac
tice Torah, for its [the soul’s] own ]benefit] and for [the ben
efit of[ others, through material deeds of loving kindness,
friendliness and good counsel from a distance, [and] in all
family matters. Though the vast majority [of such acts] are
[concerned with] false matters, it is impossible to practice
true kindness otherwise, for the only Truth is the Torah,
and Truth said “[man] should not be created’’ [for he is full
of falsehoods], etc., while Kindness said, “Let him be creat
ed,” for he is full of loving kindnesses. And Truth was
thrown to the ground, and the world was created in loving
kindness without the truth.'’
In early generations, when the essence of Divine serv
ice was Torah, the quality of Kindness was mostly included
in that of Truth, that is, m efforts to induce others [ter do
good deeds], in enforcing Tzedakah contributions,'‫*־‬etc., by
authority of the Torah of Truth [taught] by the Sages.
However in [these days of] the “footsteps” (imminent
arrival) of Moshiach, when the Falling Tabernacle of David
has fallen to the ground, in the realm (T Asiyah and the
essence of ]Divine] service is in a category no higher than
“footsteps,” without the Torah of Truth, the Mishnayot and
Beraytot, the “wings” and “thighs”— most of the kindness is
not in accord with Torah of Truth in benevolent endeavor,
but only through the favor and good will of the doer, which
are far from genuine, and the end of the deed is rooted in
the thought preceding it. But even if there be no other way
and it is a lowly one, man’s consolation is to accept it with
love, or to search his deeds and return unto G ‫׳‬d in his dis^
tress, and then he shall have relief.
A few minutes after he penned this profoundly mystical mes-
224
L as t J o ur ne y
sage, the Alter Rebbe was finally granted relief from his weary
sojourn on earth, and he returned his soul to his Maker.
His body was taken to the town of Hadiacz, in the district of
Poltava, where he was laid to rest. A tomb was erected over his
grave, and it has ever since attracted numerous pilgrims who
come to pray at his grave, especially on the anniversary of his
demise (24th of Tevet).
The Hebrew inscription on his tombstone reads as follows:
Here is concealed the Holy Ark / The great and
divine Rav, pious and humble / Holy and Pure, diadem of
Ariel / Crown of the Truth, wellspring of wisdom / He
practiced the righteousness of the Lord and His judgments
with Israel / And many did he turn back from sin / Our
master and teacher Schneur Zalman, the son of Baruch,
his soul rest in Eden / Longing for holiness, his soul
returned to the Lord / On the first day of the week, 24th
of Tevet / In the year 5573 of Creation.'^
ome details and insights relating to Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s

S last days are provided in a long letter written by his son and
successor. Rabbi Dov Ber Schneuri (known as the “Mitteler
Rebbe”) to Moshe Meisels. It reads, with a few abbreviations, as
follows:
To my life-long beloved friend, whom I cherish like my
own soul, a man of loyal spirit and great wisdom, etc.
I shall not conceal from my intimate friend all that has
happened to us in the bygone year, in the time of the holo
caust: the great miracles and wonders, and awesome Divine
signs which, as we have witnessed, happened to the Light
of Israel, our father of blessed memory, may I he an atone
ment for his grave.'’ N ot a single word nor half a word that
issued from his holy mouth failed; in the manner of true
prophecy; as we now clearly see, for unto all Jews there is
light, joy and gladness, etc. [at the defeat of Napoleon].
The beginning of the matter was as follows:
As soon as the enemy, the notorious oppressor and
wholesale murderer, entered the borders of Poland, into
225
R abb i S c h n e u r Z a l m a n
Kovno and Vilna, ere., [my father] began to deliberate with

us about fleeing into the interior of Russia, and no other
place. He said that if [Napoleon] will not wax too arrogant
and act foolishly, it is possible that he will fortify himself
and stay in Poland (hut G-d frustrated his mind, and this
was the root of his downfall . . . ). At any rate, it is a great
distress for the Jews, tor not one will remain [steadfast] in
his Judaism, nor retain his possessions. “1 hate him with
complete hatred” [my father said], “for he is Satan who
opposes the good with every manner of evil; he is the force
of the kelipah and stern judgment, the opposite of loving
kindness and goodness, indeed death and evil. . . . But 1 am
assured that he will not last, as it is written, ‘Evil kills the
wicked,’ and ‘the kindness of G-d [persists] all day,’ and
chesed (Kindness) prevails over din (Judgment). . . .” He
said explicitly that . . . the war between chesed and gevurah
is like that of water and fire, where water prevails. . . . The
two essential aspects of the enemy are, first, his petulance
and callousness, destroying countless lives without any
feeling whatsoever, in his quest for victory at all costs, even
to self-destruction; secondly, his arrogance and haughti
ness, to claim all credit for his might and power and his
unique military sagacity and prowess to conduct warfare . . .
Concerning such it is said. The man who will not put his
strength and trust in G-d, G-d will bring him down to the
nadir of degradation, in order to show that G-d is He who
gives strength and valor, etc. . . . Indeed it has been clear
ly shown that his [Napoleon’s] dow'nfall was due to his
pride and arrogance. . . .
[Father] said TehilUm every day, praying w‫׳‬ith heart and
soul that G-d may increa.se His kindness and expel the evil.
When [the enemy] approached Boris<>v on the way to
Minsk, [my father] said there seemed no way [to halt his
advance], and he sent frequent messengers to consult with
[General] Tolotchin, and so forth, as 1 will relate to you in
detail personally. At the request of the latter’s superior, he
conveyed everything to Vitebsk; and all his efforts to
arrange for the gathering of intelligence were done with all
V6
L as t J o ur ne y
his heart and soul. But subsequently, be foresaw that the

enemy will extend his invasion deep into Russia, and
because of his hatred for the enemy he resolved to flee, say
ing he would rather choose death than life under him, so as
not to see the evil that would befall his people.
It is impossible to describe in writing the great haste of
the flight, though he was old and very weak, through the
winter cold and prostration, much beyond his strength,
with the infants of his four families. But he absolutely did
not wish to remain even for one day under the reign and
servitude of the enemy.
We [our family] fled in two wagons crowded with chil
dren and adults, twenty-eight souls, with only the small
chattels we could take, while all the heavy household
things and stores of grain and wood, and domestic animals,
etc., in the value of some two thousand rubles had to be left
behind. All this was with the knowledge of General
Elianov stationed at Liadi— if he is in your proximity give
him my regards, for he knows us, having stayed in our
house for a whole week, and he saw how deeply my father
of saintly memory was affected, which is impossible to
describe in writing; also of his superior. General Nebrovsky,
who was stationed in Krasna at the beginning of the war;
as explained at length in our petition to his Imperial
Majesty through Count Tolstoy, Governor of Mohilev.
And now, my beloved friend, who is like a brother to
me, I will relate to you what we have seen of G-d’s wonders
on our way from Liadi to the time of his demise in the vil
lage of Piena, near Kursk.
When we learned full well of the conduct of the enemy
Marshall Davnich (may his name be blotted out) in Shklov
and Dubrovna, [Father] did not wish to tarry even for a
moment, and we traveled to Krasna to be with Generals
Elianov and Nebrovsky. They gave us good passports.
On Friday before Rosh Chodesh Elul, an entire army of
the enemy, together with the army of Vitebsk, some 40,000
men in all, suddenly approached Krasna, while our forces
numbered no more than eight thousand. At this time
227
R ai ^bi S c h n e u r Z a l m a n
General Nebrovsky, who was under the command of

Marshall Count Burtinka, was stationed at Smolensk with
seventy thousand ttren. The enemy avoided our larger
force, proceeding via Liadi and Krasna. When the enemy
reached Krasna about noontime on that Friday, a hue and
cry broke out in our midst. We did not know what to do,
whether to escape to the woods, etc. Our aged mother, and
all the women and children, hurst into wailing, something
indescribable. Then Father, of saintly memory, sternly
rebuked them and quieted them, saying we would not flee
to the woods, but would crrntinue our journey in horse‫׳‬
drawn wagons. Presently the General came personally and
urged us to flee in all haste to Smolensk, since the enemy
had overwhelming numbers and nearly three hundred can'
non. We fled at once, passing through our eight‫׳‬thousand
troops stationed outside the city in the direction of
Smolensk. They had no more than eighteen cannon.
No sooner had we passed, than the enemy engaged our
force. For three hours, while we were making our escape,
we heard the sound of heavy artillery. We came to within
thirteen versts of Smolensk. The road led through woods,
where we spent all that night. It is impossible to relate to
you in detail the miracles we experienced. At dawn the fob
lowing morning we entered Smolensk. Neither French nor
our troops were to be seen in the city. N o one seemed to
know anything about the situation, and we were asked for
information. We conveyed it to the Count. Quickly a large
force was gathered by midday, about 30,000 men and 120
cannon. We were unable to leave the city, and we were ter‫׳‬
ribly distressed at what seemed to be the end for us.
Towards evening, however, we left by the street leading to
the Moscow road. My father, of saintly memoiA‫׳‬, ordered us
to continue our journey through the Shahbat, saying it was
not only permissible but a mitzvah to do so to save ourselves
from those who would hurt us.
On Sunday we escaped together with the Governor of
the City, Tolstoy, to Vyazma. On Wednesday we fled to
Mazaisk. From Mazaisk we traveled by a round-about way.
L as t J our ne y
for father was familiar with the topography and in his

inspired discernment knew that the enemy would make a
detour.. . .
Last Rosh Hashanah we spent in Tritza Zerka, and
about that time the battle at Mazaisk took place. He called
me in and said, “I am much grieved, my son, about the bat-
tie of Mazaisk raging these days. May G-d grant that it turn
out well, for the enemy is getting the upper hand, and I
think he will take Moscow.” He wept bitterly, and I wept
too, and left.
On the day of Rosh Hashanah he called us in and told
us pleasantly and consolingly, “Today 1 saw in prayer that
there has been a change for the better, and that ours have
won the war. And although the enemy will take Moscow,
he will have no respite. Relief and deliverance will arise for
us . . . so it was inscribed Above. . .
Then we ate and drank in good spirits, and we rejoiced
with gladness of heart.
We traveled on to the town of Yura, near Vladimir,
some seventy versts.
On ShahbatShuvah before the Musa/ prayer, he called
me and my son-in-law Rabbi Mendel. He burst into tears
which came streaming down his cheeks and he cried, “Woe
and alas! The whole of White Russia will be devastated by
the retreating enemy. It is the balance of the Chmielnicki
calamity, for he had not been in Little Russia and
Lithuania, but rather in Wolhynia and the Ukraine. There
will be mortal terror and ravages...
1 said to him, “But, father, the enemy has not taken
Moscow as yet, and if he does, perhaps he will go back in
another direction?” To this he replied, “He will certainly
take Moscow, and soon, for although he is already exhaust
ed, and is like a corpse, his hard-won victory will . . . lead
him on to Moscow. But immediately thereafter he will suf
fer a fall of incomparable humiliation, for he will not last
there, and will turn back precisely by way of White Russia
and not by way of Little Russia. Mark my word.” And so it
was.
229
R abbi S c h n b u r Za l m a n
On the day before Yom Kippur we arrived in Vladimir.

[We learned that] the enemy had taken Moscow on the
Monday before Yom Kippur, and on the day before Yom
Kippur the entire Senate, fleeing [from Moscow], passed
through Vladimir.
When I saw their rushing carriages I ran to Father,
heartbroken, and with tears in my eyes. I called him to the
window, saying, “See, Father, the flight of the Senate.
What about your promise that the enemy will suffer a deba
cle upon taking Moscow.^”
Fie came up to me, embraced me, and said these words
stemming from the depth of his heart: “You see that I am
now wearing tefillin, and I will not deceive you. I assure you
on my very life that the enemy will not go beyond Moscow,
but will soon turn back. He will not turn to Petersburg, but
his aim will be to return home, and to find provisions en
route through White Russia. But they [the Russians] will
not let him, and his debacle will come soon, believe me.”
. . . We traveled to the town of Assi, where we rested
securely on the banks of the river Oka. Thence we tra
versed the districts of Razan and Tambov and the Ural,
until we reached Kui'sk, a distance of some 1200 ‫׳‬uersts. It
was the middle of Kislev, at the height of the winter cold.
[We were suffering] in great distress, pains of hunger and
cold, living on but coarse bread and water, and sheltering
in the smoke-filled huts of the peasants, and so forth.
There is no worse exile than that. And in all the villages
we were met with hostility, insults and curses. But by G-d’s
grace, we fcrund favor in the eyes of the landlords, and they
let no evil befall us, for we traveled in sixty wagons, etc.
At Kursk a runner came with a message from Tolstoy to
the local Governor tci the effect that the enemy was chased
for four days, from Kaluga to Vyazma. We felt very happy
and thanked G-d for the good and kindness, and our joy
was boundless. My wife had given birth to a son at the gates
of Kursk. I arranged the Brit (circumcision) with a feast of
white millet and good radishes, and with plenty of good
liquor.
7 BO
L\ st J our ne y
Thence we traveled to the village of Plena. On the

19th of Kislev we received news that the enemy suffered a
crushing defeat at Krasna, and he is being chased like a
dog. Our joy was sustained, for everything came true; not a
thing or half a thing failed.
Alas, our peace was shattered, for just as our spirits had
recovered, the crown of our head was taken from us. For,
because of his deep-felt and sustained bitterness, his gall
became infected, etc. He also contracted a severe cold
because of his old age and weakness. For five days he lay ill
until he succumbed on the night of the termination of
Shabbat, Sidrah Shemot, 24th of Tevet past. I was away, for
he had sent me to Krementchug to find a dwelling.
Woe unto our loss! Israel’s glory has departed. May his
merits stand us in good stead always. . . .
After his demise, he was taken over eighty versts to the
town of Hadiacz, in the district of Poltava, located some
twenty versts from this city, at the river Psal. The cemetery
is located there in a small wood, near the said river, some
two versts from the town.
I told my friend Ziskind of Vidz, your brother-in-law,
what was to be done in this matter with the aid of Count
Lubanov, and others. . . . We built a nice wooden dome
[over the grave], also a large house [nearby], and have pre
pared bricks for a permanent structure in his honor, as in
the case of ancestral tzaddikim, where people came to pray
in times of distress, for “tzaddikim are greater in their death
[than in their lifetime].” Last Erev Rosh Hashanah sixty
Jews from Romen and Krementchug, etc., prayed there and
lit many lamps. A person (guard) is always there. . . .
The letter goes on to urge Moshe Meisels to follow in his
Rebbe’s footsteps, including devoted loyalty to the Russian
Emperor. It expresses the fervent hope that he would use his
good standing with the Emperor to intercede in behalf of Russian
Jewry, especially as the Emperor would recognize the valuable
patriotic services which they had rendered during the war.
Rabbi Dov Ber makes a point of emphasizing the coinci
dence of Napoleon’s final retreat from Kovno to the border of
231
R abbi S c h n e u r Z alk4an
Prussia with his father’s day of death on the 24th of Tevet, “for to
his last breath, he never ceased praying to G-d [for Napoleon’s
complete defeat and expulsion]. But his [Napoleon’s] final end
will come when his own compatriots will rebel against him, as
the Alter Rebbe stated frequently.’’
Rabbi Dov Ber further referred to many confidential and
wondrous things which he had heard from his late father at the
time of the battle at Mazaisk regarding the fate of Moscow, and
the British. These he (Rabbi Dov Ber) ccmveyed to Meisels oral-•
ly through his brother'in-law Ziskind of Vidz, “for such awesome
and wonderful matters are not to be written down, and not to be
revealed, except to individual men of trust and truth.’’“'’
hus came to an end the eventful and productive life of

T Rabbi Schneur Zalman. It was a life sadly harassed to the
end by events and circumstances beyond his control, but never
lacking in inner peace and harmony.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman was a man of many colorful facets, all
harmoniously complementing each other. The rationalist and
mystic, the Kabbalist and Talmudist, the saint and the man of
the world, the humble worshipper and the sagacious leader— all
were harmoniously blended together into the unique personality
of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, and each coming forcefully to the fore
as the occasion demanded. He was known to attain the loftiest
heights of mystical communion, so that in moments of ecstasy
during prayer he could batter his knuckles against the wall to the
point of bleeding (his disciples eventually affixed a soft pad on
the wall), yet he would hear the cry of a child next door and
interrupt his meditation or study to comfort it. Knowing as he
did the consuming bliss of soulful devotion, he was heard to
exclaim, “I do not want Your Paradise, I do not want Your
World'tO'Come; I want only You, You alone!’’“’ Yet he could tear
himself away from his supernal state in order to find time to
receive and console a stricken widow, or help a poor innkeeper
thrown out into the road for lack of rent. He was a humble and
peace-loving man, humble enough to disclaim any originality for
his philosophic .system, and conciliatory towards his adversaries.
Yet he was indomitable and ready to suffer martyrdtrm fttr his
232
L as t J o u r n e y
ideals and convictions.

These characteristics were in Rabbi Schneur Zalman more
chan natural traits of a noble character. They were the embodi
ment of his philosophic system, of which the “supremacy of spir
it over matter” was a basic principle. He was not an abstract
philosopher or moralist whose mind floated in a world of pure
speculation; he truly practiced what he preached. He lived with
his people and for his people, and this, perhaps more than any
thing else, accounts for the tremendous following which he had
acquired in his lifetime.
The Chabad ideology and way of life which Rabbi Schneur
Zalman introduced nearly two centuries ago, has well withstood
the test of time. The Chabad system has not been shaken by all
the transilience which characterizes the last two centuries of the
history of mankind at large, and of the Jewish people in particu
lar. Chabad today is as vigorous and dynamic a force in Jewish
life as it ever was.
233
N otes
N otes
I n t r o d u c t io n
1. The term Chasid (literally “benevolent”) is to be found in the
Bible (Deut. 33:8; I Sam. 2:9; II Sam. 22:26; jer. 3:12, et al). In the
Psalms, where the term is found frequently, it is generally used in the
sense of saintliness and piety. In this sense it came down to rabbinic lit
erature. (Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, the great opponent of the Chasidic
movement, was given the title “Chasid") In Talmudic literature the
title is associated with one who goes beyond the call of duty in the per
formance of his religious and social obligations. According to Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s interpretation, based on Tosafot, Niddah 17a, the
term implied self-sacrifice. Cf. Likutei Diburim by Rabbi Yosef Y.
Schneersohn, published by Kehot Publication Society (Brooklyn, NY,
1957), Vol. l,p. 135.
As a characterization of a specific group of religious devotees, the
term goes back to the so-called Second Commonwealth, when the
name Chasidim, or Chasideans, was given to the pious Jews who resis
ted Hellenization, and suffered martyrdom (I Macc. 1:59-68; 7:12-14; II
Macc. 6:9-11.). Cf- Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the
Jews, JPS (Philadelphia, 1959), pp. 196 ff; S. W. Baron, A Social and
Religious History of the Jews, JPS (Philadelphia, 1952), Vol. I, p. 237.
In Chabad the term Chasid has an essentially mystical connotation,
based on the Zoharitic definition, “Who is a Chasid? He who deals
benevolently with his Maker” (Zohar, Vilna, 1937 [“Rom” ed.] II. 114b;
111. 222b, 281a; Tikunei Zohar, Introduction) Cf. Tanya, end of chap. 10.
It is primarily in the light of this definition that the followers of the
Baal Shem Tov derived their name Chasidim. Cf. Likutei Diburim,
op.cit., Vol. Ill, p. 1029.
2. Chabad is a term derived from the initial letters of the three
Hebrew words, chochmah (“wisdom”), binah (“understanding”) and da’at
(“knowledge”)-the first three of the Ten Sefirot. These terms will be
defined later. Suffice it here to say that Chabad represents the “intel
lectual” school of Chasidut, founded by Rabbi Schneur Zalman.
237
R ab b i ScHNELfR Z a l m a n
3. We can pinpoint the exact year when it began to function as a

movement. The Hebrew date of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov’s birthday
was 18th of Elul, 5458 (known in Chasidic lore as the year of ‫ נח” ת‬-
delight), corresponding to September, 1698. According to Chasidic
tradition, the Baal Shem Tov “revealed” himself, i.e., emerged as leader
of the new movement, on his 36th birthday, namely, in 1734•
4. Evreyskaia enciklopedia, ed. Dr. L. Katzenelson, Petersburg, Vol.
XV, p. 561.
5. Cf S. A. Horodetzky, Shelosh Meat Shanah shel Yahadut Folin (Tel
Aviv, 1946), pp. 97ff.
6. Aaron Marcus, HaChasidut. trans. M. Schonfeld (Tel Aviv, 1953),
p. 36.
7. Cf. Solomon Zeitlin, “The Am Haarez” in JQR, New Series, Vol.
23, No. 1 (1932), pp. 4561‫׳‬. S. W. Baron, SRHJ, Vol. I, pp. 278, 280;
II pp. 242, 272, 282, 286.
8. S.W. Baron SRHJ, Vol. II, pp. 120 ff.
9. S.W. Baron SRHJ, Vol. 1. p. 278.
10. For a description of yeshiva education in Eastern Europe in the
first half of the 17th century see Yeven Metzulah (Venice, 1653) by
Rabbi Nathan Hannover, a contemporary.
11. The name “Adam,” quite unusual among Jews, has raised doubts
as to the historicity of Adam Baal Shem. The most prevalent opinion
among scholars is that this is a purely legendary figure. The present
writer, however, questions the validity of this conclusion on several
grounds. Firstly, argumentum a silentio is generally considered a weak
argument. Secondly, if it were fictitious, and invented for a particular
motive, a more credible name would have been chosen. Thirdly, the
tradition about Adam Baal Shem had an early acceptance, being cur
rent already among the Baal Shem Tov’s disciples.
It has been suggested that “Adam” might be an abbreviation of
Abraham David Moshe. This view, too, may be disputed on the ground
that if “Adam” were an abbreviation, the full name would have been
mentioned occasionally in the Chasidic literature.
At any rate, the authenticity of his existence and name cannot be
disputed, since it has been conveyed by the heads of Chabad from gen
eration to generation, without reservation.
12. About the activities of the Ba'alei Shem see Memoirs of Rabbi
Yosef Y. Schneersohn, translated and edited by Nissan Mindel, pub
lished by Otzar HaChasidim (Brooklyn, NY., Vol. I [3rd ed.], 1956; Vol.
II, 1960). Alphabetical Index at end of Vol. II. The Memoirs were orig‫״‬
inally edited in Yiddish by David L. Meckler and published in the
Jewish daily Der Morgen Journal.
238
N o t e s : Int roduc ti on
The title “Memoirs” is used in this case in a broad sense, as the mate
rial comprises oral and recorded traditions relating to the Chasidic and
Chabad movements, mostly transmitted methodically from father to
son (a practice instituted by Rabbi Schneur Zalman, the progenitor of
the Chabad'Lubavitch dynasty), as well as material from other sources.
Some of the material is not free from embellishment insofar as style and
form are concerned, but basically it is an authentic historical source,
which throws considerable light on the origins of the movement and
contemporary life.
13. Memoirs, op. cit., Vol. II, p. xi.
14• Likutei Diburim, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 166.
15. Pantheistic though it sounds, it must not be understood in any
sense of Spinozian pantheism, as will be explained in due course.
16. Beginning of Sha’ar HaYichud VehaEmunah (Part II of Tanya).
17. Exod. 3:2.
18. Cf. The Commandments, by Nissan Mindel, published by Kehot
Publication Society (Brooklyn, NY, 1956 [3rd ed.]), p. 46. Kuntres
Cfiicago, Otzar HaChasidim (Brooklyn, NY, 1944), pp• 2224‫׳‬.
19. Mai. 3:12.
20. Hayom Yom, ed. Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, Kehot
Publication Society (Brooklyn. NY, 1957 [3rd ed.]), p. 54•
21. A reference to Ps. 90:10.
22. Likutei Diburim, op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 1126.
23. Deut. 28:47; Ps. 100:2.
24. Prof. B. Dinur in “Reshitah shel HaChasidut Visodoteha
HaSozialiyim VehaMeshichiyim,” Zion, Vol. VIII (Jerusalem, 1942'43),
esp. chs. 12-15, and Zion Vol. XX (1945-55), p. 80, expressed the opin
ion that the Baal Shem did have Messianic aspirations. However, see
G. Scholem’s critique of Dinur’s views in “Demuto HaHistorit shel
HaBesht,” Molad. Vol. XVIII (Jerusalem, August-September, 1960), pp.
335-356.
25. Likutei Diburim, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 164; Vol. II, pp. 572, 618.
26. For a partial list of source books containing the teachings of the
Baal Shem see Kuntre.s Torat HaChasidut, by Rabbi Yosef Y.
Schneersohn, Otzar HaChasidim Lubavitz (Brooklyn, NY, 1957), pp.
25.
27. Likutei Diburim, op. cit., Vol. IV. p. 1320.
28. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 522.
29. While the first Haskalah polemics against the Chasidic move
ment began much earlier (e.g., Mirkevet HaMishneh, by Solomon
Helma, 1751; Nezed HaDema, by Israel of Zamosc, 1773; Toldot
Chayyai, by Solomon Maimon, 1792), the real literary campaign was
239
launched by the Maskilim of Galicia during the years 1815-1840. Cf.

Shmuel Verses’ article, “HaChasidut be’sifrut Hahaskalah,” Molad, op.
cit., pp. 379-391. In Lithuania and Russia the first impact of the
Haskalah came even somewhat later with the publication of Isaac Ber
Lebensohn’s Te’ndah b'Yisrael (Vilna, 1828). The influence of the secu
larists on the Jewish community was hardly felt before 1840; cf. I.
Levitas, Jewish Community in Russia 1772-1844, Columbia University
Press (New York, 1943), p. 80. On the struggle between Chabad and
Haskalah, see Admur HaTzemach Tzedek u’Tenuas HaHaskalah, KPS
(Brooklyn, NY 1957 [2nd ed.j). At any rate, the limit of our present
review is 1813, the year of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s demise. About
Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s encounter with the Haskalah see chap. VIII.
30. Kuntres Torat HaChasidut, op. cit., p. 25, n. 1.
C h a p t e r O n e / B ir t h and C h ild h o o d
1. Boruchovitch (“son of Boruch”) was Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s sur
name in official Russian documents. His son and successor. Rabbi Dov
Ber, adopted the family name Schneuri. Succeeding generations in line
of succession adopted the name of Schneersohn, or Schneerson.
2. The 18th of Elul is also the birthday of the Baal Shem Tov.
3. Accordingly, the date of birth given by M. Teitelbaum and others
should be amended.
4• Biographical data concerning Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s parents
and ancestral background will be found in the Memoirs, op. cit., vols. I
and II. Cf. Beit Rebbi, Ch. M. Hilman (Berditchev, 1903), ch. 24, about
the last years of RSZ. Also D. Z. Hilman, Iggarot Baal HaTanya
(Jerusalem, 1953), footnote on p. 1. There is evidence to indicate that
RSZ’s father died ca. 1790.
5. Best known of RSZ’s brothers was Rabbi Yehuda Leib of Yanowitz,
author of a halachic work, Sheirit Yehuda, KPS (Brooklyn, NY, 1957
[2nd ed.J). He recorded many of RSZ’s discourses and edited the latter’s
Shukhan Aruch as stated in the preface of that work.
6. On the significance of this and other communal institutions, cf. I.
Levitas, The Jewish Community in Russia, op. cit., ch. IV.
7. Memoirs, vol. II, pp. 180 ff. The genealogy runs as follows; (1)
Yehuda Lowe (Maharal); (2) his son Betzalel; (3) latter’s son Shmuel;
(4) latter’s son Yehuda Leib: (5) his son Moshe: (6) his son Schneur
Zalman: (7) his son Boruch, father of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, founder
of Chabad.
8. Cf. Introduction, p. XV f.
9. Likutei Dibuhm, vol. IV, P. 956.
240
N o t e s : B i rth a n d C h i l d h o o d
10. Memoirs, vol. 1, ch. 6.

11. The appellation HaMalach (“The Angel”) was given to him
because of his saintliness of character and aloofness from mundane
affairs. Rabbi Abraham, the only son of the Maggid of Miezricz, (d.
1780, in Fastov, Russia) is the author of a Kabbalistic work Chesed
L’Abraham, published by his grandson Rabbi Yisrael of Ruzhin
(Czernowitz, 1851). Cf. Aaron Marcus, HaChasidut, pp. 282 f.
12. Cf. Lev. 19:27; Makkot 20b. According to this custom a Jewish
boy receives his first haircut on, or soon after, his third birthday, when
sidelocks (peyot) are left. The size and length of the peyot are the sub‫׳‬
ject of halachic discussion. Polish, Galician, Hungarian and Yemenite
jews are noted for the length of their peyot. Chabad Chasidim, not
given to conspicuousness in external appearance, use moderation also
in this respect. To them the custom of the first haircut came to be
regarded essentially as the day of the boy’s initiation into elementary
Jewish education and training. Until recent years many a Lubavitcher
Chasid within reasonable distance, and sometimes even from abroad,
used to bring his three‫׳‬year‫׳‬old to the Rebbe for the haircutting cere‫׳‬
many (in Yiddish: Obsherenish), so that the Rebbe would cut off the first
tuft of hair. However, finding it increasingly difficult to take time out
for this ceremony, the Rebbe later sent a letter to the parents in lieu of
personal participation. The following is the text of an excerpt included
in such a typical letter, which is quoted in the name of his father‫׳‬in‫׳‬
law, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe:
. . . Regarding the matter of the haircutting‫׳‬Obs/1erenish‫׳‬it is a mean‫׳‬
ingful practice of Jewish custom. Essentially it is the ceremony of leav‫׳‬
ing peyot for the first time, and the occasion serves to inaugurate the
boy, from that day on, into such religious practices as wearing a Tallit‫׳‬
katan (Tzitzit), the recital of the Morning Benedictions, Grace after
meals, and reading of the Shema before going to bed.
13. HaYom Yom (KPS 1998), p. 57.
14. Text of the entry is given in Beit Rebbi, ch. 1. According to the
inscription, the pledge of the contribution was made by the boy’s grand‫׳‬
father, without specification whether the paternal or maternal grandfa‫׳‬
ther was the donor. Both were living at that time. Gf. Iggarot Baal
HaTanya, p. 2, notes.
15. Likutei Diburim, vol. Ill, p. 964.
16. Lubavitch (“Town of Love”) in the county of Mohilev, White
Russia, has an early history of mystics, the forerunner of the Chasidim.
(Cf. Memoirs, vol. 1, chapts. 1 and II, and further.) It became the resi‫׳‬
dence of the heads of the Chabad‫׳‬Lubavitch movement in 1814, when
Rabbi Dov Ber, son and successor of RSZ, settled there. For over a cen‫׳‬
241
tury (until 1915) and four generations of Chabad leaders, it remained

the center of the movement. Hence the leaders of Chabad became
known as the “Lubavitcher Rebbes,” and their Chasidim as
“Lubavitcher Chasidim,” Likutei Diburirn, voi. 1, p. 230 f.
17. Also known as Rabbi Issachar Ber Kobilniker. He held the posi
tion of “Maggid” in Lubavitch. Subsequently he participated in Rabbi
Schneur Zalman’s communal activities. The latter loved and honored
him as “the treasure of my heart and soul; a friend and brother he is to
me.” Iggarot Baal HaTanya, pp. 30-31, and footnote.
18. Likutei Diburim, vol. IV, p. 1204.
19. Cf. Outlines of the Social and Communal Work of Chabad-
Lubavitch, KPS (Brooklyn. NY, 1953), p. 13. Henceforth abbreviated to
Chahad'Lubavitch.
20. Safer HaMaamarim, 5709, KPS (Brooklyn, NY), pp. 87-88.
21. Memoirs (unpublished), by Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn. Only
the first two volumes of Rabbi Schneersohn’s Memoirs have appeared
thus far (the Yiddish version was edited by D. L. Meckler), as already
noted (Note 12, Introduction.) The remainder of the material is still in
manuscript in the Schneersohn Library. It is not catalogued nor sys
tematically paginated, but can be identified under the title “Memoirs
(unpublished).” Future reference to this particular source will be made
under this title.
22. Memoirs (unpublished), op. cit. The names of the two brothers
are given as Yaakov Tzvi and Menachem Elia. At the age of ten,
Schneur Zalman compiled a calendar for fifteen years (5515-5530, i.e.,
1755-70), indicating the equinoxes, solstices, new moons, Jewish festi
val days, and other data for each year of this period. During the first few
years, Schneur Zalman marked on it alstr the days of the annual fairs in
Liozna. For many years this almanac was preserved in the family among
other relics. It consisted of 30 pages of thick paper, written in green ink,
and bound in brown leather. It was destroyed during a big fire on the
fifth day of Elul, 5616 (1856), Ibid.
23. Text of this second entry in the pinlios will be found in Beit Rebbi.
ch. 1. See also Iggarot Baal HaTanya, beginning. M. Teitelbaum, HaRav
Miliadi, uMifleget Chabad (Warsaw, 1910), vol. 1, p. 3, note 1. The date
given there is incorrect, however.
24. Likutei Diburim, vol. !11. p. 967.
25. Chabad'Lubavitch, op. cit., pp. 13-14.
26. I. G. Orshansky, Russkoye zakonodatelstvo o evreiakh (Petersburg,
1877), pp. 167 f. ’
27. Memoirs (unpublished), where both episodes are related in
detail.
242
N o t e s : “C o n v e r s i o n ” t o C h a s i d u t
28. Preface to his Shulchan Aruch. On the testimony of his sons, who
heard it from their father, Rabbi Schneur Zalman went through the
entire Talmud with all early and late codifiers sixteen times by the time
he was thirty years old, “studying on his feet, night and day.”
C h a p t e r T w o / “ C o n v e r s io n ” to C h a s id u t
1. Rabbi Elijah (1720-1797) was recognized as the greatest authori
ty on the Talmud and Jewish learning in his day. He held no official
position, but his fame was widespread. He excelled also in Kabbala.
When he was thirty-five years old, the famed Rabbi Jonathan
Eybeschutz (then about sixty-five) appealed to him to mediate and ren
der a decision in the dispute between him and the equally famous Rabbi
Jacob Emden on the question of the former’s amulets (kameot) for
which he was accused of Shabattian leanings. See also Introduction, p.
11.
2. Rabbi Dov Ber was born in Lukatchi, Wolhynia (date unknown),
and died in Anipoli, Ukraine, on the 19th of Kislev, 5532 (1772). As
an itinerant preacher for many years he gained fame as The Great
Maggid, and as an outstanding Talmudist. He never accepted a rabbinic
post. When he was stricken with an ailment seriously affecting his legs,
he was persuaded by friends to visit the Baal Shem Tov who had
become famous as a miraculous healer. From then on he never left the
Baal Shem Tov until the latter’s death several years later. This period
was sufficient for his brilliant mind to master the teachings of the
Besht, which he eventually expanded into a mystico-rational philo
sophical system. He is credited with being the real organizer of the
Chasidic movement during the twelve years of his leadership in sue-
cession to the Besht. His reputation as a Talmudic scholar attracted
many other Talmudic scholars who became his disciples, giving the
movement additional stature. Like his predecessor, he left no written
works, but his disciples compiled his teachings in two books, Maggid
Devoro I'Yaakov and Likutei Amarim.
3. Likutei Diburim, vol. Ill, p. 966.
4. Beit Rebbi, p. 3, n. 2.
5. Ibid., n. 3. Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, KPS (Brooklyn, NY), p. 176.
6. Kuntres Torat HaChasidut by Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn, pub
lished by Otzar HaChasidim Lubavitz (Brooklyn, NY, 1951), p. 11.
7. Ibid.
8. See Chap. 1, note 11.
9. Hatamim, pub. by Tomchei Tmimim Lubavitz (Warsaw), vol. II,
p. 46.
243
R abbi S c h n e u r Za l m a n
10. Ibid., p. 48.

11. Sefer HaSichot 5700, KPS (Brooklyn, NY), p. 171.
12. Likutei Diburim, vol. II, p. 492.
13. On the comparative positions and functions of a Rav (Rabbi)
andMaggid, cf. The Jewish Community in Russia,<‫קו‬. cit., pp. 151 ff., 167
ff.
14. For a comprehensive list ot the various publishings of the “Rav’s”
Shulchan Aruch, see Supplement at the end of this book.
It is significant that with the exception of the first section, published
in 1794, the Rav’s Shulchan Aruch was published posthumously. This
would seem to refute the allegation current in opposition circles that
the purpose of the Shulchan Aruch was schismatic, namely, “to provide
the Chasidim with a Shulchan Aruch of their owtt.”
15. Kitzurim VeHaorot IjtTanya, KPS (Brooklyn, NY, 1948), p. 128.
The first two parts of the Likutei Amarim, namely, Sefer Shel Benonim
and Sha’ar haYichud vehaEmunah, were first published in Slavita,
1796. More about RSZ’s literary activity later.
C h a p t e r T h r e e / F ir s t C r is is
1. Rabbi Abraham ben Alexander Katz (Kohen Tzedek) was in his
youth a student of the Gaon of Vilna. Subsequently he became a disci-
pie of the Maggid of Miezricz. He held a rabbinic post in Kalisk, Prussia.
In 1777 he emigrated to Palestine with Rabbi Menachem Mendel of
Horodok and other Chasidic leaders. The Chasidic colony was at first
established in Safed, but following some local opposition moved to
Tiberias. Rabbi Abraham later became embroiled in a controversy with
Rabbi Schneur Zalman (ch. IV).
2. HaTamim, vol. II, pp. 62 f.
3. Likutei Diburim, vol. II, pp. 471 ff
4. HaTamim, vol. II, p. 58.
5. Beit Rebbi, ch. 4■
6. The pamphlet Zemir Aritzim, consisting of 32 pages, was printed
in Alkesnik (near Brody) in 5532 (1772) by an anonymous author and
publisher. The copies were soon scrld out, but the buyers were Chasidim
who destroyed them. Only two copies are known to have survived of
the original publication, one in the British Museum and the other in
the Library of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It was published
again in the periodical He’avar, vol. II (Petrograd, 1918) from a manu
script copy of the first is,sue. The pamphlet contained: 1) A letter of
condemnation from Vilna, dated lyar 8, 5523, against the Chasidim
and their customs, particularly against the local leaders of the Kat, the
244
N o t e s : F i rs t C ri s i s
Maggid Rabbi Chaim and Rabbi Isser, who had been “exposed” and
publicly punished by order of the Beit-Din. 2) A manifesto in Yiddish
issued in Brody on Sivan 20, 5532, including an awesome cherem
(excommunication). 3) A scathing parody by the (anonymous) author.
4) A letter from Vilna to Brest over the signature of the Gaon and
those of Rabbi Shmuel ben Avigdor, head of the Beit-Din, and other sig
natories. 5) A letter from the community leaders of Vilna to all com‫״‬
munities, said to have been written with the approval of the Gaon. 6)
An account of the “misdeeds” of the Kat in Vilna, of the public bum-
ing of Chasidic books, etc. 7) Enactments of the community of
Leshnov against the Chasidim. Iggarot Baal HaTanya, p. 178, note 16.
7. Avigdor Chaimovitch (“son of Chaim”) later was the main adver‫״‬
sary of Rabbi Schneur Zalman during the latter’s second imprisonment.
(Ch. XI)
8. Beit Rebbi, ibid.
9. Kuntres Chai Elul, 5703. KPS (Brooklyn, NY).
10. HaTamim, vol. 11, p. 41.
11. Rabbi Menachem Mendel was a native of Vitebsk, where his
father Rabbi Moshe headed a yeshiva. A man of great learning and
extraordinary humility. Rabbi Menachem Mendel was held in great
esteem by his master and colleagues. After the death of the Maggid of
Miezricz, he made his residence in Horodok (near Vitebsk), hence his
name Horodoker. For the next few years until his emigration to
Palestine, Rabbi Menachem Mendel was considered senior leader of
the movement. He tried hard to bring about a reconciliation with the
Mitnagdim, including an abortive attempt to confront the Gaon of
Vilna in company with Rabbi Schneur Zalman. When all attempts for
a rapprochement with the opposition failed, he left for Palestine
together with a large group of Chasidim (in 1777), settling in Safed,
and later in Tiberias, where he died in 1788. He is the author of a
Chasidic work entitled Peri HaAret? (“Fruit of the Land”), compiled by
his disciples, and published in Kopust, 1814.
12. See note 21, below.
13. Presumably the reference is to Avigdor (cf. note 7, above).
14• Yebamot 65b.
15. See beg. of ch. 10, and n. 1 there.
16. According to Beit Rebbi the reference is to Tzavaat HaRibash.
This seems to be borne out by the words “it is not for you to fight for
the cause of the Baal Shem Tov.” See n. 19 below.
17. This doctrine, one of the basic doctrines in Lurianic Kabbala,
and expounded at length in Chabad, will be discussed in the second
volume.
245
R abbi S i i h n k u r Z a l m a n
18. In his Introduction to tlte Gaon’.s C0mtnentar7 (first published in

Vilna, 1821, and again in 1912) on the Sifra diTzene'uta (one of the ear-
best Kabbala works), Rabbi Chaim of Volozhm, leading disciple of the
Gaon, indicates that the 03( ‫י‬1‫ ן‬t)ccasionally differed from the Ari
(Rabbi Yitzchok Luria), or amended certain passages in the latter’s writ
ings as they come down through Rabbi Chaim Vital, believing that
these writings included addenda by Vital’s disciples who were not equal
to their master in grasping the Ari’s profound wisdom. Rabbi Chaim
appears to defend the Gaon’s independent interpretation of certain
Lurianic concepts on the grt>unds that the Gaon’s grasp of the pro-
foundest Kabbalah doctrines was most wonderfully enhanced after he
twice experienced giluy Eliyahu (revelation of the Prophet Elijah).
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that Rabbi Chaim relates in the
said Introduction various other marvelous supernatural experiences of
the Gaon, on the order of those related of the Baal Shem Tov, the
Maggid, Rabbi Schneur Zalman, and other saints and mystics in
Chasidic, as well as Talmudic lore.
19. Pre.sumably referring to Rabbi Pinchas HaLevi Hurwitz (1730
1805), author of Haflaah, Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt am Main. A
renowned Talmudist, he became a disciple erf the Maggid of Miezricz. In
1771 he was called to the rabbinate in Frankfurt, a position he held for
the rest of his life. Equally renowned was his brother Rabbi Shmelka
Hurwitz, Chief Rabbi of Nikolsburg in Moravia, who was also one of
the Maggid’s most distinguished disciples.
20. See n. 16 above.
21. The full text of the letter appears in Iggarot Baal HuTanya, p. 95,
and Bek Rebbi, ch. 12, quoted from Metzaref HaAvodah, at end. The
author of Iggarot dates the letter in the period between Tevet, 5557
(after the publication of the Likutei Amarim [Tanya] mentioned in the
letter), and the death of the Gaon of Vilna, Tishrei, 5558 (1797), since
RSZ refers to the Gaon with the customary “long may he live.”
22. In 1786 Rabbi Menachem Mendel w‫׳‬rote to Rabbi Schneur
Zalman (Iggarot, p. 26) urging his reluctant colleague to accept the
leadership of the Chasidim in Lithuania and White Russia. In 1788,
RMM wrote to the Chasidim calling upon them to recognize RSZ as
their leader (ibid. p. 34). It was his last pastoral letter to the Chasidim
before he died. In a letter which RSZ wrote to his senior colleague in
the same year, RSZ humbly pleads incompetence to assume the leader
ship, but agrees to do so on conditictn that RMM remember him and
the Chasidim in his daily prayers. (Cf letter in Misfinat Yoel, by Yoel
Diskin, ed. Isaac A. Orenstein, O^^rusalem, 1941, p. 82]).
23. A list of 52 of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s most prominent disciples,
246
N o t e s : C h a s m W i dens
with biographical data, appears in Ch. M. Hilman’s Beit Rehbi, KPS

(Brooklyn, NY 1953), ch. 56, pp. 111-120. Cf. also Likutei Diburim, vol.
I, pp. 80 f., vol. II, pp. 413 t., 492 f.
24- Rabbi Israel of Polotzk (or Polotzker) was one of a number of
notable Talmudic scholars who became disciples of the Maggid of
Miezricz. Upon arrival in Safed, the new Chasidic colony, numbering
over 300 souls (Iggarot, p. 7), found itself in dire need. Thereupon
Rabbi Israel Polotzker was sent back to his native land as an emissary
of the colony, for the purpose of organizing a permanent relief fund for
the support of the Chasidim in the Holy Land. He was to carry out this
task in cooperation with Rabbi Issachar Ber of Lubavitch (RSZ’s former
teacher) and Rabbi Schneur Zalman, (Cf. pastoral letters by Rabbi
Menachem Mendel of 1778 and 1782, ibid., pp. 5 & 10 respectively).
His task successfully accomplished. Rabbi Israel intended to return to
the Holy Land, when death overcame him in the town of Fastov (some
time between 1782 and 1784, ibid., p. 9). He was laid to rest next to
the grave of Rabbi Abraham, “The Angel,” son of the Maggid of
Miezricz.
25. Babba Metzia, 62a.
26. HaTamim, vol. II, pp. 52 ff.
C h a p t e r F o u r / C h a sm W id en s
1. Introduction, p. XX.
2. Rabbi Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793), famed author of the responsa
Noda biYehudah, relentlessly opposed the Chasidic movement. He
ordered the public burning of the Toldot Yaakov Yosef. He also chal
lenged the authority of Rabbi Yitzchok Luria (responsum 34).
3. The Nusach Ari differed from the Nusach Ashkenaz in several
ways: changes in text, in the order of certain prayers, and in the omis
sion or substitution of certain prayers. In view of the Chasidic empha
sis on prayer and kavanah (concentration, attunement of heart and
mind), the Chasidim liked to take their time both in preparation before
prayer and during the tecital of prayer, which was frequently carried out
with excessive emotion (cf. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s defense in his let
ter to Rabbi Alexander Sender of Shklov, Iggarot Baal HaTanya, p. 33).
All this made it difficult for the Chasidim to join in the congregation
al services with the rest of the community, and impelled them to hold
their own congregational services. Cf. also M. Teitelbaum, HaRav
miLiadi, vol. II, pp. 208 ff.; Aaron Wertheim, Hcdachot veHalichot
beChasidut (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 83 ff., 110 ff.
4■ Officially the Chasidim were permitted to have their own syna-
247
R a b b i Sci -fNEua Z a l m a n
gogues by an edict of April 26, 1798. Actually they liad their own syn
agogues already before 1770, during the rime of the Maggid of Miezricz.
HaRav miLiadi, p. 35.
5. Cf. Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s defense in letters and responsa,
Iggarot, pp. 204211‫ ;־‬cf. also Halachot veHalichot, pp. 200 ff.
6. Jewish Community in Russia, p. 170.
7. A list of sixteen innovations by RSZ in religious practices appears
in Beit Rehbi, pp. 35 ff. None of them, however, constituted “heretical”
reforms from the viewpoint of Halachah, and the early opposition to
them was motivated mainly by objection to any innovatit>n in accept‫־‬
ed practices.
8. Iggarot, p. 204.
9. Ibid., p. 205 f.
10. Babba Batra, 8a.
11. Proverbs, 10:25.
12. Berachot, 64a.
13. An allegorical reference to Dent. 25:1719‫־‬.
14• Kuntres Chicago, pp. 2124‫ ;־‬IJkutei Dihurim, vol. 1, p. 262 f.
15. ]eivish Community in Russia, p. 170.
C h a p t e r F iv e / E n t r e n c h m e n t U n d e r F ir e
1. Iggarot Baal HaTanya, p. 8. See also pp. 12, 13, 116.
2. Pinchas Reizes was the son of the celebrated gaon Rabbi Chanoch
Henoch Schick of Shklov. The latter‫־‬once an antagonist of Chasidut-
gave his approbation for the publication of RSZ’s work Hilchot Talmud
Torah (1794), the first part of RSZ’s Shulchan Aruch to be published. (It
was published anonymously.) The entire Shulchan Aruch was published
posthumously with the aid of Pinchas Reizes. Pinchas Reizes was
attracted to RSZ while a young man, when he came to Shklov togeth‫־‬
er with a group of other young Talmudic .scholars to witness the debate
between RSZ and the scholars of Shklov. Sefer HaToldot, Rabbi Schneur
Zalman miLiadi, ed. A. Ch. Glitzenstein, KPS (Brooklyn, NY 1967), p.
361. Eventually he became oire of RSZ’s outstanding disciples and
Chasidim. He was a successful merchant and philanthropist, and left
most of his substantial estate to charity. He died in Lubavitch about
1825. Ibid., p. 373. (cf. Reb Pinchas Reizes, S.B. Avtzon, Brooklyn, NY)
3. The two emissaries were Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin (see ch. 11, n.
30) and Rabbi Wolf of Zhitomir. See Sejer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 374
4. “Zalman the Lithuanian”—an affectionate appellation given him
by the Maggid of Miezricz, by which he was generally known among his
colleagues the disciples of the Maggid.
248
N o t e s : E ntrenchment U nder F ire / I nternal C risis
5. Shmuel Munkis was another one of RSZ’s prominent Chasidim.

He was celebrated for his wit and wisdom and Chasidic pranks. On one
occasion, as he arrived at the house of RSZ in Liozna together with a
large group of Chasidim, he jumped on the gate and, placing his feet in
the rails, dangled in the air, to the amazement of his friends. Explained
Shmuel Munkis: “When you see a sign with shears hanging in the
street, you know where the tailor lives; and by the sign of boots you
know where to find the bootmaker. A Rebbe should have a Chasid
hanging from his gate. . . .” Likutei Diburim, vol. IV, p. 1521. Another
characteristic episode is related in Sefer HaSichot, 5703, p. 175; Safer
HaToldot, RSZ, 390 f. See also ch. X, n. 15, below, (cf. Reb Shmuel
Munkes, S.B. Avtzon, Brooklyn, NY)
6. Rabbi Aharon HaLevi of Strashelia was the most distinguished
disciple of RSZ. He is the author of Avodat HaLevi, a brilliant and pro
found exposition of the teachings of his master’s philosophical system,
a work which “eclipses many a celebrated work in rabbinic literature”
(A. Marcus, HaChasidut, p. 122). At the age of 17 he came, among oth
ers, to witness the debate in Minsk between RSZ and the Rabbinate,
and ever since then became closely attached to RSZ. (Sefer HaToldot,
RSZ, p. 88 f.) In his preface to his Sha’arei haYichud vehaEmunah, Rabbi
Aharon speaks with boundless admiration of his master. He also states
there that for nearly thirty years he sat at the feet of his saintly Rebbe
“and only after strenuous concentration on every word issuing from his
saintly mouth did I fathom his teachings.... I have had no other teacher
but him.” (Ibid, pp. 313 f., 371.) RSZ showed him particular attention
and made him the constant companion of his oldest son Rabbi Dov
Ber. When RSZ settled in Liadi, Rabbi Aharon moved there, too, and
lived there for eight years. Subsequently he returned to his town
Assaye, and later to Strashelia, where he taught and disseminated
Chasidut. After the death of his master, many Chasidim of RSZ became
attached to Rabbi Aharon, instead of to RSZ’s son and successor, which
created a rift between the two. In addition to the two mentioned works,
he wrote other Chasidic treatises. He died in Strashelia in 1828 (Ibid.,
p. 371).
7. Likutei Diburim, vol. II, p. 511 ff.
8. Chagigah 3a.
9. Likutei Diburim, vol. II, p. 486 ff.
10. Ibid., p. 520 ff.
C h a p t e r S ix / I n t e r n a l C r is is
1. Likutei Diburim, vol. 1, p. 86, vol. IV, p. 1332 ff.
249
2. Moshe Wilenker was one oi the leading Chasidim of Rabbi

Schneur Zalman, who was highly respected for profound knowledge of
Chasidut, general wisdom and eloquence. His brother Ze’ev Wilenker
was also a prominent Chasid of RSZ and a man of substantial wealth,
living in Vitebsk.
3. Rabbi Menachem Nachum of Czernobil (1730'1797) was a disci‫׳‬
pie of the Baal Shem Tov and later of his successor the Maggid of
Miezricz. He is the author of homiletic works Mc'or Ehiayim and
Yismach Lev, both published posthumously in 1798. He was the father
of the Czernobil dynasty, with numerous followers in Wolhynia and the
Ukraine. His equally famed son Rabbi Mordechai (d. 1836) was said to
have at least 100,000 Chasidim. (A. Marcus, HaChasidut, p. 213.)
4. Safer HaSichot, 5700, p. 64
, 5. Yiddish expressions of grief.
6. Rabbi Baruch Mordechai served as Rabbi of Bobroysk for decades.
He was respected for his learning and piety even by the Mitnagdic
Rabbis. His biography is related at some length in Safer HaToldot, RSZ,
p p . 3 7 8 -3 8 4 .
7. Shulchan Aruch / Tur, chapter 13
C h a p t e r S e v e n / L io z n a , C e n t e r of C h abad
1. Russkaya enciklopedia, op. dr.,
2. See Iggarot Baal HaTanya, pp. 7, 13-15, 30-32, 42-44, 47-48, 70,
117, 161, 191, 221-228 for various letters and encyclicals sent by Rabbi
Schneur Zalman which have to do with matters of philanthropy.
3. See RSZ’s letter in Iggarot, p. 61.
4. As already mentioned (Ch. 1, n.l), the surname Schneersohn, or
Schneerson, was first adopted by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of
Lubavitch, the grandson of RSZ. Consequently those authors who used
the name ‘Schneersohn” in relation to the first two generations are
obviously in error.
5. See p. 7.
6. Memoirs, see Index, at end ol vol. II.
7. Ibid.,
8. Ibid.,
9. See p. 36 f.
10. The Halachah provides a time limit within which the Shema
should he read. Rabbi Schneur Zalman insisted upon the observance of
the proper time, noting in his Shulchan Aruch (Hil. Keriat Shema) that
in the Northern countries the time limit in the summer is about 7;45
a.m.
250
N o t e s : L i o z n a / F i rs t E n c o u n t e r
11. The reference is to Rabbi Aharon HaLevi of Strashelia, of the

senior disciples of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. See ch. V, note 6.
12. RSZ’s brother.
13. Iggarot, p. 58 f.
14. Ibid., p . 5 9 .
15. The “four occasions” were Simchat Torah, Shabbat Chanukah,
Purim, and Shabbat Shuvah.
16. A reference to I Sam. ch. 9.
17. The following section of this encyclical appears also in the
Tanya, under Iggeret HaKodesh, ch. 22.
18. Iggarot, p. 60
19. The reference is to the oldest son Rabbi Dov Ber.
20. Rabbi Schneur Zalman had three sons-in-law: 1) Rabbi Eliyahu
ben Mordechai, husband of his daughter Freida. 2) Rabbi Shalom
Shachna ben Noach, husband of his daughter Dvorah Leah (see pp. 84
ff) who died in 1792, several years prior to these Takanot, and her hus
band no longer lived in Liozna. He financed the first printing of the
Tanya. 3) Rabbi Abraham Sheines, husband of Rachel. His father.
Rabbi Tzevi of Shklov was one of the most outspoken opponents of the
Chasidim, yet his son became greatly attached to RSZ and married his
daughter Rachel. (Beit Rebbi, p. 117 f.). Rachel died five years after
marriage. Rabbi Abraham Sheines was a brilliant scholar in both
Talmud and Chasidut. It is believed that the reference “my son-in-law”
is to Rabbi Abraham Sheines. Iggarot, p. 65, n. 3. About RSZ’s sons and
daughters and sons-in-law, see Beit Rebbi, pp. 112-120. See also Rabbi
Ch. M. Perlow, Likutei Sippurim, (Kfar Chabad, 1966), p. 46.
21. Some words are apparently missing from the MS.
22. Ibid., p . 66 f.
C h a p t e r E ig h t / F ir s t E n c o u n t e r W it h H a s k a l a h
1. See Introduction, and note 3 there.
2. Introduction, n. 29.
3. Ibid.
4. A. Marcus, HaChasidut, p. 77.
5. Moses (Moshe) ben Menachem Mendel (hence Mendelssohn)
was b. Dessau, Germany, 1729; d. Berlin, 1786. He is generally regard
ed as the “father of the Haskalah movement.”
6. B. Dubno (Wolhynia), Poland, 1738; d. Amsterdam, 1813
7. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, op. cit., p. 65.
8. Young child. See Zohar, Parshat Balak 186a.
9. The initial words of the Kedushah, Shacharit and Musaf in the
251
Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach An, respectively.

10. A group of Maskilim who organized themselves into the Society
for the Cultivation of Hebrew Literature and published the periodical
Hame’asef, which first appeared in 1784•
11. See p. 6
12. A form of idol-worship. (Leviticus 18:21)
13. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 170 f.
14. Ibid., pp. 173-177.
15. Ibid., pp. 178-9.
16. Ibid., p. 180 f.
C h a p t e r N in e / P u b l ic a t io n of Tanya
1. Written by Abraham Yagel ben Chananiah Gallico, who lived in
Ferrara and Venice in Italy, 16th-17th cent. His best known work
Lekach Tov (Venice, ca. 1595), a textbook on the Jewish religion, was
written in the form of a dialogue between master and pupil. A popular
work, it was translated into Latin, Yiddish, and German.
2. Rabbi Meshulam Zusia of Anipoli, better known as Rabbi Zusia of
Anipoli, was the brother of the equally famed Rabbi Elimelech of
Lizajsk. Spending many years wandering about in Poland, the two
brothers were celebrated for their saintliness and humility, and were
among the outstanding disciples of the Maggid. There was a particular
attachment between Rabbi Zusia and Rabbi Schneur Zalman, and the
latter considered him as one of the tour “model” disciples of the
Maggid, whom he characterized as follows: “Rabbi Aaron of Karlin-a
model of love; Rabbi Zusia of .Anipoli-a model of fear (reverence);
Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk-a model of Talmudic brilliance;
and Rabbi Yaakov Shimshon of Shipotovka-a model of profound think
ing.” A. Marcus, HaChasidut, p. 92.
3. Author of Or HaGanuz (“Hidden Light”), Vol. I on Pentateuch,
Vol. II on Mishnayot (Lemberg, 1866).
4. Kitzurim veHa’arot I'Tanya, pp. 137 ft.
5. Ibid.
6. His father Eliyahu Ze’ev was one of the young Chasidim in the
town of Smargon who were actively engaged in spreading Chasidut in
the community. Leading the opposition there was an old Talmudic sage,
Elyakum Faivush. The sage once uttered an imprecation against
Eliyahu Ze’ev, and ever since then a curse seemed to hang over the lat
ter’s children, who caught colds and died of pneumonia in infancy.
When Tzvi was three months old, Rabbi Schneur Zalman was visiting
Smargon. The infant was taken by his father to the Rebbe for a bless-
252
N o t e s ; PuBLicATiON of T anya
ing. The Rebbe stroked the child’s head, saying “a waremer yingele” (“a
warm boy”), and blessed him. The boy grew up with the appellation
“Hirshel der Waremer.” Indeed, his Divine worship was characterized by
a profound warmth, though outwardly he showed no sign of it. Rabbi
Hillel of Paritch (author of Pelach HaRimon), leading disciple of RSZ,
used to refer to him as “Hirshele Sneh" (alluding to the Burning Bush),
while some Chasidim called him “Hirshele Bren.” (From a letter by the
late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi J. I. Schneersohn, quoted in Sefer
HaToldot, RSZ, p. 149.)
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 151.
9. The circumstances of RSZ’s imprisonment are related in the fob
lowing chapter.
10. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 151.
11. Ibid.
12. A selection of biblical verses which are recited on Simchat Torah
before hakafot.
13. Ibid.
14. Kitzurim veHa’arot I’Tanya, pp. 118-126.
15. For a list of translations of the Tanya, see list at end of this book.
C h a p t e r T e n / I m p r is o n m e n t and V in d ic a t io n
1. The two emissaries were Rabbi Chaim of Cherhay, a member of
the Rabbinical Court of Vilna, and Saadiah ben Nathan Nota, one of
the Gaon’s prominent disciples. The latter (a brother-in-law of Rabbi
Zelmele of Volozhin) recorded the Gaon’s commentaries on the “Minor
Tractates” of the Talmud, and also the Gaon’s Customs in a tract called
Ma'aseh Rav.
They visited many communities to publicize the Gaon’s letter.
While in Mohilev the letter was lost, and thereafter they conveyed its
contents orally. In Minsk their testimony was questioned, whereupon a
special messenger was sent to Vilna to obtain the Gaon’s reaffirmation.
The latter sent a letter calling upon the Rabbis of the districts of Vilna,
Vitebsk, Polotzk, Minsk, Mohilev, Zhitomir, Kamenetz-Podolsk, and
upon all faithful Jews, to suppress the Chasidim for the sake of the
Torah (Beit Rebbi, ch. 12).
In the years 1809-10 both of them emigrated to Palestine with the
so-called Aliyah of the Gaon’s disciples. (Toldot Chachmei Yerushalayim,
part III).
2. HaRav miLiadi, vol. 1, ch. 7.
3. Rabbi Elijah particularly objected to Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s
253
R abbi S c; h n l u r Z a l m a n
interpretation of the doctrine of 1 zimtzum and his concept of Divine

immanence. Apparently, the Gaon did not accept the Lurianic Kabbala
in toto, and interpreted certain of its doctrines differently. (See ch. Ill,
n. 17, above). Opposition to the ways and customs of the Chasidim was
fostered also by other factors, as already indicated. See also S. A.
Horodetzky, Yahaduc HaSechel veYahadut HaRegesh (Tel Aviv, 1947),
vol. II, pp. 362 ff.
4. See RSZ’s letter, p. 31 ff.
5. It is believed that Rabbi Schneur Zalman had met Rabbi Elijah
before the former became a Chasidic leader.
6. Mishnah, Sukkah 5: 1-4.
7. The allegation that the Chasidim rejoiced during “the very time”
of the Gaon’s funeral (cf. HaRav miLiadi, vol. 1, p. 62) cannot, of
course, be true, for the simple reason that the funeral must have taken
place during the day. Cf. Aliyot Eliyahu, by Rabbi Nachman of Horodno
(Stetin, 1856), p. 89, n. !19. The traditional Simchat Beit HaShoevah
usually takes place in the evening. It should also he noted that under
Jewish Law mourning rites during the festival are curtailed.
8. Dubnow, “htoria Chasidskavo raskola” (Voskhod, 1891).
9. Rabbi Schneur Zalman issued this “awesome warning” to his
Chasidim after the death of Rabbi Elijah, and again a year later. Iggarot,
p. 116.
10. See p. 34.
11. These terms will be discussed in the second volume.
12. HaRav miLiadi, vol. I, p. 73 ff.
13. Ibid., p. 69.
14. Likutei Diburim, vol. 1, p. 58.
15. Ibid., vol. IV, p. !499. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 195.
16. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 1498.
17. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 75.
18. Ibid., p. 76.
19. Ibid., pp. 32 ff.
20. Ibid., vol. IV, p. 1499.
21. Beit R e b h i , p. 57.
22. Ibid., ibid.
24. Beit Rebbi, p, 58.
25. Ibid., ibid.
26. Ibid., p. 60.
27. Likutei Diburim, vol. IV, p. 1504 f.
28. See p. 186 below,
29. T h is is sa id to e x p la in w h y a fte r R S Z ’s re le a s e , th e r e w as a
254
N o t e s : I mp r i s o n m e n t and V i n d i c a t i o n
notable change in his method of Chasidic dissemination. He began to

deliver Chasidic discourses more frequently, and the discourses (maa-
marim) were lengthier and more elaborately explained, so as to make
them comprehensible even to the unscholarly.
30. Beit Rebbi, p. 60, n. 2.
31. Ibid., p. 61.
32. HaTamim, vol. II, p. 56.
33. Sefer HaSichot, 5703, p. 62.
34. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 208.
35. See p. 72 ff. above.
36. See p. 2 above.
37. About Rivkah’s father (RSZ’s grandfather) see Memoirs, vol. 1,
pp. 56 ff., 91 ff.
38. The youngest son of RSZ was bom in 1780. From early youth he
displayed extraordinary mental capacities, and his illustrious father per
sonally instructed him in Talmud, Chasidut, and religious philosophy.
At the age of sixteen he received instruction in Russian and French
from Moshe Meisels of Vilna who came to visit RSZ in Liozna, and RSZ
detained him for several months for this purpose. A brilliant student
and avid reader, young Moshe not only mastered these languages, but
also used them to broaden bis general education. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ,
p . 209.
39. Beit Rebbi, ch. 17, p. 63 ft.
40. Rabbi Schneur Zalman considered the day auspicious, since it is
the anniversary of the demise of his master Rabbi Dov Ber the Maggid
of Miezricz twenty six years previously. (A Yal1r3:eit'anniversary of
death'is considered auspicious by Chasidim because it is believed that
on that day the soul of the departed ascends to a higher level in the
heavenly spheres.)
41. Chabad Chasidim consider this number significant, as it corre‫׳‬
spends to the number of chapters in the Tanya. Likutei Diburim, vol. Ill,
p. 818. '
42. HaRav miLiadi, I, p. 77.
43. Beit Rebbi, p. 65 f.
44. On each of the Six Days of Creation (Gen. ch. 1) the words
“And G'd saw that it was gttod” are mentioned, with the exception of
the second day-when they are omitted, and the third day-when they are
repeated twice. For this reason the third day of the week (Tuesday) is
generally regarded by Jews as particularly auspicious.
45. The Maggid of Miezricz.
46. It was RSZ’s custom, followed also by his successors, to recite
after the Morning Prayer the daily “quota” of Psalms according to their
255
division into 29/30 sections, corresponding to the number of days in

the Hebrew month. The Book of Psalms is also divided into seven
major sections, corresponding to the seven days of the week. While in
prison, RSZ evidently recited additional Psalms corresponding to the
latter division, since Psalm 55 (to which the verse referred to in his let
ter belongs) falls into the section of the “third day.” (The recital of the
daily quota of Psalms after the Morning Prayer has become the univer‫־‬
sal custom of Chabad Chasidim, as well as of many non-Chasidim).
SeferHaToldot, RSZ, p. 218, n. 14•
47. Iggarot Bml HaTanya, p. 114 f., where another version is also
quoted. See also notes to the above on p. 115.
48. Ibid., p. 115.
49. The encyclical, known by its initial word Kotonti (“1 am unwor
thy”) is included in the Tanya, Iggeret HaKodesh, ch. 2.
50. Tikunei Zohar, Introduction.
51. Song 2:3; 8:6.
52. Jet. 31:2.
53. Zofiar Z, 11b.
54. Micah 7:20.
55. Gen. 18:28.
56. Gen. 28:15.
57. Sitra achra, the “other side,” i.e., the realm of evil.
58. Jer. 46:3, etc.
59. Micah 7 20.
60. Prov. 15 1.
61. Prov. 27 19.
62. Likutei Diburim, vol. I, p. 38.
63. Ibid., p. 41•
C h a p t e r E l e v e n / S ec o n d C r is is
1. HaRav miLiadi 1, p. 70 f.
2. Ibid., p. 86.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p. 88.
5. Ibid., p. 89.
6. Ibid., ibid.
7. Memoirs (unpublished), op. cit.
8. G. R. Derzhavin, Polnye sotschinenia (Petersburg, 1876-78), vol.
VI, p. 401.
9. Ibid., vol. VII, p. 284.
10. Ibid., pp. 696 ff.
256
N o t e s : Second C risis
11. A case in point is the complaint lodged against him by a Jewess

from Liozna to the effect that during Derzhavin’s raid on the distillery
in that town, he beat het mercilessly with a cane, disregarding her state
of pregnancy, and causing her to lose her child. The Emperor ordered
that Derzhavin stand trial before the Senate. The complaint was
quashed with the help of Attorney General Obolianinov. Derzhavin,
op. cit., Vol. VII, p. 715. Although RSZ’s direct connection with this
case cannot be established, it is hardly likely that the case could have
been instigated without his consent, if not initiative, in an effort to dis
credit Derzhavin by establishing his vicious anti-Semitism.
12. Memoirs (unpublished), op. cit.
13. Believed to be the Toldot Yaakov Yosef by Rabbi Jacob Joseph of
Polonnoye. HaRav miLiadi, vol. I, p. 36, n. 2.
14. Ibid., p. 72.
15. Named after Rabbi Aaron of Karlin, one of the outstanding dis
ciples of Rabbi Dov Ber of Miezricz.
16. The book (“Testament of Rabbi Israel Baal Shem") is a collection
of sayings and customs of the Baal Shem and his successor Rabbi Dov
Ber, recorded by their disciple Rabbi Isaiah of Yanov. It was published
in Zolkiev (date unknown) and again in 1793. The title is a misnomer,
for “it is not his testament, nor did he leave a testament, but a collec
tion of his sublime sayings, variously collected. The language is not
completely accurate, but in substance it is absolutely authentic.” Rabbi
Schneur Zalman in his Iggeret HaKodesh, beg. of ch. 25.
17. HaRav miLiadi, pp. 93 ff. Iggarot Baal HaTanya, pp. 125-153.
18. HaRav miLiadi, p. 96f.
19. Ibid., p. 98.
20. For the complete text of Kutuzov’s report, see HaRav miLiadi, I,
pp. 189 ff.
21. Cf. Dubnow’s article, “The intervention of the Russian govern-
raent in the anti-Chasidic struggle,” Evreyskaya Starina (1st quarter,
1910). Also HaRav miLiadi, part I, p. 166. The documents relating to
the official investigation, and the correspondence cited in these pages,
were first published in the otiginal (Russian) by Dubnow in Evreyskaya
Starina, op. cit., from original documents kept in the archives of the
Senate in Petersburg. They were subsequently published in Hebrew
translation in HaRav miLiadi, and republished with additional original
sources, in Iggarot Baal HaTanya. Because of the availability of the lat
ter two sources, the references in these pages are generally made to
these last two sources.
22. U. I. Hessen, “On the history of the religious struggle,” Voskhod,
1902. S. Dubnow, in his article in Evreyskaya Starina, op. cit. Cf. also
257
HaRav miLiadi, p a r t i, p. 101.

23. Memoirs (unpublished).
24. Iggarot, p. 142, letter of Governor Severin of November 13,
1800.
25. These documents have since been discovered.
26. Tzavmt HaRibash.
27. An obvious misrepresentation, since the doctrine of human free
dom of action is strongly upheld in Chasidut. But as already noted, the
book Tzavaat HaRivash lends itself to misunderstanding, since it often
contains loosely translated sayings and teachings of the Baal Shem
(Note 16, above.) Rabbi Schneur Zalman deals with the problem of
Divine Providence and freedom in his Likutei Amorim [Tanya], Iggeret
HaKodesh, ch. 25, while the problem of Divine Immanence is dealt
with at length, ibid., Sha’ar hoYichnd vehaEmunah.
28. An unwarranted inference, since it is amply emphtisized in the
teachings of the Baal Shem Tov that no sinful thing can ever be subli
mated. Cf. Tanya, ch. 37.
29. A refutation of the assertions charged in pars. 5 and 6 will be
found in the above mentioned Iggeret HaKodesh, ch. 25, and elsewhere
in Chabad literature.
3 0 . B o th s p e llin g S '”K a rlin is ts ” a n d “K a ra lin is ts ’- a p p e a r in t h e o ffic ia l
d o c u m e n ts .
31. Referring to himself.
32. The reference is to Rabbi Aaron HaGadol (The Great Aaron) of
Karlin, and Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin, both of them being among the
most outstanding disciples of the Maggid of Miezricz. The former
(1736'1772) was particularly admired by RSZ. Though he died at the
age of 35, Rabbi Aharon HaGadol had attracted a considerable follow'
ing, and he was the progenitor of the Karlin dynasty of tzaddikim. His
colleague, Rabbi Shlomo of Karlin, was sometimes called “The Small
Baal Shem Tov” because of the wonders he performed. He was fatally
wounded by a Cossack bullet in the summer of 1812 during Morning
Prayer, and he died three days later. A. Marcus, Sefer HaChasidut, pp.
98, 190. Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 367 f.
33. It is not clear what the accusation is. Many Chasidim used to
avoid wearing woolen clothes for fear of possible shatnes (mingled wool
and linen fibers together. Deut. 22:1!). Those who could afford it, pre‫־‬
ferred silk, but cotton garments have been used mostly. Since the
Russian government wished to do away with the Jews’ distinctiveness
in dress (see n. 42, next ch.), one may presume that the purpose of crit'
icizing the Chasidic dress was to arouse the government’s displeasure
against the Chasidim.
34. The father'in-law of Rabbi Yaakov, son of Rabbi Aharon the
258
N o t e s : S econd C risis
Great of Karlin.
35. Perhaps erroneously mentioned instead of Rabbi Menachem
Mendel of Vitebsk. HaChasidut, p. 14.
36. A particularly scathing accusation in view of the famine prevail
ing at that time. See p. 194 above, also Iggarot, p. 141.
37. There is no such law. The Talmud (B.B. 155b) discusses the age
limit at which an heir may dispose of property left him by his deceased
father. Ibid.
38. Cf. Introduction where it was noted that the early opponents of
the Chasidim accused them of being followers of Shabbatai Tzvi. But,
of course, by the end of the 18th cent, when this denunciation was
made, hardly anyone could seriously entertain such a suspicion.
39. There is, of course, no substance whatever to these accusations,
which were pure fabrications.
40. In 1991, all ninteen answers were discovered.
41. Rabbi Mordechai of Lachowitz, a disciple of Rabbi Shlomo of
Karlin (n. 31, above) was among the 22 prominent Chasidim arrested
in 1798 in connection with RSZ’s arrest. He was released soon after
RSZ was vindicated. In the controversy initiated by Rabbi Abraham of
Kalisk against RSZ, he sided with Rabbi Abraham, and was appointed
by him as head of the Chasidim of Lithuania in charge of collections
for the relief fund which Rabbi Abraham endeavored to set up inde
pendently of RSZ. He also sided with Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi
Baruch of Medzibosz in their criticism of RSZ’s school of thought in
Chasidut. Iggarot, p. 182.
42. Ibid., p. 145.
43. The Senate in turn decided to turn over the investigation to the
Third Department, to be dealt with in conjunction with other matters
pertaining to the Jews which were then under consideration. Ibid., 146.
44. Ibid., p. 147. Cf. also HaRav miLiadi, p. 107, n. 1.
45. Iggarot, p. 147.
46. This document was preserved in the government archives in
Vitebsk. It appears in Hebrew translation in Iggarot, pp. 150-151.
47. On the subject of Jewish secular education during that period,
see Jewish Community in Russia, op. cit., pp. 70 ff.
48. By edict of December 9, 1804•
49. See beginning of this chapter.
50. It would appear that RSZ had submitted this petition after he
had left Petersburg on 11th of Menachem Av, 5561 (Hayom Yom, p. 4).
This Hebrew date corresponds to July 21, 1801. However, since Russia
did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1918, the Hebrew date
would correspond to August 1st according to the Old Style, or Julian,
259
calendar then in use in Russia. Altogether RSZ spent 9 months and 10

days in Petersburg, of which two months were spent in the custody of
the Secret Council of the Senate, and the rest in a private home.
C h a p t e r T w elve / F in a l Y e a r s
1. This he undertook in fulfillment of a promise to a prominent

member of the Mitnagdim, Nathan Nothin, in return for the latter’s
cooperation to secure his release. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was to visit
Rabbi Moshe Cheifetz of Tzaves, Rabbi Joshua Zeitlin of Shklov, and
Rabbi Yoel of Amtzeslav. Beit Rebbi, pp. 22 f. Likutei Diburim, vol. I, p.
292. Nathan Nothin of Shklov was a prominent merchant and finan
cier, who acted as purveyor for the government and had personal con
nections in the high spheres. He was also a confidant of Derzhavin, and
the latter accused him of offering him a huge bribe to sway him in favor
of the Jews when the Jewish question was under consideration by the
Senate. Derzhavin, op. cit., vol. VII, p. 763.
3. See p. 26 above.
4. Iggarot Baal HaTanya, p. 27.
5. Another title of the book Tanya, or Likutei Amurim.
6. Yorrui 38b
7. Iggarot, p. 105 f.
8. Ibid., p. 108 ff.
9. Ibid., p. 155 ff.
10. Ibid., p. 159 f.
11. Ibid., p . 169 ff.
12. Ibid., p . 171 f.
13. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak and Rabbi Schneur Zalman became related
through the marriage of their grandchildren. (See p. 216)
14• The “Bitter One,” after the town Gorki (or Horki), meaning
“bitter” in Russian. Iggarot, p. 172, n. 3.
15. Ps. 63:12.
16. Page 153 above.
17. This would indicate that RSZ began his leadership in the year
5544 (1784).
18. See page 34 above.
19. In Lachowitz there was Rabbi Mordechai (ch. XI, n. 39), and in
Miedzibosz there was Rabbi Baruch, grandson of the Baal Shem Tov; it
is not known, however, to whom RSZ refers in Vilna and Lubavitch.
20. Only one letter is extant of the year 5558 (1798) which Rabbi
260
N o t e s : F in a l Y ears
Abraham addressed to the Chasidim, urging them to refrain from con

troversy and strife. It can be found in fggarot, p. 112.
21. Hab. 2:4• Tbe letters referred to here have not been traced.
22. See n. 20 above.
23. According to Iggarot (p. 178, n. 9) the reference is to Rabbi
Aaron Katan (the “Small One”) of Smalein, a close aide to Rabbi
Abraham of Kalisk, who was sent as the latter’s emissary in 5548
(1788), and on his return “slandered our Chasidic fellowship.”
24• The lengthy epistle appears in Iggarot, p. 155.
25. The letters of 5562 and 5563 mentioned here are not available.
26. Makkot 24a.
27. Not the letter of 5561 referred to above. The letter mentioned
here is not available.
28. A play on Lam. 4:19, where the word kalim means “swift.” In
Talmud and Rabhinic usage, the adjective connotes levity in a religious
or moral sense.
29. See p. 193 above.
30. The episode referred to here is briefly mentioned in the heg. of
ch. Ill above.
31. See p. 24 above.
32. See ch. Ill, n. 6.
33. See Rabbi Abraham’s letter of ( 5565), Iggarot, p. 164.
34• Shabbat 32b. See Iggarot, p. 178, n. 18.
35. Yaakov Smilianer (RYS) was one of the devoted followers of
Rahbi Menachem Mendel Horodoker. After the latter’s emigration to
the Holy Land, RYS was appointed by him as his personal representa
tive in charge of fund-raising for the Chasidic colony in the Holy Land.
36. Lev. 25:20.
37. An unusual name; identity unknown.
38. I. G. Orshansky, Russkoye zakonodatelstvo o evreiakh, op. cit., pp.
274 ff.
39. Ibid., p. 277.
40. The official Jewish population in Russia in 1803 was 350,000
(25,016 in White Russia in 1772). In 1847 the official Jewish popula
tion in Russia numbered 1,441,363. As the statistics were unreliable,
and the Jews usually refused to supply correct figures, the actual Jewish
population is believed to have been much greater. While the majority
of the Jewish communities were small (100 to 1,000 souls), about half
of the Jewish population in the Pale was crowded in the larger cities.
Cf. Jewish Community in Russia, op. cit., pp. 18, 19.
41■ Iggarot, p. 192.
42. Apparently in reference to a decree (1804) permitting Jews to
261
visit cities outside the Pale on special permits from the local governors,
provided the Jews were dressed according to the prevailing style of the
Russians. HaRav miLiadi, p.
43. Num. 14:9, applying it here to his adversaries.
44. See p. 190 ff. above.
45. Beit Rebbi, p. 167, n. 1.
46. A partial list of his published works (including various editions)
appears in Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, pp. 299-352. A comprehensive list
appears at the end of this book.
47. Some twenty-three major compilations of maamarim by RSZ,
published for the first time, are listed at the end of this book.
48. Likutei Torah, KPS (Brooklyn, NY 1965);Pekudei, 10a, Tzav, 18a;
Pinchas, 154a; Shir HaShirim, 2a f. Torah Or, KPS (Brooklyn, NY, 1954),
14a, 124a, 225a.
49. Likutei Diburim, vol. II, p. 530.
50. Three volumes of Chabad Neginah, entitled Sefer HaNigunim,
have been published by ''Nichoach,” an affiliate of the Chabad-
Lubavitch movement, vol. I (Brooklyn, NY, 1948), vol. II (1957), vol.
Ill (1980) edited by Rabbi Shmuel Zalmanoff, with a comprehensive
Introduction to vol. I. Also L.R records and audio tapes have been pub
lished so far by the same organization.
51. The 12th of Tammuz, birthday of the sixth Lubavitcher Rabbi,
Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn (1880-1950), is also the anniversary of his
liberation from imprisonment in Soviet Russia (in 1927), when he
faced charges of counter-revolutionary activity for his defiance of the
anti-religious policy of the regime. The day is one of the notable
Chabad anniversary celebrations.
52. These terms will be explained in vol. II.
53. See Sefer HaNigunim, op. cit. vol. I, Introduction, p. 43 f.
54. Ibid., p. 44
55. Ibid., p . 21.
56. Ibid., ibid.
5 7 . Ibid., p . 22.
5 8 . Ibid., p . 23.
59. Likutei Diburim, vol. IV, p. 1436.
60. See also Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, pp. 281-297.
C h a p t e r T h ir t e e n / L a s t J o u r n e y
1. Rabbi Schneur Zalman was not the only Chasidic leader who con
sidered Napoleon a menace to the Jewish people. This view was shared
262
N o tes: Last Journey
also by Rabbi Israel of Kozienice. A. Marcus, HaCfiasidut p. 114•

2. About Moshe Meisels’ last years and emigration to Palestine see
Beit Rebbi, p. 94 f• See also Finn, Kiryah Ne’emanah (Vilna, 1860), p.
247.
3. Iggarot Baal HaTanya, p. 238.
4. HaRan miLwdi, vol. 1, pp. 153-158.
5. Beit Rebbi, p. 94 f.; Sefer HaToldot, RSZ, p. 262.
6. Also Rabbi Moshe, youngest son of RSZ, participated in the intel
ligence service rendered to the Russian military. Beit Rebbi, ibid.
7. That Moshe Meisels had personal access to the Czar is evidenced
from a letter written by Rabbi Dov Ber, son and successor of RSZ, to
Moshe Meisels in connection with a problem that had arisen regarding
the new cemetery at Hadiacz. In it the new head of Chabad specifical
ly requests Moshe Meisels to intercede with the Czar personally. Beit
Rebbi, p. 102 f.
8. Beit Rebbi, p. 101.
9. Likutei Diburim, vol. 1, p. 165. This tradition is significant in lend
ing further support to the date of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s birth in
1745; not 1747 as stated in Beit Rebbi and other sources that followed
it.
10. Likutei Diburim, vol. I, p. 28ft.
11. HaRav miLiadi, vol. I, p. 159.
12. Introduction to the Shukhan Aruch, by RSZ’s sons.
13. Ber. Rabba, 8:5.
14. B.B. 8b, 9a.
15. See HaRav miLiadi I, p. 163, where author erroneously assumes
that RSZ’s sons were at his bedside. Actually, none of RSZ’s sons was at
his demise, for they had all been away, as mentioned earlier.
16. HaRav miLiadi, p. 165.
17. Customary expression of respect and sorrow for the demise of a
parent during the first year of mourning.
18. The original letter appears in Beit Rebbi, p. 95 ff., Sefer HaToldot,
RSZ, p. 264 ff.
19. RSZ is reported to have exclaimed these words in a state of rap
turous ecstasy, lying prostrated on the floor. Likutei Diburim, vol. IV, p.
1556.
263
I ndex
INDEX
Aharon Yaakov of Slutzk,44

Aaron Hagadol of Karlin, Aharon of Yaroslav, 96
176,252, 257,258 Aharon Yosef, 67
Aaron Hakatan of Smalein, Aizik’l Frumeles—see Frumeles
261 Akim, 8
Abram-Abraham, embodiment Alexander 1—see Czar
of kindness, 16, 48, 158 Alexander (Prosecutor), 184,
Abraham, the “Angel,” 5, 26, 185
108, 241, 247 Alexander Sender of Shklov,
Abraham (son of Gaon of 247
Vilna),96, 97, 100, 117 AUyot Eliyahu, 254
Abraham David Moshe, 238 Am HaAretz, 238
Abraham of Kalisk, 21-23, 35 Am Haaretz, XIV, XVII, 18,
37, 176,189-191, 193-197, 199, 45, 198
207, 210, 244, 259, 261 Alkesnik, 244
Abraham of Liozna, 2 Amsterdam, 98, 99, 251
Abraham the “Rofeh,” 61, 64, Anipoli, 19, 25, 243
68 Anocki, 15
Abraham Yagel ben Chanania, Antokol, 163
252 Aptzug, 59
Abraham Sheines, 251 Aptzuger, Moshe, 61-64, 68
Adam, 142 Ari, the, 30-32, 192, 246
Adam Baal Shem of Ropshitz, Arke Assayer—see Aharon of
XV, 238 Strashelia
Admur HaTzemach Tzedek Asiyah, 213, 224
uTenuas HaHaskalah, 240 Assaye, 249
Aggadah-Aggadot, 9, 11, 97 Assi, 230
Aharon of Strashelia, see Atah Hareita, 65, 68, 129
Hurwitz, Aharon Atzilut, 9, 213
Aharon of Vitebsk, 176 Austria, XII, 217
267
R abbi S c h n e u r Z ala4an
Av-Beit-Din of Pinsk, 24; 210, 259, 260

Shklov, 23; Vilna, 78 Baruch Mordechai (of Vilna),
Avigdor Chaimovitch, 25, 101, 103, 105-107
167-173, 175, 176, 178-182, Baruch Mordechai (of
184, 245 Bobroysk), 78, 250
Avodat Halevi, 249 Baruch (son of Moshe
Avraham Abba of Rudnia, 67 Aptzuger), 63, 64
Avraham Zalman of Bayev, 219
Beshenkowitz, 53 Beit Din, 67, 75, 152, 163,
Avraham Zalman’s of 205, 245
Dubrovna, 67 Beif-Din of Shklov, 24; Vilna,
Azriel of Polotzk, 128 24, 116-118
Beit HaMikdash, 212
B
Beit Rebbi, by Ch. M. Hilman,
Baal Habayit, BaaleRBattim, 59, 240-248, 251, 253-255, 260,
91 262, 263
Baal Shem of Ropshitz, Bela (daughter of Rabbi Dov
Adam—see Adam Baal Shem Ber), 198
Baal Shem of Zamosc, Joel— Benjamin Zalman Riveles, 99
see Joel Baal Shem Berditchev, 17, 240, 296
Baal Shem Tov, Rabbi Israel Berel Meir, 67
(the Besht), IX, Xl-Xlll, XV- Berlin, 96-100, 102, 106, 118,
XXI, 2-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 251
22, 23, 25, 32, 34, 40, 44, 45, Betzalel, son of Maharal, 240
48-50, 54, 60, 69, 71, 72, 74 Betzalel Azriel, 121
77, 84, 98, 121, 127, 128, 140, Betzalel Baruch, 104, 107, 115
144, 149-152, 156, 157, 168, Beriah, 213
169, 172, 176, 192, 194, 202, Biurei'HaZohar, 211
208, 209, 237-240, 243, 245, Bi'i'iah—see Chabad
246, 250, 257, 260 Binyamin of Kletzk, 102, 121,
Bahir, 16 122
Baklishov, Andrei, 184, 185 Biur (Mendelssohn’s), 96-99
Barati, allusion to the 613 pre Bohemia, 1, 8, 40
cepts, 15 B(>risov, 226
Bar-Mitzvah, 6, 8, 9, 116 Borodino, 221
Baron, S. W.: .A Social and Boruchovitch, Zalman, 154,
Religious History of the Jews, 166, 171, 173-177, 240
237, 238 Breslau, 106
Baruch, father of Rabbi Bresslau, M., 106
Schneur Zalman, 1-6, 8-10, 14, Brest—see Brisk
179, 186, 225, 289 Brisk, 40, 44, 59, 70, 121
Baruch of Medzibosz, 157, 208- Brit, 25, 230
268
INDEX
Brody, 40, 204, 244, 245 Chaver, XIV

Bulgakov, 133, 154 Chayah, 213
Bunim, Yosef, 198 Chayyim (numerical equivalent
Burning Bush, XVII, 45-47, of 68), 219
253 Cheder, Chadarim, 3444 ,36‫״‬,
Burtinka, Marshall Count, 228 52-54, 56, 60, 71, 103, 128,
Byeli Rutchei, 8 138
Cherem, XIX, 40, 54, 55, 115
117, 121, 134, 245
Caro, Rabbi Yosef, 19 Cherson, 188, 223
Chabad (chochmah-binah-da’at), Chesed, 16, 158, 195, 226
VII-X, XVIII, XXI, 1, 7, 20, Chesed L’Abraham, 241
34, 73, 74, 77, 82-86, 101-104, CHevrafi Kadisha, 1, 6, 9, 222
122, 123, 129, 136, 143, 144, Chmielnicki, Hetman Bogdan,
159, 187, 189, 195, 196, 205 XII, XIII, 229
207, 210-215, 217, 233, 237 Chochmah—see Chabad
242, 245, 250, 251, 255, 256, Commandments (The), 239
258, 262, 263, 289, 291 Continuous Creation, XVI,
Chabad'Lubavitch, Outlines of XVIII
the Social and Communal Cossack, XII, 258
Work of, 242 Council of the Four Lands, 95
Chagat (chesed'gevurah'tiferet), Cracow, 105, 106
195 Czar: Alexander, 165, 180,
ChagHageida, 159 181,208, 216-217 Paul, 133,
Chaim (son of Moshe 145, 154, 165, 167, 170, 180,
Aptzuger), 63 184 Peter, 184
Chaim Abraham, 110, 223 Czarist Russia, XX, 132, 134,
Chaim of Cherhay, 253 157, 187
Chaim Elia of Druya, 53 Czernobil, 76, 250
Chaim Elia of Dubrovna, 61,
62, 64, 67
D
Chaimovitch, Avigdor—see Da'at—see Chabad
Avigdor Chaimovitch David, 175, 224, 238
Chaim of Volozhin, 43, 98, Davidovitsch, Hirsh, 171
118, 119, 246 Davnich, Marshall, 227
Chanoch Henoch, 121, 123, Decalogue, 3
248 Demuto HaHistorit Shel
Chanukah, 90, 91, 94, 125, HaBesht, 239
156, 251 Der Morgen Journal, 238
Chariot-Divine, 15 Derzhavin, G. R., 164-167,
Chatzi-Rav, Israel, 206 173, 208, 256, 257, 260
269
Dessau, 90, 206, 251 164

Devekut, X, XVI, 77, 215 Eliezer, father of Besht, 17
Dikduk, 113 Elijah (Gaon)—see Gaon of
Dikduk Eliyahu, 100 Vilna
Dinur, B., 239 Elijah (the Prophet), 29, 31,
Diskin, Yoel, 246 32, 58, 246
Disna, 165, 195'197 Elimelech of Lizajsk, 252
Dnieper, 219, 220 Elimelech Shaul of Polotzk,
Dniester, 36 128
Dobromysl, 120 Elimelech of Yanov, 124
Dov Ber, Maggid of Miezricz— Elyakum Faivush, 252
see Maggid of Miezricz Emanation, Divine, 15, 16,
Dov Ber (Schneuri), 5274 ,55‫׳‬, 213
83, 84, 109, 126, 127, 137, Emden, Rabbi Jacob, 243
152, 153, 193, 196, 198, 211, EnSof, 12, 15,46, 136
219, 223, 225, 231, 232, 240, Ephraim Michel of Shklov, 61,
241, 249, 251, 263, 293, 294, 67
296-299 Epikores, 204
Dov Ber Moshe, 165, 166 Esau, 113, 114, 158
Dov Ze’ev of Yekaterinoslav, Evreiskaia Endklopedia, 238
148 Evreiskaia Scarina, 257
Dubno, Solomon, 96, 98, 99 Eybeschutz, Jonathan, XIII,
Dubno (Wolhynia), 43, 98, 243
251
Dubnow, S., 254, 257
Dubrovna, 61, 62, 64, 67, 120, Falkin, Commandant, 163
136, 227 Farhrengen, 112,213
Dvina, 10 Fastov, 241, 247
Dvorah Leah, 6, 74-77, 152, Ferrara, 252
251 Finn, 263
Frank, Jacob; Frankists, XIII,
XVIII, XIX, 33, 115, 168
Eichel, Isaac, 106 Frankel, David, 96
Eizik “Mechadesh,” 58-63, 68 Frankfurt am Main, 98, 246
Eizik of Fiomel, Rabbi, 127 French, 96, 133, 153, 154,
Elazar of Disna, 195-197 216-223, 228, 255
Elia Avraham’s, 67 Friedlander Brothers, 106
Eliyahu Ze’ev of Smargon, 252 Frizel, Gov., 185
Eliyahu ben Mordechai, 251 Frumeles, Aizik’l, 105, 106
Elianov, General, 227 Franco'Russian War, 188, 222
Eliashowitz, Councillor, 163, Freida, 251
270
I ndex
G Haskalah, XXI, 24, 95, 99,

100, 102, 103, 106, 114, 239,
Gabbaim, 83, 87, 88, 92, 206 240, 251
Galicia, XI, 30, 43,95, 101, HaRai‫ ׳‬Miliadi uMifleget
102, 117, 120, 121, 240, 241 Chabad, 242, 247, 248, 253‫׳‬
Gan Eden HaElyon, 75, 112, 259, 262, 263
114 Haskamah, XX, 122
Gan Eden HaTachton, 52, 64, Hatamim, 243-245, 247, 255
79, 112, 114 Havdalah, 77, 224
GaonofVilna, XX, 13, 24, 27 Hayom Yom, 239, 241, 259
31,33,34,43,78-81,95-100, He'Avar, 244
115-118, 120, 121, 204, 205, Hechcdot, 2
244-246, 253, 254 Hellenistic CwiHzfltion and the
Gedaliah, Fast of, 77, 107 Jews, 237
Gedalia of Kalisk, 67 Helma, Solomon, 95, 239
Gehinnom, 113, 114 Hena, Shlomo Zalman, 99,
German(y), 30, 32, 95-97, 100, 100
101,117,131, 165,210, 251, Henoch Shklover—see Schick
252 Hessen, U.I., 257
Gevurak—see Chagat, 195, 226 Hertz (son of Israel), 186
Glitzenstein (A. Ch.), 248 Hilchot Talmud Torah, 248,
Golden Calf, 3 284, 290
Gorki, 260 Hillel of Paritch, 127, 253
Greater Poland, 30 Hilman, Ch. M., 240, 247
Guide, 110 Hilman, D. Z., 240
H Hirshele “Sneh” (Hirshele
“Bren”)—see Tzvi of Smilian,
HaChasidut (Sefer), 238, 241,
123, 253
249-252, 258, 259, 263
Holy Society, 15-17, 54
Hadiacz, 223, 225, 231, 263 Hurwitz, Rabbi Pinchas, 98,
Haditch, 120
246
Haflaah, 98, 246 Hurwitz, Aharon HaLevi (of
Hakafah, Hakafot, 57, 58, 62 Strashelia), 52, 83, 85, 249, 251
66, 68, 129, 136, 253
Halachah, Halachic, 7, 14, 19, I
20, 43,44, 55, 194,211,240,
Isaac, 175
241, 248, 250 Isaiah of Yanov, 257
Halachot veHalichot beChasidut,
Ishmael, 158
247, 248 Islam, XII
Hamburg, 106 Israel Chatzi Rav—see Chatzi
HaMe’Asef, 252 Rav
Hannover, Nathan, 238
Israel of Kozienice, 263
271
Israel of Polotzk, 35, 186, 247 185, 248, 252, 257, 258, 259
Israel of Zamosc, 95, 96, 239 Kat, XIX, 49, 69, 121, 176,
Issachar Ber of Lubavitch, 84, 244, 245
242, 247 Katz, Abraham ben Alexander,
Isser, Rabbi, 245 191, 244
Istoria Chasidskavo Raskola, 296 Katzenelson, Dr. L., 238
Italy, 30, 131, 252 Kavai-iah, XVI, 247
Itzkovitz, Nachum, 163 Kazabnikov, Dov Zeev, 127
Ivansker, Shlomo, 7 Kehilah, 101—see als(r Kahal
Kehot Publication Society,
J 237, 239, 29D301
Jacob, 158, 159, 175 Kelipah, Kelipot, 31, 150, 158,
Jacob Joseph HaKohen of 217, 226
Polonnoye, XX, 40, 168, 257 Kelot Im'Nefesh, 15, 144
Jewish Community in Russia Keter, 105
1772^1844, 240, 244, 248, 259, Kimchi, David—^see Radak
261 Kiryah Ne’ernaruih, 263
Joel Baal Shem of Zamosc, XV Kkzurhn Vehaorois leTanya,
Joseph, 124 244, 252, 253
Yehuda Leib, great grandson of Kobilniker, Issachar Ber—see
Maharal, 240 Issachar Ber of Lubavitch
Yehuda Leib Segal, -10, 18, K(X:hanow, 58, 59
289 Koenigsberg, 106, 123
Yehuda Lowe (Maharal), 1, Kolbt>, Rabbi Yosef, 23, 71, 72,
240 102
Kopust, XX, 211,245
K Kornev, 170
Kabbala, Kabbalist, IX, XIll, Kosik, Israel, 146, 153
XVI, XVIII, XIX, 1, 7,8, 12, Kovno, 218, 222, 226, 231
15, 17, 27,31,32, 34, 102, Krasna, 219, 220, 227, 228,
131, 172, 194, 211, 213, 232, 231
241, 243, 245, 246, 254 Kremenitz, 43
Kahal, XIV, 41, 49, 134, 164, Krementchug, 223, 231
168, 171, 179 Kuritres Acharon, 123
Kaidan, 69 Kuntres Chai Elul, 245
Kalisk, 24, 33, 37, 120, 136, Kuntres Chicago, 239, 248
204, 244 Kuntres Tomt HaChasidut, 239,
Kaluga, 230 240, 243
KamenetZ'Podolsk, 208, 253 Kursk, 219, 227, 230
Karlin, Karlinist, 154, 163, Ffutuzov, 170'172, 257
164, 171, 173, 175-178, 182- Kuzari, 1 !0,
Kuzma, 57
I ndex
229, 240, 246, 248, 259

Little Russia, 29, 223, 229
Lachowitz, 178, 200, 259, 260 Lopukhin, General, 165, 171
Landau, Ezekiel, 40, 99, 247 Lubanov, Count, 231
Lapuchin, 154 Lubavitch, 7, 77, 83, 84, 120,
Latin, 252 200, 211, 241, 242, 247, 248,
Lebanon, 47 260
Lebensohn, Isaac Ber, 95, 240 Lubomirsky, Prince, 167, 186
Leib Yitzchak, 67 Luria, Yitzchok, IX, 8, 192,
Leipzig, 102, 121 246, 247
Lekach Tov, 121, 252 Lurianic Kabbala, IX, 31, 41,
Leshnov, 245 194, 245, 246, 254—see also
Levi(tes), 67, 124, 212 Ari, the
Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, Lutzk, 43
24, 25, 156, 196‫־‬200, 260 Luzzato, Moses Chayyim, XIII
Levitas, L, 240 Lvov, 115
Liadi, 17, 19, 83, 84, 120, 136,
186‫ ־‬188, 207, 218, 219, 221,
M
222, 227, 228, 249 Maamarfim), 255, 262
Liepla, 147 Ma’aseh Rav, 253
Lifschitz, Israel, 100 Maggid of Liozna, 19, 23
Likutei Amorim {Tanya)—see Maggid Devoro L’Yaakov, 243
Tanya Maggid of Miezricz, 5, 6, 9, 11,
Likutei Diburim, 237, 239244‫־‬, 13 , 14 , 1749 , 21‫ ׳‬26, 37,41 ,
2 4 7 2 6 2 ,260 ,256‫־‬249, 254‫־‬, , 69, 76, 77, 99,
45 , 54 , 55 , 60
263 108, 124, 128,140,144 , 149,
Likutei Sippurim, 251 152, 169, 194, 197, 199, 205,
Likutei Torah, 211, 262, 294 214 , 240, 243, 244‫־‬248, 250,
Linda, Baruch, 106 252, 255, 258, 289
Liozna, 1, 2, 4, 6 2 3 ,19 ,18 ,8‫־‬, of Zlotchev, 205
Maggid
3 4 7 2 ,71 ,67 Maimon,
,61‫־‬38 , 49Solomon,
, 56‫־‬, 95, 106,
78, 82‫־‬87, 90, 91, 93, 94. 103‫־‬ 239
105, 1 0 7 1 2 7 ,124 ,112 Maimonides—^
,109‫־‬, see Rambam
1 2 8 , 1 3 4 1 5 4 , 1 5 6 ,152 ,137‫־‬,Mangel, Nissen, 300
160, 166, 171, 186, 219, 242, Marcus, Aaron, 238, 240, 248,
248, 251, 255, 257, 289, 295, 250 ‫־‬ 252 , 258 , 262
297 Maskilim—see Haskalah
Lithuania(n), XI, XX, 11, 13, Mazaisk, 228, 229, 232
16, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 34, 37, “Meassefim,’’ 106
56, 69, 95, 100, 102, 103, 106, Meckler, David L., 238, 242
130, 134, 154, 163, 168, 170, Megilah, 159
171, 185, 195, 196, 210, 218, Meisels, Moshe, 74, 97, 101,
273
103, 105, 106, 115, 216, 218, 239, 300

225, 231, 232, 255, 263, 288 Minor Poland (Galicia), 30
Melamed, Melamdim, 7, 64, Minsk, 2 2 ,11, 37, 44, 49, 70,
103, 113, 114, 139 100, 115, 120, 121, 130, 134,
Memoirs of Rabbi Yosef Y. 170-172, 176, 178, 226, 249,
Schneerson, 238-242, 250, 255 253, 290
258 MirkeveC-HaMishneh, 95, 239
Menachem Elia, 242 Mishnat Yoel, 246
Menachem Mendel (father of Mitnagdic, Mitnagdim, XX, 24,
Mendelssohn), 96, 251 35, 40,41,43-45,51,54, 58
Menachem Mendel of 61, 73, 74, 77,82, 101, 103,
Lubavitch, 6, 74, 77, 78, 107, 104, 108, 116, 119-122, 126,
129, 135, 152, 211, 222, 250, 131, 137, 141, 145, 153, 155,
292, 296-299 161, 166-168, 181, 188, 210,
Menachem Mendel (Horodoker) 245, 250, 260, 290
of Vitebsk, 26, 27, 34-37, 78, Mitzvah, Mitzvot, 7, 28, 29,
83, 189, 193, 199, 204, 244 36, 42. 47, 108, 144. 191, 194,
247, 252, 259, 261 197,228
Menachem Nachum, of Mohilev, XX, 1,36-38,51,58,
Czernobil, 250 60, 115, 227, 241, 253
Menashe of Ilya, 99 Molad, 239, 240
Mendelssohn, Moses, 96-99, Moravia, 246
251 Mordechai (brother of Rabbi
Mendes, David Franco, 106 Schneur Zalman), 34, 26, 60,
Me’or Einayim, 250 79
Meshulam Zusia of Anipoli, Mordechai of Czemobil, 250
122, 124, 126, 252 Mordechai of Lachowitz, 259,
Messiah, XIII, XVIII, 4, 115, 260
166 Mordechai Liepler, 147, 154
Metzaref Haavodah, 246 156
Micha’el Aharon Hakohen of Moscow, 222, 223, 228-230,
Vitebsk, 66-68 232
Micha’el of Nevel, 138 Moshe Cheifetz of Tzaves, 260
Michel the Shamash, 57 Moshe (emissary of Rabbi
Midrasfi, 4, 9, 11,48, 97, 113, Schneur Zalman), 124
114 Moshe (father of Menachem
Miedzibosz, 3-5, 9, 200,260 Mendel of Vitebsk), 245
Miezricz, 13, 14,17-19, 52, 64, Moshe Gedalia of Swintzan, 71
108 Moshe Hirsh of Vitebsk, 67
Mikvah, 112 Moshe Meisels of Vilna—see
Milentowitz, Itzik, 164 Meisels, Moshe
Mindel, Nissan, VIII, X, 238, Moshe Morduchovitz, 163
274
I ndex
Moshe (Rabbeinu), 32, 33, 45‫־‬ Nusach, 10M04, 247, 252

48, 178, 238 Nusach An, 41, 102, 211, 247,
Moshe (brother of Rabbi 252, 292
Schneur Zalman), 34, 36, 60,
79
o
Moshe (great grandfather of Obolyaninov, Attorney General,
Rabbi Schneur Zalman), 240 170, 172‫ ־‬174, 180
Moshe (son of Rabbi Schneur Obsherenish, 241
Zalman), 7, 53, 55, 110, 153, Offenbach, 98
188, 221, 263 Oka River, 230
Munkis, Shmuel, 52, 136, 249 Or HaGanuz, 252
Mussar, 36, 121 Or HaTorah, 168
Orsha, 1, 14
N Orshansky, I. G., 242, 261
Na’aritzach, 105 Osherowitz, Moshe, 163, 164,
Nachmanides—see Ramban 172
Nachman Velvl of Babinowitz, Ostrog, 43
53 Otzar HaChasidim (Lubavitz),
Nachman of Horodno, 254 238, 239, 243
Nachum (grandson of Rabbi Oushatz, 51
Schneur Zalman), 126, 219‫־‬ Outlines of the Social and
221 Communal Work of Chabad
Nachum of Czemobil, 76 Lubavitch, 242
Naftali “Zahir,” 5 8 9 8 ,61‫־‬
Nakdishach; Nekadesh, 105
Napoleon, 173, 2 1 6 2 2 0 ,218‫־‬,Padua, 99
222, 223, 225, 226, 231, 232, Pale, 132, 187, 208, 209, 261,
262 262
Nebrovsky, General, ITl^ 228 Palestine, 34, 35, 83, 132, 133,
Nefesh, 213 166, 169, 173, 189, 209, 244,
Neginah, X, 2 1 1 2 6 2 ,215‫־‬ 245, 253, 263
Neshamah, 213 Pardes, 16
Neva River, 147 Pamass; Pamassim, 101, 116,
Nevel, 137, 138 162
Nezed Hadema, 95, 239 Pearson, Abba, 159
Nichoach, 262 Pelach Harimon, 253
Nidduy, 55 Peri Haaret?, 245
Nigunim, X, 111, 213, 215 Peor, 204
Nikolsburg, 246 Perlow, Ch. M., 251
Nistar; Nistarim, XV, 2, 32, 84 Peseles, Joseph, 98, 101, 104,
Noda Biyehudah, 247 115‫ ־‬118
Nathan Notkin, 260
275
Peter‫־‬Paul Fortress, 134, 142, Pshat, 97

147 Purim, 90, 94, 213. 251
Petersburg, 132‫ ־‬135, 137, 140‫־‬
R
142, 145‫־‬147 153, 157, 165‫־‬
168, 1 7 1 1 8 4 , 1 8 6 ‫־‬173, 181 ‫־‬,
Rachel, 251
188, 209,210,217, 230, 238, Radak, 32
242, 256, 257, 259, 260, 290 Rambam (Maimonides), 32,
Peyot, 6, 241 79, 109
Pidîon, 76 Ramban, 32
Piena, 222, 223, 227, 231, 290 Rashbam, 97
Pilpul, 59 Rashi, 46143 ,113 ,97 ,48‫׳‬
Pinchas Eliyahu of llukst, 71 Razan, 230
Pinchas Eliyahu of Vilna, 99 Refaels, Meir, 116, 163
Pinchas Reizes, 5 1 2 4 8 ,74 ,66‫־‬
Refaels, Shlomo, 6972‫־‬
Pinchas (emissary of Rabbi Reshitah Shel HaChasidut
Schneur Zalman), 124 Visodoteha HaSozialiyim
Pinsk, 24, 25, 59, 167, 168, VeHaMeshkhiyim, 239
170, 171, 181, 183, 184 Responsa, 63, 248, 293
Podolia, XI, XIII, 36, 43, 52, Rikud, 65
59, 60, 130, 208, 209 Rivkah (mother of Rabbi
Poland; Poles; Polish, XI ‫־‬XV, Schneur Zalman), 1 9 ,6 ,3‫־‬,
XX, 1, 11, 30, 32,52,82, 84, 152, 255, 289
96, 101, 102, 131, 133, 179, Romen, 231
210,217,218, 221,225,226, Romnia, 223
241,251,252 Rovno, 19, 204
Polotzk, 35, 105, 106, 128, Ruach, 213
186, 247, 253 Rudnia, 67, 120, 136
Poltava, 188, 221, 223, 225, Rumania, XI, 120, 121
231, 290 Russia(n), VII, XII, XX, 29,
Ponieviezh, 103 82,84, 85,95, 132, 133, 151,
Porush, Avraham, 121 153, 164, 165, 169, 173‫ ־‬175,
Porush, Tanchum, 120, 121 180, 181, 188, 204, 208, 211,
Porush, Tuvia Kalmen Faivush, 216‫־‬219, 221‫־‬223, 226‫־‬231,
121 240, 241, 244, 248, 255, 257‫־‬
Posen, 7 263, 289, 301
Posner, Zalman I., 300 Russkaya Enciklopedia, 250
Prague, 1, 7, 40, 99 Russkoye Zakonodatehtvo o
Priestly Blessing, 6 Evreiakh, 242, 261
Prussia, 232, 244
Psal, 231
Psalm(s), XVI, 6, 96, 111, 139, Saadiah ben Nathan Nota, 30,
148, 152, 237, 255, 256
276
I ndex
253 Sha’ar HaYichud VeHaEmunah,

Shabbatian(s), XIII, XIX, 33, 122, 239, 244, 258, 292
171 Sha’arei HaYichud
Safed, 244, 245, 247 VeHaEmunah, 249
Saintly Society, 23 Shabbatai Tzvi, XII, XVIII,
Saliba-Rudnia, 138 XIX, 115, 168,177, 259
Saul, 199 Shabse Meir of Beshenkowitz,
Schick, Baruch, 99 66, 67
Samuel the Seer, 89 Shacharit, 251
Schick, Chanoch Henoch, 23, Shalom Shachna, 77, 122, 251
121, 123, 248 Shaul, Rabbi, 69
Schick, Pinchas, 102, 121, Shechinah, 66
122, 223 Shechitah, Shochet,
Schneersohn, Yosef Y., 84, 123, Shochetim, 41-43
148, 151,237-239, 242, 243, Sheirit Yehuda, 240
256, 262, 292 Sheloh—^see Shenei Luchot
Schneerson, Menachem M., X, HaBerit, IX, 101
144, 239, 291, 295 Shelosh Meat Shanah Shel
Schneuri, Rabbi Dov Ber—see Yahadut Polin, 238
Dov Ber Schneuri Shmuel, Rabbi of Vilna, 40
Scholem, G., 239 Shenei Luchot HaBerit, 12
Schonfeld, M., 238 Shilem Yudel, 58
Sefer HaBrit, 99 Shimon Baruch’s, 67
Sefer HaChasidut—see Shimon of Zamut (the
HaChasidut Grammarian), 100-117
Sefer Hamaamarim, 242, 243 Shimon Elia of Drutzen, 58, 59
Sefer Hanigunim, 262 Shklov, XIX, 21-24, 27-29, 37,
Sefer Hasichot 5700, 244, 249, 40,44.61,63, 67, 69-72, 99,
250, 255 102, 121, 123, 141, 165, 204,
Sefer Shel Benonim—see Tanya 211. 215, 223, 227, 247, 248,
Sefer HaToldot, Rabbi Schneur 251,260, 291-293
Zalman, 248-256, 258, 260, Shlomo (Solomon) of Karlin,
262, 263 80, 104, 287, 301, 302
Sefirot, 110, 133, 237 Shmaye Berei’s, 67
Segal, Yehuda Leib—see Shmuel (great grandson of
Yehuda Leib Rabbi Schneur Zalman), 128,
Sephardic, Sephardim, 32, 43, 135
196, 258 Shmuel (grandson of
Seudah, 111 Maharal), 240
Seudat Mitzvah, 42, 107 Shmuel, Av Beit Din of Vilna,
Severin, Gov., 172, 174, 179 78
Sha’ar Hashamayim, 101 Shmuel ben Avigdor, 245
277
R a b b i St:t!NKLJR Z a l m a n
Shmuel Dov Ber, 126 I'a k a n o t. (Liozna), 66, 83, 85,

Shmuel Halevi, 122 86, 90-94, 251
Shmuel of Kalisk—see Munkis, T a lm id C h a c h a r n , T a lm id e i-
Shmuel C h a c k a m im , XIV, 45, 47, 139
Shmuel Moshe, 67, 147 Talmud, Talmudic study,
Shorpotovka, 176 Talmiidisr(s), X, XIll, XIV,
Shulchan Aruch, Rav’s, VII, X, XV!, XX, 1, 7,9, 12, 13, 17,
17, 20, 82,211,240, 242, 244, 19-23, 32,34, 36,40, 43-45,
248, 250, 263, 289, 291, 293 47, 49, 54, 56, 58-61, 63, 69,
Siddur, Rav’s, 113, 211, 292, 293 71,78-80, 84, 95-97, 99, 100,
Sifra diTzniusa, 246 102, 106, 109, n o , 112, 121,
Simcha Zissel of Horodok, 52 150, 152, 195, 197, 215, 232,
Simchat Beit HaShoevah, 131, 237, 243, 246-248, 251-253,
254 255, 259, 261, 297
Sinai, Mount, 3, 46, 190 Tambov, 222, 230
Sitra Achra,192, 256 Tanchum Porush—see Ptirush,
Slavita, 107, 118, 122, 124 Tanchum
126, 244, 292 T a n a h n , 60
Slutzk, XIX, 40, 44, 59-61, 69, T a n y a ( L i k u t e i - A m a r i m ) , VII,
70, 100, 120, 121, 178 X, XX, 12, 16, 20,30, 31,34,
Smargon, 100, 252 81, 82, 118, 120-129, 130,
Smilewitz, 58, 59 150-152, 168, 180, 191, 193,
Smilian, 49 195,202,210,211,215,237,
Smolensk, 1, 219, 228 239, 243, 244, 246, 251, 253,
Smyrna, 171 255, 258, 260, 285, 286, 290,
Social and Religious History of 291, 292, 300, 301
the Jews, 237 T a r g u m , 46
Sofer, 96 Tcherikover, Victor, 237
Solomon of Dubno-see Tchemigov, 115
Dubno, Solomon Teitelbauin, M., 240, 242, 247
Spain, 32 Tekun, 3
Spinozian, 239 T e s h u v a h (Laws of), 32, 45, 47,
Sterna, 10, 19 48, 111, 215
Strashelia, 249 T e ’u d a h B ’Y isra el, 95, 240
Swedish, XII Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, 3
Swintzan, 56, 69-71, 106 Thirty Years' War, XII
Tiberias, 205, 244, 245
T ik u n C h a tz o t, 111, 112
Taharah, 49 T ik u n e i Z o h a r , 202, 237, 256
Taharah dance, 111 I h h a b ’A v , 33
Tainy Soviet, 147, 155 T o ld o t G h a y y a i, 95, 239
XX, 40,
T o ld o t Y a a k a v Y o s e f,
I ndex
168, 247, 257 Vilna, XIX, XX, 13, 18, 22, 24,
Tolotchin, General, 226 26‫ ׳‬29, 40 , 42 , 44 , 56, 59, 60,
Tolstoy, 227, 228, 230 69, 70, 78, 81, 95, 96-101,
Torah Or, 149,211,262, 294 103407 , 114, 116, 118, 121,
Treaty of Tdsit, 217 130, 131, 133, 134, 141, 151,
Tritza Zerka, 229 153, 154, 161464 , 167, 168,
Tultschin, 209 170472 , 177, 178, 181, 185,
Turkey, 30, 115, 131, 133, 171 200, 204, 216, 218, 222, 226,
Tuvia Meilech’s, 67 237, 240, 244-246, 253, 260,
Tveria—see Tiberias 263, 288, 292-294
Tzaddik(im), 45, 47, 48, 58, 59, Vital, Chayim, 246
71, 72, 80, 139, 147, 198, 201, Vitebsk, 1,3,9-11, 18, 19, 35,
202, 204, 206,210, 231,258 59, 60, 66, 67, 72, 78, 83, 84,
Tzarah—Tzohar, 46 107, 109, 111, 120, 128, 136
Tzavaat HaRibash, 168, 172, 138, 154, 156, 176, 206, 221
245, 258 223, 226, 227, 245, 250, 252,
Tzedakah, 29, 224 253, 259, 289
Tzemach Tzedek, 7, 77, 78, Vladimir, 229, 230
129, 135, 222, 292, 296, 297, - Voskhod, 254, 257
see also Menachem of Vyazma, 228, 230
Lubavitch
Tzevi, Rabbi of Shklov, 251
w
Tzimtzumim, 15, 254 Warsaw, 106, 217, 242, 243
Tzohar LaTeva, 99 Wertheim, Aaron, 247
Tzvi Hamar, 198 Wessely, Naftali Hertz, 96, 106
Tzvi Hirsch, 121 White Russia, XI, XX, 34, 43,
Tzvi of Smilian—see Hirshele 83, 84, 105, 120, 130, 133,
Bren, 123 154, 165-167, 171, 172, 174,
181, 184, 190, 195, 196, 207,
u 210, 216, 222, 229, 230, 241,
Ukase, 208 246, 261
Ukraine,Xl, Xll, 43, 100, 102, White Spring, 8
103, 120, 188, 202, 206, 207, Wolf (Rabbi of Zhitomir), 248
229, 243, 250 Wolhynia, XI, 36, 43, 52, 73,
Ulla, 221 76, 202, 204, 206, 207, 229,
Ural, 230 243, 250, 251
Wilenker, Moshe, 74-76, 250
V Wilenker, Ze’ev, 159, 250
Vaad Haaratzot, 60, 61
Verses, Shmuel, 240
Vidz, 231, 232 Yaakov ben Rabbi Aharon of
Vienna, 106 Karlin, 258
279
R abbi S c h n e u r Z a l \4an
Yaakov Klonymos Kalmen, 121 Yonah the Physician, 76

Yaakov of Smilian 90, 91, 101, Yosef Avraham, 67
150, 151, 237, 238, 239 304 Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn,
Yaakov Shimshon of 30-32, 108
Shipotovka, 252 Yud^Tet (19th of) Kislev, X, 25,
Yaakov Tzvi, 242 124, 125, 128, 154, 156, 159,
Yahadut Hasechel veYahadut 213, 231, 243, 290
Haregesh, 254 Yura, 229
Yanowitz, 136, 221, 240, 294
Yechezkel Faivel, 99
Yechidut, 65, 66, 78, 80, 111,
112, 114 Zalmanoff, Shmuel, 262
Yehoshua of Horodok, 67 Zalman Baruch, 53
Yehuda Leib Hakohen, 122, Zalman Chienes of
124, 126 13eshenkowitz, 52
Yehuda Leib of Yanowitz 8, 14, Zalman Leib, 106
15, 34, 36, 38, 56, 60,61, 79, Zalman Motel’s, 67
83, 86, 109, 211, 221, 240 Zalman Aharon, 126
Yekaterinoslav, 148, 188 Zalman Zezmer, 128
Yekutiel Zalman, 198 Zalmena Litvak, 52, 55
Yemen(ite), 241 Zamut, 114
Yenuka, 105 Zeira, Pinchas ben Yehuda, 121
Yeseyevka, 222 Zeitlin, Joshua of Shklov, 260
Yeshaya of Chatimsk, 64 Zeitlin, Solomon, 238
Yeshaya Nota’s, 67 Zelig of Kochanov, 67
Yetzirah, 213 Zelig of Ulla, 124
Yeven Metzulah, 238 Zelmele of Volozhin, 253
Yichudim, 110 Zelva, XX, 40
Yiddish, 95, 169, 174, 238, Zelmele Slutzker, 44, 98
241,242, 245,250, 252,300 Zemievka, 222
Yirat Shamayim, 72 Zemir Aritzim. 24, 204, 244
Yisrael of Liozna, 67 Zhegulin, Simon, 154
Yisrael of Ruzhin, 241 Zhitomir, 211,248, 253,294
Yismach Lev, 250 Zimmer, Uriel, 300
Yissachar (brother of the Gaon Ziskind, 231, 232
of Vilna), 96, 97, 99, 100 Zohar, 12, 29,31, 105, 114,
Yissachar Dov (Kobilniker), 7 202,211,237, 251,256, 294,
Yitzchak Isaac of Vitebsk, 128 296, 297
Yitzchak Moshe, 124 Zolkiev, 103, 122, 123, 257,
292
Yitzchak (Patriarch), 113, 114
Zoritsch, 165
Yochanan, Rabbi, 45, 80, 81
Yoel of Amtzeslav, 260
280
Supplement
SUPPLEMENT
Facsimiles of T itle Pages 284
Facsimile of R abbi Schneur

Zalman ’s FiANDWRiriNC 287
Important Dates in the Life of

R abbi S chneur Zalman 289
Published W orks of R abbi Schneur Zalman 291

^ INJ ‫ליי‬
fT
‫■כי‬
‫ם‬-
‫_ גי‬
‫גז‬-
‫מ‬
3 >
CB
^ f-p^
*‫ ^־‬5
Cl: ^ (‫מ‬
*Vi ^ n
^ S.
oc
•4:^
f«‫־‬i Q-
2
‫^־‬° P‫ ־‬,
i1 ^
:3. o‫־־‬
f? 00
‫גש‬- ‫דז‬
3 ‫“§ ־‬
H:g
‫‪Supplement‬‬
‫ספר‬
‫^‬ ‫‪sS leatB fef‬‬
‫‪II‬‬ ‫לגן&י ‪ancM‬‬

‫‪H‬‬ ‫הג קו א ‪ 0 T 3‬ספר‬ ‫חלק ‪p v m‬‬
‫ש ל ב ע תי ם‬
‫מ«י»פרים קדומי‬
‫>«םדעלפםוקכי‬ ‫‪n‬‬ ‫»לק‬
‫ונלכנך‬ ‫קווב יוליך הדבר מאור כפיך‬
‫לסוד ו<םכ אץ• ‪ NV1‬קחוב‬ ‫^ו»וז»ו‬
‫•י ד כדרך ארוכה וקזדה בונזורי ג‬
‫גרפס‬
‫ב ס ל או ד ט א‬
‫» ה ל ‪9‬ח»יד‬ ‫‪ n«1ApiDM‬יאיוחס‬
‫יאיגס ךןף»ז^ןי^ןס^נגשקי ״‪(1‬יייו^די‬
‫ססאיספי‬ ‫ייאייסקי‬
‫‪(1‬רלא‬ ‫גימעיא‬ ‫*‪ WW9‬אומיא‬
‫ירים ;‬
‫נ‪5‬יך וזצמו‬ ‫‪3‬י מינ ‪5‬ק*יד הונך מאיד‬ ‫•• *‬

‫לפיק‬ ‫לעשיתן‬
‫® ‪I‬־ ‪r-I‬־‪DI=IODI:I:IODI=I=I=T‬‬
‫‪Facsimile of title page of the first edition of L ikutei A m arim‬‬

‫)‪(T an ya‬‬‫‪by Rabbi Schneur Zalman, printed in 5 5 5 7 (1 7 9 6 ).‬‬
‫‪285‬‬
‫ד‬, I !>• ‫״‬

■
!>
Kjrv^«ivv f^lf■ ‫*יר׳ י*יזיל<גי<׳‬/(‫יי׳'^ ג «׳’י‬
‫־‬
y '^ ty ‫^ייי׳״י‬ ‫י״יי׳י‬

J S ' ‫״־ נ־‬ ‫>» יד‬--‫״״‬V «‫’י;י= "׳‬.‫׳‬
ia» ‫• •הי^^ע‬N•?• Jl‘?•‫^ו‬f 06‫<> י^ין‬jc
‫סגאר;׳‬
..5
‫ ג‬0.‫ר‬k»^ .!^ ‫)יף‬/ 7 * ‫יץיך׳ ^׳■יז ג{זמ?יד־‬
‫ך׳‬0 ‫{» »י‬1>0‫ גי• יז»(|י‬-‫יי׳‬1>/‫»;רץ?י‬o*K»(|m >^‫^ףגו‬
K‫ י ^ ^ י ר' י י‬h'fl^■'’1& ‫>ד׳‬3 ‫יל י‬./0 <!? ‫• גיי‬

y v 0»)‫י‬ kVoW»
^ '0 ^ » ‫ ה גי‬1‫ ג «י‬Y ‫»>ד‬0 <‫הי‬
‫^|י‬1-3-‫ י‬9 ‫ ר ^ ע ׳ י‬0 ..‫^ר‬ pcf Vwym
OftK'Cl• ?»vl p*', ‫|^ר> י ל יל‬
/ f / ‫»־ ץז׳י׳‬l«AK,'i'Orf 1/ t>c
K‫'׳‬Jfk) ^ 10»‫ »ג; ׳״‬KbMU»Y'to

.‫'״‬ • ’' Ivp,
‫״י״‬r ‫ ׳ ׳״'׳׳‬n‫׳‬n
^^‫?ו‬.‫ ^ ׳«י‬j y i » ; r U ?1 ‫־ י; ויץ*י‬73
^‫ ןי׳ר׳גו‬.‫ |י‬01 | 1‫ע ד‬

0 ‫ןז׳»ז‬0 • - ‫ מיץ י־|?(יר יי‬W»^l ^,‫»;ץע‬
‫ס‬ ‫ ׳גייל א ץיי‬op ;»<>‫ ״‬fl ^

‫וזיג^רי‬
Facsimile of manuscript of first version of the Likutei Amarim

(Tanya) (Agudas Chassidei Chabad Library).
286
S upplement
; I
‫י‬$ ‫^ חי‬ *tJ
<‫ ־‬£ ^ ‫ג ז‬ J p
~‫\ו‬ % ^5 ■‫י^זז‬
1«L ‫יז‬
‫?־‬
‫^ הי‬ s:
1 ‫ זי‬c . - i
Fcxsimile of a letter in Rabbi Schneur Zalmans Haruituriting
287
T he H is t o r y o f t h e Le t t e r R e p r o d u c e d on
P r e c e d in g P a g e
urmg the height of the persecution of the Chasidic
D Icommunity by the opponents of the movement, the foT

lowers of Rabbi Schneur Zalman in Vilna held a confer
ence at which many of the younger Chasidim urged the adoption
of strong counter-measures. This was contrary to the policy of
the moderate Chasidim of Vilna, led by Meir ben Rafael, who
had for five or six years (5551-56 / 1791-6) unsuccessfully
endeavored to bring about peace. Moshe Meisels, a leading
Chasid, supported the demands of the younger Chasidim, and
under stress of a suffering and bitterly disappointed heart, voiced
strong disapproval of the policy of Meir ben Rafael.
A special delegate of Rabbi Schneur Zalman attended the
conference and brought a message from the Rav, to the effect
that while their mood was quite justified, Chasidism taught that
the mind should govern the heart. To have control over one’s
heart and feelings, and to reserve them for true love and fear of
G-d, leading to practical deeds of kindness and charity to fellow
man— this is the primary objective of every Chasid, the Rav said,
promising the ultimate triumph of the cause.
In the month of Elul of that year, the Rav sent the letter to
Moshe Meisels, in which be urges him to make a public apology
to Meir ben Rafael.
288
IMPORTANT DATES
IN THE LIFE OF
RABBI SCHNEUR ZALMAN
5505 / 1745
18th of Elul, birth of Rabbi Schneur Zalman. Bom in
Liozna, Russia. His father was Rabbi Baruch, son of Rabbi
Schneur Zalman; his mother was Rivkah, daughter of Rabbi
Abraham.
5 5 1 8 / 1758
At the age of thirteen awarded the title of Tanna U ’Pallig.
5 5 2 0 /1 7 6 0
Married Sterna, the daughter of Rabbi Yehuda Leib Segal, a
wealthy and pious man from Vitebsk.
5 5 2 4 /1 7 6 4
First journey to study under Rabbi Dov Ber, the famous
Maggid of Miezricz.
5527 / 1767
Appointed Maggid (Preacher) of his hometown Liozna.
5 5 3 0 / 1770
Starts working on his Shukhan Aruch.
5 5 3 2 / 1772
Works out his system of Chabad philosophy.
5 5 3 3 -5 5 3 8 / 1773-1778
Establishes (in Liozna) an academy of select disciples
known as the First, the Second, and Third Cheder.
289
RABB] S c:HNEUR Z a LMAiN
5543 / 1783
Successful public debate with leaders of the Mitnagdim in
M in s k .
5 5 5 4 / 1794
Published his first Halachic work, Hilchot Talmud Torah.
5557 / 1797
Publishes his main Chasidic work, the Tanya.
5 5 5 9 / 1798
The day after Simchat Torah arrested and brought to
Petersburg.
19th of Kislev, released from prison. Day celebrated, since

then, as Chag Hageubh.
5561 / 1800
Again brought to Petersburg and imprisoned. Subsequently
released, but ordered to remain in Petersburg.
On the 11th of Av, set free and cleared of all accusations.

From Petersburg he leaves immediately for Liadi.
5 5 7 2 / 1812
End of Av leaves Liadi, on his flight from the French
armies, accompanied by family and group of close disciples.
5 5 7 3 / 1813
On the 12th of Tevet, he reaches the village Piena; in the
District of Kursk.
Passes away on the night of the 24th of Tevet. He was laid

to rest in the cemetery of the town of Hadiacz in the
District of Poltava.
290
PUBLISHED WORKS OF
RABBI SCHNEUR ZALMAN
T almud T orah
Laws concerning the study of the Torah, in four chapters. First
published in Shklov, 5554• Subsequently published both sepa
rately and as part of the Rav’s Shulchan Aruch. New revised edi
tion with commentaries, published by Kehot in 5725, and subse‫׳‬
quently with each print of the Shulchan Aruch.
L iku tei A marim

Famous as Tanya, after the initial word of the text.
Part 1: Sefer Shel Benonim (Book of the Middle Group of the
Pious), deals with the service of G-d, love and fear of G‫״‬d, etc.
53 chapters.
Part II: Sha’ar H aYichud V eha'Emunah (The Gate to G‫׳‬d’s

Unity and Faith), deals with the doctrines of the Divine Unity,
Providence, and faith. 12 chapters.
Part III: Iggeret H ateshuvah (Encyclical of Penitence), deal‫׳‬

ing with the ways of true penitence. 12 chapters.
Part IV: I ggeret H akodesh (Holy Encyclical), a selection of

the Rav’s letters dealing with such topics as charity, prayer, etc.
32 chapters.
Kuntros A chron (Supplement), containing notes and com-
1. E xcerpts from a B ibliography o f C h ab ad -C h asid ic L iterature, com piled by

R abbi M en a c h e m M endel S ch n eerso n . T h e works are listed h e re in c h ro n o
logical o rd er o f th e ir first editions.
291
merits on passages of Part I, and four additional letters.

Parts I and II were first published in Slavita, in 5557.
Parts I and 11 with the addition of Part III were first published in
Zolkiev in 5559.
Parts I and II with Part III, the latter a revised edition, were pub
lished in Shklov, in 5566.
Parts 1 to IV, with the addition of Kuntros Achron, were published
in Shklov, in 5574•
A revised edition of all the four parts was published in Vilna, in
5660, which edition was reprinted many times since.
A revised edition of the Vilna edition was published by Kehot
Publication Society in Brooklyn in 5714 with supplements.
A pocket-size edition of same published by Kehot in Brooklyn in
5715 with additional supplements.
For a complete list of the close to five thousand editions of the
Tanya, see Tanya published hy Kehot.
Luach B irchot H anehenin

Later called Seder Bircfiot Hanehenin (Table of—later, Order of—
Blessings). One chapter deals with the laws concerning the wash
ing of the hands before meals; thirteen chapters deal with the
laws concerning the blessings said on various occasions.
First published in Shklov, in 5560.* Later reprinted separately or
together with the Rav’s “Siddur."
SiDDUR (Prayer Book)

Arranged by Rabbi Schneur Zalman on the basis of Nusach Ari,
after careful “study, comparison and selection of the versions of
sixty different prayer books” (quoted from a Talk by Rabbi
Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, the Tzemach Tzedek).
First published in Shklov, in 5563. *
2. A cco rd in g to “B e t E k e d S e fo r im ” by Friedberg, it was first published in

5556(?). H ow ever, since Friedberg does n o t state th e n u m ber o f pages, as he
usually does, it is e v id e n t th a t h e n e v e r saw th e book him self.
In a le tte r (A dar 13, 5709, published in !grot K o d e sh vol. 10 p. 117) from
R abbi Yosef Y. S c h n e e rso h n o f sainted memory, it is stared th a t it was first p u b
lished in 5555.
3. A cco rd in g to th e “S h a a r H a k o k r by R abbi Lavut, a n d “B e it R e h b i,” P art I, p.
168. B ut see fo o tn o te 9 o n p. 26 o f T o ra t H a C h a s id u s .
292
S u p p l e m e n t : P u b l is h e d W o r k s
Shulchan A ruch
Recodification of the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Caro, with
revisions, additions and comments. It covers most“*of the laws of
the Orach Chayim, part of the laws of the Yoreh Deah, and select
ed laws from the Choshen Mishpat, and 43 responsa (Shacdot
Uteshuvot).
The part dealing with the Laws of Passover was first published in
Shklov, in 5574•
The part dealing with the laws of Yoreh Deah and some of the
Shaaht Uteshmot was published in Kopust, in 5574•
The entire Shulchan Aruch was first published in Kopust, in
5576,5
Since then it was reprinted many times with various additions. A
finally revised edition was published in Vilna, in 5665, which
served as a standard edition for numerous reprintings without
changes.
A new corrected edition with supplements has been published as
follows—
Volume I published by Kehot in 5720.
Volume II published by Kehot in 5722.
Volume III'IV published by Kehot in 5725.
Volume V'VI published by Kehot in 5728.
A new revised edition with supplements was published by Kehot
in 5745. A revised, newly typeset edition is currently being pre
pared.
SiDDUR
Same as above, with added commentaries and explanations in
the Chasidic tradition as recorded by Rabbi Dov Ber, son of the
Rav.
First published in Kopust, in 5576.
New revised edition with supplements, published by Kehot in
5725.
A new revised edition was published by Kehot in 5741, and sub
sequently in 5746.
4. T h e ch ap te rs 1-131, 155-6, 158-215, 242-408, 429-529, 582-651.

5. “O z a r H a s e fo r im ” by B en Jacob gives th e year as 5574. T h is is a n error, as can
be seen from th e In tro d u c tio n by R abbi D ov Ber to th e 5576 e d itio n o f th e
S h u lc h a n A r u c h (P a rt “O rach Chayim ” ) ind icatin g th a t th is is th e first e d itio n
besides th e Laws o f Passover.
293
R abbi S c h n h u r Z a l m a n
B iurei H a Zohar
(Commentaries on the Zohar)
Recorded by Rabbi Dov Ber.
First published in Kopust, in 5576.
Supplement to the above first published in Lwow, in 5621.
A revised edition with supplements was published by Kehot in
Brooklyn, in 5717.
T orah O r
(Torah-Light)
Chasidic discourses on portions of the Torah (on the Books of
BeresKit, Shemot, and Esther), recorded by the Rav's brother. Rabbi
Yehuda Leib of Yanowitz. First published in Kopust, in 5597.
Supplement to the above, as recorded by Rabbi Dov Ber, first
published in Zhitomir, in 5622.
A revised edition with supplements was published by Kehot in
Brooklyn, in 5715.
A revised, newly typeset edition was published by Kehot in 5751.
T orah O r
Chasidic discourses. Some of the discourses are the same as
above, but with variations.
Published in Lwow, in 5611. (As far as is known, it is the only
edition.)
L ikutei T orah
(Gleanings of Torah)
Chasidic discourses on topics from the portions of Beshalhch and
Pekudei; from the books of Vayikro, Bamidbar and Devarim, and
Shir Hashirim.
First published in Zhitomir, in 5608.
Revised edition published in Vilna, in 5664, serving as standard
edition for further numerous reprints.
A newly revised edition with supplements, published by Kehot in
5725.
A revised, newly typeset edition was published by Kehot in 5759.
B onei Yerusholayim
(Builder of Jerusalem)
Brief discourses and notes. Published in Jerusalem, in 5686. This
is the only edition. See Maamarei Admur Hazakeiri'Haktzorim.
294
M aamar Ketapuach B e’atzei H aYaar

(As an Apple among Trees of the Forest)
Chasidic discourse on this passage of the Temch. First published
in Brooklyn, in 5714, by Kehot.
M aamar T zion B emishpat T ipadeh

(Zion with Righteousness will be Redeemed)
Chasidic discourse on this passage of the Tenach. First published
in Brooklyn, in 5715, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein — H anachot H a R a P Zal

(Chasidic discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman. Notations from Rabbi
Pinchus)
Chasidic discourses on various topics (portions of the Torah,
Tenach, Sayings of our Sages, etc.). First publication from hither
to unpublished manuscripts, in Brooklyn, in 5718 by Kehot, with
commentaries by Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson
M aamarei A dmur H azakein —E s ’halech Liozna

(Chasidic discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman—delivered in the city
of Liozna.)
Chasidic discourses on various topics.
First publication, from hitherto unpublished manuscripts, in
Brooklyn, in 5718 by Kehot, with commentaries by Rabbi
Menachem M. Schneerson.
M aamar Yesovevenhu Yevonenehu Yitzrenhu

(He encircled them. He explained to them. He guarded them.)
Chasidic discourse on this passage of the Torah. First published
in Brooklyn, in 5722, by Kehot. ‫־‬
M aamar B echachmah Yivne B ayis

(With wisdom he will build a house).
Chasidic discourse on this passage of Tenach. First published in
Brooklyn, in 5725, by Kehot.
295
M aamar P ikudo Litein M achatsit H ashekel

(Commandment to give half of a Shekel).
Chasidic discourse on this passage in the Zohar. First published in
Brooklyn, m 5723, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein— 5562

(Chasidic discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman—delivered
during the year 5562).
First publication, from hitherto unpublished manuscript written
by his son and successor Rabbi Dov Ber, with notations from his
grandson. Rabbi Menachem Mendel, the Tzernach Tzedek.
Brooklyn, 5725, by Kehot.
M aamar A ni Yesheino
(1 sleep)
Chasidic discourse on this passage in Tenach. First published in
Bonei Yerushalayim (see above No. 10).
New revised edition published in Brooklyn, in 5724, by Kehot.
M eah Shearim
(One Hundred Portals)
Collections of fifty letters and fifty shott Chasidic discourses,
selected from the writings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman, Rabbi Dov
Ber and Rabbi Menachem Mendel (Tzernach Tzedek). First pub
lished in Berdkchev. in 5673.
New edition with supplements published by Kehot, in 5727.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein — H aktzorim .

(Short Chasidic Disciturses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman.)
Delivered mostly prior to his arrest, on various topics. First pub
lication from hitherto unpublished manuscripts, in addition to
the shott discourses previously published in Bonei Yerushokiim
and Meah Shearim. Brooklyn, 5741, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein— A t Parshiot H atorah

V ehamoadim
(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman on the
Torah Portions and Festivals.)
296
Unrelated to other categories above, namely, Rabbi Pinchus,

Liozna, and unknown as to which year delivered.
First publication from hitherto unpublished manuscripts, written
by his son and successor Rabbi Dov Ber, his grandson Rabbi
Menachem Mendel, the “Tzemach Tzedek” and other tran‫׳‬
scribers.
Vol 1—Bereishit'Shemot, Vol 2- -Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein — N evi’im.

(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman on verses
of the Prophets.)
partly by Rabbi Dov Ber, Rabbi Menachem Mendel, and mostly
by transcribers. Brooklyn, 5744, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein— K’tuvim .

(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman on verses
of the Writings.)
partly by Rabbi Dov Ber, Rabbi Menachem Mendel, and mostly
by transcribers. Vol 1—5745, Vol 2—5746, Brooklyn, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein— A l M aamarei R azal .

(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman on the Talmud,
Zohar and Prayers.)
partly by Rabbi Dov Ber and his brother Rabbi Moshe, Rabbi
Menachem Mendel. Brooklyn, 5744, by Kehot.
Maamarei A dmur H azakein — Inyonim .

(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman on topics
unrelated to any of the above or any specific year.)
Topics arranged in order of the Alef Bet. First publication from
hitherto unpublished manuscripts, written partly by Rabbi Dov
Ber, Rabbi Menachem Mendel. Brooklyn, 5743, by Kehot.
Maamarei A dmur H azakein — 5562, V ol 2.

(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman delivered
297
during the year 5562.)

by Rabbi Dov Ber, with notations from Rabbi Menachem
Mendel. Brooklyn, 5742, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein — 5563.

(Chasidic Discourses by Rabbi Schneur Zalman delivered dur
ing the year 5563.)
by Rabbi Dov Ber and other transcribers with notations from
Rabbi Menachem Mendel. Vol 1—5741, Vol 2— 5742, Brooklyn,
by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein—5564.

during the year 5564•)
by Rabbi Dov Ber and other transcribers with notations from
Rabbi Menachem Mendel. Brooklyn, 5741, by Kehot.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein— 5565.

by Rabbi Dov Ber, and other transcribers with notations from
Rabbi Menachem Mendel. 2 Vol, Brooklyn, 5741, by Kehot.

by Rabbi Dov Ber with notations from Rabbi Menachem
Maamarei A dmur H azakein —5567.

298
Su p p l em e n t : Pu b lis h e d W orks
by Rabbi Dov Ber with notations from Rabbi Menachem


by Rabbi Dov Ber with notations from Rabbi Menachem Mendel
and Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Vol 1—5732, Vol 2—5742, Brooklyn, by Kehot.

First publication from hitherto unpublished manuscripts, mostly
written by transcribers with notations from Rabbi Menachem
Mendel, apart from selected discourses by Rabbi Dov Ber.
M aamarei A dmur H azakein— 5570.

by transcribers; one discourse by Rabbi Dov Ber. Brooklyn, 5741,
by Kehot.

by Rabbi Menachem Mendel and other transcribers. Brooklyn,
5755, by Kehot.
Igrot Kodesh
A collection of letters by Rabbi Schneur Zalman.
Published together with letters by Rabbi Dov Ber and Rabbi
Menachem Mendel.
Vol D5741, Vol 11-5753, Brooklyn, NY by Kehot.
299
L ekutei A marim (Tanya ) In T ranslation

Published by Kehot Publication Society
1. In Yiddish, translated by the lat e Uriel Zimmer. All parts of the
Tanya, in two volumes. Kehot, 5716 (1956).
S hiurim B ’SEFER H atan ya . Containing lessons in Tanya studied
on the New York Radio waves by Rabbi Yosef Wineberg.
Reviewed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe before each broadcast.
Vol 1, Kehot, 5743, Vol 2, Kehot, 5745, Vol 3, Kehot, 5746
2. In English:
Part One, translated with introduction by Nissan Mindel. Kehot,
5723 (1962).
Reprinted, 1965. Third edition, new and revised, 1968.
Part Two, translated by Nissen Mangel, Kehot, 1965.
Part Three, translated by Zalman 1. Posner, Kehot, 1965,
Part Four, translated by Jacob 1. Shochet, with Introduction,
Kehot, 1968.
Part Five, translated by Zalman I. Posner, Kehot, 1968.
Complete Tanya in one volume featuring page of translation fac
ing page of hebrew text, Kehot, London, 5733
Revised edition, London, 5740
Revised edition. New York, 5743, Toronto, 5745, and numerous
locations in Australia, 5744.
Lessons In Tanya. Translation of lessons in Tanya studied over

the New York radio waves by Rabbi Yosef Wineberg. Translated
by Rabbis Levi and Sholom Ber Wineberg.
Vol 1, Kehot, 5747, Vol 2, Kehot, 5748, Vol 3, Kehot, 5749, Vol
4, Kehot, 5752, Vol 5, Kehot, 5753
3. In French, Parts One and Two, Kehot, Paris, 1968. Part 3,

Kehot, Paris, 5728, Part 4, Kehot, Paris, 5740
4. In Italian, Part One, Kehot, Milan, 1968.

Part 2, Kehot, Milan, 5729, Part 3, Kehot, Milan, 5730, Part 4,
Kehot, Milan, 5734, Part 5, Kehot, Milan, 5739
5. In Spanish, Part 2, Kehot, Buenos Aires, 5744, Part 3, Kehot,

Buenos Aires, 5730
300
In Arabic, Part 1, Kehot, Casablanca, 5744

art 2, Kehot, Casablanca, 5736. Kfar Chabad, 5739, Part 3,
Hot, Casablanca, 5740
In Russian, Part 1, Jerusalem, 5736

r'art 2, Jerusalem, 5737
Part 3, Jerusalem, 5739
Chapter 32 with explanation, Jerusalem, 5737
Part 1—Hebrew and Russian text, Jerusalem, 5742
Part 2 - Hebrew and Russian text, Jerusalem, 5738
First 3 parts in one volume—Hebrew and Russian text, Jersey
City, 5744
Complete Tanya in one volume featuring page of translation fac
ing page of hebrew text, Ladispoli, 5744.
Reprinted, Brooklyn, 5749
8. In Portuguese, Part 1, Paulo, 5741, Part 2, Paulo, 5744, Part 3,

Brazil, 5744
First 3 parts in one volume, Paulo, 5750
9. In German, Part 2, Zurich, 5745
10. Braille edition.

Complete Tanya in Hebrew Braille, Israel, 5750
English translation, complete Tanya in 3 volumes, published
jointly by Kehot and The Jewish Heritage For The Blind, New
York, 5752,
301

Rebbe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rebbe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rebbe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What chapters are covered?

What chapters are covered?

Rabbi

C habad Research C enter

Published and C opyright © !969

K ehot P ublication Society

Prefatory N ote VII

Introduction 237 C hapter VII 250

of the Chabad'Lubavitch dynasty of Jewish leaders, setting the

T • he moral person must strive to bring his personal life and

Making Ahavat Yisrael— in its immediate application in actual prac-

intrinsic appeal to the masses, contributed in no small measure

Under these circumstances, it is small wonder that the self-

communities of Poland was, of course, the general deterioration

convey many a profound doctrine in simple terms.

words and the simple performance of the precepts are in them‫׳‬

low'jew, materially or spiritually,” was one of his characteristic

Immanence and Providence, in which the Besht steers a new

ticularly his successor, Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritch, began to dis‫׳‬

have been unthinkable a decade earlier. The breach was healed

R abbi Schneur Zalman’s

s chneur Zalman (Boruchovitch)* was bom on the 18th day

Baruch was a member of the society of the followers of the

ciples noticed a radical change in the manner of their master.

that his blessing was beginning to be fulfilled, they decided to let

Many years later, when Schneur Zalman, as a young man,

forgot. The Besht gave Baruch further instructions concerning

n his fifth year, Schneur Zalman was enrolled as a junior mem­

Mendel (subsequently the famed author of the Responsa Tzemach

settle on the estate of Schneur Zalman’s father Baruch, with the

lie discourse, he was acclaimed as an outstanding Talmudic

the person of the son of my saintly disciple Baruch and his

chneur Zalman was fifteen years old when he married Sterna.

to his extraordinary assiduity and brilliance of mind, he had

R abbi Schneur Zalman’s

going there, on condition that if he decided to stay, he would not

tance to merit recounting here, in approximately the same terms

Pardes (Portal 22, ch.4) quotes from the book of Bahir,

o: knee the young 'Titvak" (native of Lithuania) became

teric doctrines of the Kabbala and Chasidut, as had been taught

with a goodly measure of humility, Schrteur Zalman attended

his father-in-law’s disappointment. The latter began to have seri­

T 1he Chasidic movement, under the leadership of the

and townlets— and Shklov was one of Lithuania’s most out­

were designated by the Maggid of Miezricz to defend the

year later, on the 9th of Kislev, 5534 (1773), Rabbi Schneur

ow that the leader was gone, the Chasidic movement faced

he was expected to accomplish in cooperation with Rahbi

. . . May my opening words fall upon attentive ears to

extreme to the very other. It certainly could not have

of his teacher [containing] things which I do not wish to

said disciples. If, however, he would find it hard to retract

one who does not believe in a certain thing is no authori­

I n the year 5537 (1777) Rabbi Schneur Zalman experienced a

(c) The community at large would further provide mainte­

arrangements, he intended to come first to Liozna, where his

T Ihe period of the years 1781-1788 saw Rabbi Schneur

n his fifth year, Schneur Zalman was enrolled as a junior mem

his father-in-law’s disappointment. The latter began to have seri

and townlets— and Shklov was one of Lithuania’s most out

one who does not believe in a certain thing is no authori

(c) The community at large would further provide mainte

Rabbi Schneur Zalman explained— was not merely a per

adherents to Chasidut. All these adherents, in turn, helped fur

The three Chasidic sages requested time to consider her con

inscribed unto a happy year.” But she interrupted him immedi

he Takanot of Liozna began with a set of general rules regu