My essay discuss Rabbi Soloveitchik's analysis of Hasidism and mysticism in general and attempts to critically assess whether his conclusions on the Hasidic mindset correspond to the Habad movement's early writings. For a full bibliography, message me :-) I would appreciate any comments, criticisms or requests for other essays if they are of interest. Warning: The essay is 4,500 words long and contains a bibliography.
To what extent is Rabbi
JB Soloveitchik's appraisal of Hasidic ‘Ontological pessimism’ an accurate
portrayal of the early Habad Hasidic movement's attitude towards the world?
In the late eighteenth
Century Habad emerged as a branch of Hasidism distinctive for its emphasis on
contemplation and use of the intellect as an important part of man’s
relationship with God. However, the eminent twentieth Century rabbi and thinker R. Joseph Soloveitchik contended that like all mystics, Habad ultimately saw
‘fleeing the world’ as the primary goal of religiosity and achieving communion
with God.[1] The direction of the
movement remained otherworldly despite its rationalist appearances, and could
be characterised as ‘ontologically pessimistic’. Whilst it is true that
Soloveitchik was not a scholar of the Habad movement and did not dedicate more
than a few pages of his essay Halakhic
man to the subject, his contention exposes the tension within early Habad
thought in terms of its religious direction.
The historiography
surrounding the writings of the early Habad movement demonstrates its ambiguous
relationship with physical world. Whilst Habad’s metaphysical and theosophical
construction is distinctly Kabbalistic and leans towards Soloveitchik’s
conclusion, studies by Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer and Naphtali Loewenthal into R.
S. Zalman (RaShaz)’s writings in particular provide strong evidence that Habad
Hassidism fundamentally sought the actualisation of Godliness in the physical
rather than the supernal realm. Other Habad scholars, in particular Rachel
Elior, have reinforced Solovetichik’s position that despite placing a
considerable emphasis on the intellect, Habad remained firmly within the
mystical camp and could never subscribe to the rationalistic optimism of
Soloveitchik’s halakhic man. In terms
of focus, this essay specifically addresses Soloveitchik’s contention with
regard to the writings of the first two Habad rebbes, RaShaz and R. Dov Ber.
The historian has to be cautious in analysing the development of movements over
large periods of time, particularly ones which reflect the personalities of
their leaders so acutely, so I am restricting the scope of this essay to RaShaz
as the original formulator of Habad thought, and his son R. Dov Ber who
disseminated, explicated and developed his father’s teachings, both of whom
wrote extensively on Habad thought over a period of approximately thirty years
between the last decade of the eighteenth century until the 1820s. The first
section of this study focuses on Soloveitchik’s writings and why he equates the
Habad Hassid with the universal mystic in terms of religious direction. This
provides a useful model for analysing Habad’s attitude towards the world, as I
have characterised Soloveitchik’s presentation of religious direction as
falling into one of two camps: ‘liberation’ or ‘elevation’. Using this
paradigm, I have focused on some elements of Habad teachings which are relevant
to the issue of religious direction, beginning with its metaphysical conception
of the universe and upper and lower unities; then, I will examine its
intellectualist focus with regard to the mitzvoth, and finally I will look at
the concepts of contemplation and bitul.
Due to the prominence and authority of the rebbe in Habad, the writings of the
two rebbes constitute the most importance evidence for the movement’s
ideological position, and it is important to emphasise that this paper is a
presentation of the theory of the movement’s position, not its dissemination
amongst its followers, and therefore relies exclusively on their writings. I
have decided not to compare the early Habad movement’s direction to other
Hassidic groups such as Bratslav as whilst this is a useful exercise regarding
Habad’s place on the Hasidic spectrum, it can distort its position as a
religious movement. Habad was certainly the most world-embracing of the Hasidic
movements but this can disguise the fact that it retained many mystical
elements. Although clear conclusions regarding the direction of a movement
built around paradoxes are not easily derived, this paper argues that whilst
early Habad did not actively seek to ‘flee the world’ in the sense that it
affirmed the world’s reality, its paradoxical conception of the universe meant
that ultimately it is far more reasonably grouped along with the other
‘liberation’ Hassidic and mystical groups within Soloveitchik’s paradigm.
Rabbi Soloveitchik’s
claim that Habad is an ontologically pessimistic movement is based upon the
premise that at its core it reflects a deeply mystical world view. By and
large, this is how Gershom Scholem perceived the movement, describing Habad’s
distinctiveness in terms of its prioritisation of psychology rather than
theosophy in achieving closeness with the divine.[2] In Soloveitchik’s essay Halakhic man, he contrasts the approach of the halakhic man who
draws God into the world through religious action with the universal religious
man, epitomised by the mystic, who
seeks to escape the boundaries of the physical world through the prism of
religion. This contrast is useful in terms of locating Habad’s worldview.
R. Soloveitchik primarily characterises the
mystic’s relationship with God as being one of passivity:
When the great question booms out: is it possible
for man to cleave to god? Is it not written that god is a consuming fire? The
mystics answer it is entirely possible for a fire will come from above and
consume man’s being as he is bound to the altar of his love for the hidden one.[3]
Cleaving to God comprises of complete
self-negation in order to achieve transcendence. The mystic seeks to be
consumed in God’s oneness, whereas the legalistic halakha, the authentic
repository of Jewish thought, emphasises an attachment to this-worldly wisdom
and moral values.
Secondly, Soloveitchik describes
the mystical religious experience as being one of ‘ontic pluralism’, whereby
the individual lives within the physical world but is never satisfied by it.[4]
Mystical religion seeks to liberate those who dwell in darkness
and crown them all with the royal crown of a supernal, transcendental
existence, emanating from holy, eternal realms.[5]
Soloveitchik emphasises,
however, that mystical pessimism does not express itself in asceticism alone
and can manifest itself in terms of apparent worldly affirmation and approval.
Pessimism does not mean misery. What distinguishes the mystic, is that even within
the embrace of worldly things, empirical reality serves only as a springboard
from which man may make his plunge into the supernal realms. It is the fact
that the supernal realm alone is the ultimate object of the mystic’s religious
quest that is significant for Soloveitchik. As such, both asceticism and
mystical affirmation of the world are conceptually similar, and the difference
is only an ‘ethical-practical one’.[6]
For Soloveitchik, the Habad hassid embodies the second
type of mystic, who despite not
adhering to ascetic doctrines, seeks transcendence. He cites RaShaz’s
writings regarding the blowing of the shofar and concludes that ‘The entire
ontological pessimism of mystical doctrine can be heard from the midst of the
shofar in its long, drawn-out sighs and short, piercing cries.’[7]
This is in
contradistinction to halakhic man, who seeks the elevation of the world through
religious observance and Godly behaviour but not liberation from it. Halakha is
a reality based system, ‘whose purpose is the sanctification of biological
existence, and whose strategies are inherent in logical thought’.[8] Halakhic man does not long
for a transcendent world, for existence was created only for the purpose of
being actualised in the real world.[9]
The Habad hassid, Soloveitchik
suggests, longs for the transcendent, sees this world as a springboard for the
divine, and sees the ultimate purpose of existence as one of
self-nullification. It is therefore an ideology which can be classified as
ontologically pessimistic.
In sum, Soloveitchik argues that the halakhic system
advocates a process of elevation of the physical world, whereas the mystic
seeks liberation from it. I will adopt this paradigm to evaluate Habad’s
attitude towards material existence. As such, my analysis will not be concerned
with whether or not Habad prioritised
the material world in accessing God, but rather to what end it used it.
Habad metaphysics is
deeply grounded in Kabbalistic mysticism. The Lurianic Kabbalah that had spread
across Europe in the 17th and 18th Centuries formed the
basis of Habad Hasidism’s conception of the universe, as it did with all
Hasidic groups, and emphasised humanity’s role in restoring the original unity
of God. As the relevance of Soloveitchik’s argument rests heavily on Habad’s
metaphysical conception of the universe, I will briefly summarise some of the
relevant features of the Lurianic model:
Sixteenth century Lurianism had
developed the concept of Tzimzum, whereby
in order to create the world God necessarily contracted Himself to make space
for living beings as an act of divine kindness. The stages
of creation are described in terms of descent from spiritual realms of Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, (emanation, creation, formation,
action). The overall process of divine emanation, described in terms of ten sephirot, produced a great radiance that
could not be contained by physical vessels, and these broken vessels fell into
the realm of Asiyah, the physical
world, where the shards of divinity were trapped within husks, quelippot. The onus is placed on the
Jewish people to redeem these divine sparks through Torah and mitzvoth,
ultimately bringing the messiah. The physical world is depicted as an illusionary
realm, concealing the true reality of God, and requiring redemption. This Kabbalistic
foundation is essential to Soloveitchik’s concept of mystical liberation.
RaShaz presents this model in the Chapter 37 of the Tanya, discussing how the physical world is made of the quelippah nogah which contains divine sparks and the Jewish people must do mitzvoth to elevate the world, making it a channel of divine revelation.[10] Whilst the language used implies an identical system, the Habad universe differed from the Lurianic one in a number of significant ways:[11] Firstly, Hassidism in general had moved away from focusing on mystical messianism as the focus of Jewish life,[12] and Habad teachings were particularly careful to emphasise the immanence of God rather that His transcendence. It combined the mystical experience that denied the basic reality of the natural world and adapted it in the light of immediate experience. Notably, RaShaz developed the concept of upper and lower unities in Shaar ha yihud ve ha emunah, a tract on contemplation. There, he explains that on the one hand, the physical world is suffused with divine energy and completely dependent on this divine flow for its existence. Yet simultaneously there exists a physical world which is filled with Godliness:
‘He is also to be found
below, within space and time... that is, that His Being and Essance, called the
blessed Ein Sof actually fills the
entire universe within time and space.’[13]
Furthermore, Habad Hasidism
de-emphasised the mystical ladder of ascent requiring high spiritual virtue,
repentance and mortifications and replaced it with contemplation leading to an
internalisation that God is everywhere. It was a system which both saw God in
the material world and beyond it, significantly blurring the boundaries between
the two. [14]
That this significantly differed from orthodox
Kabballah is evidenced by the fact that it was criticised heavily by two of the
leading Kabbalistic non-Hasidic rabbis of the 18th Century, R.
Elijah of Vilna and R. Ezekiel Landau of Prague. They particularly objected to
the fact that the open spreading of Kabbalah and popularisation of its concepts
undermined its esoteric nature which required subtlety and expertise to
penetrate.[15]
By de-mysticising the mystical, the traditionalists argued that Habad’s new version
was a pale shell of the original. This was not simply a different manifestation
of mysticism, it was an entirely new paradigm. By unifying the transcendent and
the immanent, Habad had developed a hybrid theology which cannot be considered
a mystical liberation model.
An important consequence
of this analysis of the unification of the physical and spiritual realms is
that much of early Habad’s religiosity corresponded far more to Soloveitchik’s
halakhic elevation paradigm than to mystical liberation. This can be seen in Habad’s cerebral manifestation of the concept
of devekut, the mystical union with
God that had been the ultimate aspiration for mystics since the 13th
Century. For example, RaShaz
emphasises that it was in the performance of mitzvoth that the individual
achieved mystical union rather than any particular intentions:[16]
He presents the analogy that the mitzvoth should be compared to the garments that
adorn the king, and the fulfilment of mitzvoth is considered the closest
possible thing to embracing the king directly.[17] Similarly, in the study
of Torah, understanding according to the individual’s intellectual ability is
emphasised rather than any mystical intentions.[18] The
physicality of the performance of mitzvoth is given a particularly exalted
status. Regarding the mitzvah of tzeddakah
RaShaz mentions that ‘The intellect of a created being delights and derives
pleasure only in that which it conceives, understands, knows and grasps’ and
this is what gives it particular importance.[19] Personal delight and
pleasure, despite its earthly nature, is considered to be of supreme importance
precisely because it stimulates the mind to seek God. Intellectual apprehension,
according to early Habad teachings, is the highest form of human contemplation,
far removed from the escapist tendencies of the mystical movements.[20]
That Habad’s emphasis on the intellect was a means of world-affirmation
can be further viewed through the exchange between RaShaz and R. Abraham of
Kalisk. R. Abraham accused RaShaz of over-intellectualising the concept of
faith, to which the latter responded referencing a Talmudic passage that even
the thief asks God for assistance when he is about to commit a crime, but
contemplation and serious thought was essential in order to achieve a mature
conception of faith. Just as it is impossible to give birth to children without
a mother so it is impossible to fear God without contemplation.[21] Without the tools of the
intellect God could not be accessed. Whilst never rejecting its mystical
inheritance, within early Habad literature it becomes clear that the intellect
plays a significant part in the religious experience in a way that is far
removed from a quietistic and pessimistic quest for redemption.
Soloveitchik’s liberation
hypothesis as a summary of Habad’s spiritual direction can be further rejected
on the basis that not only did the early Habad movement espouse ‘lower unity’
as a concept, but it appeared to elevate it to the pinnacle of spiritual
accomplishment. In fact, the sole purpose of mystical transcendence was to
bring God back into this world. According to Loewenthal:
Attainment
of the realm beyond Reason and abandoning finitude was not the highest step.
More subtle and more demanding was the next stage: drawing that which is beyond
Reason into the realm of logical, rational thought and life.[22]
Loewenthal argues that in RaShaz’s later writings and
certainly in the writings of R. Dov Ber, there is an increasing emphasis on the
fact that mystical transcendence is only a means of bringing spirituality into
the world.[23]
Even those who are able to reach ecstatic heights should return to earth as
part of the development of their personality, which necessarily involves rising
beyond the physical universe but then returning to perfect it.
This appears explicitly in the writings of R. Dov Ber,
who seems to consider lower unity to be a higher level of spirituality than
upper unity:
The
essence of the unification is to draw down the influx of the blessed Light of
the Infinite by study of Torah and performance of the commandments, for it is
for the unification of the Blessed Holy One and His Divine Presence…that is to
draw down the influx through the Torah and the commandments so that the
divinity will be revealed in this world.[24]
Lower unity is described in terms of the essence of
unification, and by implication its highest fulfilment. This is a striking
demonstration of how Habad thought took the metaphysical paradox of God’s
ineffability and immanence and translated it into the world through normative
action. Far from escaping the world, it sought to actualise it in its fullest
spiritual dimension.
Yet in order to gain a nuanced appraisal of early
Habad’s relationship with the physical world, it is important to contextualise
the above in light of other concepts that appear throughout Habad literature.
In particular, the motif of the paradox that appears frequently throughout its
thought challenges the argument that Habad sought elevation as opposed to liberation
from physicality.
As mentioned earlier in
this essay, early Habad conceived of the physical world as existing in a
dialectic of existence and non-existence. Physical existence both revealed God, and yet was His complete
antithesis and adversary.[25] It is significant that unlike
other thinkers such as R. Judah Loew in the 16th Century, Habad thought
did not try and synthesise the paradoxical elements of the universe, leaving
them in a state of tension.[26] The perception of the
universe as existing in contradiction has great significance in terms of
religious outlook towards the world.
Whilst Habad
literature makes it clear that God desires to be revealed in this world, the
purpose of this revelation serves a paradoxical purpose. RaShaz portrays the revelation
of God within the world as a means of achieving the ultimate nullification of physicality:
‘For this is the purpose of the creation of worlds from Ayin to Yesh, to overturn
it from the aspect of Yesh into the
aspect of Ayin’.[27]
This suggests that Habad’s exoteric emphasis as argued
by Loewenthal and Schatz-Uffenheimer is only apparent. Lower unity is not
merely the actualisation of God’s will in this world through the performance of
His commandments, its purpose is that the lower world should be subsumed into
the world of spirituality.[28] The physical world, in
accordance with the Kabbalistic model, is perceived as being distant from God
and in need of redemption. This other-worldly direction can be further seen in the
literature on bitul, contemplation
and the conception of the mundane within daily life.
The concept of bitul
is one that is common to all Hasidic groups.[29] It assumes that the ultimate purpose of
existence is the elimination of physicality. RaShaz affirms that true comprehension
of existence is to strip away all corporeality, and true worship is to divest
one’s mind and one’s heart from all physical desires. [30] This statement must be
qualified, as Loewenthal demonstrates, by the fact that Habad thought did not translate
this sentiment into ascetic behaviour, and it is clear that bitul manifests itself in a variety of
forms depending on the individual concerned. For some it would mean otherworldly detachment
from ordinary desires, for others, enthusiastic contemplation in prayer leading
to ecstasy or simply positive mesirat
nefesh and readiness to suffer deprivation.[31] It certainly did not
involve denying the reality of the world in terms of lived experience.
However, bitul
places humanity in an ontologically weakened state. The need for the
elimination of physicality is based on the premise that the physical world is
not truly real. Elior eloquently summarises its significance:
The
significance of this paradox is the absolute denial of everything founded on sensory
awareness and the absolute affirmation of everything based on intellectual
contemplation, mystical intuition, and the insight of faith. Everything based
on sensory awareness or the routine of earthly reality is merely imagination…[32]
God is everywhere
and permeates everything, and the inability to see this is due to human
weakness. This illusion of physicality is enabled by God bringing it into being
at every moment.[33]
This ambiguity is
similarly found in the attitudes of RaShaz and R. Dov Ber towards reason and
contemplation. This, too, is most easily identified as being a means towards a
higher ends. Contemplation is a mystical exercise and functions as an
intellectual and rational means of attaining the divine unity. The domain of
reason must be induced to recognise the radiance of the infinite.[34] Yet whilst recognition of
the divine is common to all religious groups, the nature of contemplation in
Habad thought is not primarily concerned with the natural world in a
Maimonidean sense; rather, it specifically focuses on the Kabbalistic doctrine
of emanation, and attempts to understand the chain of sephirot descending from the upper worlds to those below.[35] Contemplation seeks to
correct the human consciousness which is blind to the realities of the universe,[36] and transform it from a
meaningless empirical life to an exalted spiritual one. The ultimate purpose of
contemplation is to go beyond the reach of the intellect and of rational thought,
in until the soul is totally absorbed in God:
For it is impossible to be drawn to the
aspect of the One who surrounds all the worlds except through annihilation
alone…And the reason for this is that in
annihilation the thing truly reaches the aspect of Ayin.[37]
It is clear that Habad’s
intellectualist focus was significantly conditioned by mystical considerations.
Whilst it certainly emphasised the importance of the intellect, it remained a
means of attaining its own nullification.
The contrast with
Soloveitchik’s this-worldly halakhic model is heightened by an examination of
RaShaz’s attitude towards secular studies. In the Tanya, secular knowledge is
portrayed as not only a waste of time but fundamentally dangerous. Unlike
recreational activities such as eating, drinking or conversation which are
neutral, belonging to the quelippah nogah,
secular philosophy actively desecrates the divine wisdom within a person. Interestingly,
he notes that it is permissible to acquire if it can be used in order to gain
an income for profit in order to serve God,
or if he knows how to use it to serve God or for His Torah. Adopting a
position which posits only revelatory wisdom to be of substantive importance in
a manner reminiscent of R. Loewe’s attitude towards the sciences,[38] RaShaz argues that both
Maimonides and Nahmanides only engaged with secular pursuits for the ultimate
sake of defending the Torah.[39]
RaShaz’s dichotomisation between
things that can be converted for Godliness and those which due to their
inherent nature are entrapped within straits of evil is further evidence of a
system which can be considered pessimistic, placing the physical world as
requiring redemption from its current state. It requires a far broader study to
examine this phenomenon throughout the writings of RaShaz and offer a full
appraisal of the sacred and profane within the writings of Habad in general,
but an example of this approach can be seen in RaShaz’s perception of basic
necessities such as food as belonging to the quelippah nogah. By itself, food remains spiritually harmful unless
it is used for a transformative spiritual purpose.[40]
Furthermore, Habad differed fundamentally
from both medieval and modern religious rationalists in that it did not try and
align its doctrines with reason. The mystical tradition remained paramount.
Unlike medieval rationalism which tried to align its axioms with reason in
recognition of its divine source,[41]
Habad’s attitude was that reason should be used as a tool and did not impose
obligations by itself. It was even further removed from the rationalism being
advocated by figures such as Moses Mendelssohn and the Berlin circle in the
late 18th Century which elevated human reason to the level of revelation.
In conclusion, Rabbi
Soloveitchik’s claim that the Habad Hassid can be readily associated with the
mystical prototype who seeks to escape the world and liberate it from the
constraints of physicality exposes a fascinating duality within Habad thought.
On the one hand, it is very clear from the Habad writings in the late 18th
and early 19th Century that it emphasised the importance of the
physical world and the need for religious proactivity. Yet simultaneously it
focused on the paradox of existence and the illusionary nature of reality,
longing for it to be subsumed into the infinite God. This dichotomy manifested
itself within key concepts in Habad thought such as bitul and contemplation. I have argued that whilst it is not
accurate to suggest that Habad rejected the world per se, physicality certainly
remained a springboard of attaining higher spirituality in mystical realms. The
rationalism and intellectualist elements that some scholars have focused upon
were used as a means of achieving the ultimate communion with God. Observance
of the halakha and an appreciation of God within this world are simply not
enough to fully redeem man. The early Habad teachings nuanced and personalised
mystical teachings to provide self-communication whilst still remaining firmly
within the Kabbalistic framework. The intellect was identified as an essential
tool in the religious experience but could never constitute the ultimate source
of spiritual sustenance, or ‘elevation’ as I have characterised it, as it did
for rationalist thinkers and Soloveitchik’s portrayal of halakhic men. I would
suggest, therefore, that R. Soloveitchik is ultimately correct in arguing that
in terms of ontology or essential self, Habad can be considered pessimistic.
Foxbrunner’s conclusion that although RaShaz was a mystic, he was ‘uniquely,
perhaps, a this – worldly mystic’ is
particularly appropriate.[42] The world may well have
remained in its state of ‘ontological pessimism’, but by democratising Kabbalistic
Judaism, the early Habad movement presented the individual with far more tools
to redeem it than were at the disposal of the ascetic mystic.
Bibliography
Elior, Rachel, The Paradoxical Ascent to God, The
Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism trans. Jeffrey M. Green, (New York,
1993).
Jacobs, Louis, Hasidic
Prayer. (London, 1972).
Flatto, Sharon, The Kabbalistic Culture of
Eighteenth-Century Prague: Ezekiel Landau (the 'Noda Biyehudah') and his
Contemporaries, (Oxford, 2010).
Foxbrunner, Roman, Habad, The Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of
Lyady, ( Alabama, 1992).
Loewenthal, Naphtali,
Communicating the Infinite, the emergence
of the Habad school (Chicago, 1990).
________________ ‘Reason'
and ‘'Beyond Reason'’ in Habad Hasidism’, in M. Hallamish, ed., Alei Shefer, Studies in the Literature of Jewish Thought
presented to Rabbi Dr Alexandre Safran (Ramat Gan, 1990), 109-126.
Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism
(New York, 1946).
Sherwin, Byron, Mystical Theology and Social Dissent
The Life and Works of Judah Loew of Prague, (Oxford, 2006).
Soloveitchik,
Joseph, Halakhic Man, (New York,
1984).
__________________, And from There You Shall Seek,
(Jerusalem 2009).
Shneur Zalman of
Liadi, Boneh Yerushalayim, ( Jerusalem,
1926).
___________________Likkutei Amarim, Tanya, (Brooklyn,1982).
___________________Likkutei Torah, Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Brooklyn,1979).
___________________ Maamarei
Admor ha-Zaken, Ethalekh, Lozynya. (Brooklyn, 1957).
___________________,
Torah Or, (Brooklyn, 1978).
Twersky,
Isadore, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1980).
Uffenheimer, Rivka
Schatz, Hasidism as Mysticism: Quietistic
Elements in Eighteenth Century Hasidic Thought, (Princeton, 1993).
[4] Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, 13.
[5] ibid, 15.
[6] Ibid, 15.
[7]Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, 60.
[8] Soloveitchik, You Shall Seek, 119.
[9] Ibid, 30.
[11] Rachel Elior, The
Paradoxical Ascent to God, The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism trans. Jeffrey M. Green, (New York, 1993),
5.
[13]RaShaz, Tanya, 82a-b.
[14] Elior, Mystical Ascent, 17.
[15] Sharon Flatto, The
Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth-Century Prague: Ezekiel Landau (the 'Noda
Biyehudah') and his Contemporaries,
(Oxford, 2010), 158.
[16] Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer, Hasidism as Mysticism: Quietistic Elements in Eighteenth Century
Hasidic Thought, (Princeton, 1993), 255.
[17] RaShaz, Tanya, 9a-b.
[18] ibid, 10a.
[19] ibid, 52a-54a.
[20] Schatz-Uffenheimer,
Hasidism, 289.
[21] Naphtali Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, the emergence of the Habad school
(Chicago, 1990), 86.
[22] Loewenthal, ‘Reason' and ‘'Beyond Reason'’ in
Habad Hasidism’, in M. Hallamish, ed., Alei Shefer, Studies in the Literature of Jewish Thought presented to Rabbi Dr
Alexandre Safran (Ramat Gan, 1990), 116.
[23] ibid, 111.
[24] RaShaz, Ma’amarei Admor ha-Zaken; Ethalekh-Loznia,
29.
[25] Elior, Paradoxical Ascent, 55.
[26] ibid, 45
[27] RaShaz, Torah Or, Va-Yetse, 44.
[28] Elior, Paradoxical Ascent, 28.
[29] Louis Jacobs, Hasidic
Prayer, (London, 1972), 17.
[30] RaShaz, Boneh Yerushalayim (Jerusalem, 1926), 15.
[31] Loewenthal, Communicating, 97.
[32] ibid, 54.
[33] Elior, Paradoxical ascent, 77.
[34] Loewenthal, Communicating, 140.
[35] Ibid, 159
[36] Ibid, 160.
[37] RaShaz, Torah Or, Vayakhel, 228.
[38] Byron Sherwin, Mystical Theology and Social Dissent: The Life and Works of Judah Loew
of Prague, (Oxford, 2006), 182.
[39] RaShaz, Tanya, 13 a-b. This also ignores the
vastly different approaches of the two great medieval thinkers. Maimonides in
particular would vehemently reject this accusation.
[40] RaShaz, Tanya, 12b-13a.
[41] Isadore Twersky, Introduction
to the Code of Maimonides (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 88.
[42] Roman Foxbrunner, Habad, The Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, ( Alabama, 1992),
200.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please only write a comment if it is constructive/entertaining. Any abusive posts will result in comments being removed/ comment section withdrawn.