1. Despite the length of his tenure and his visibility, the academic literature on R. Menachem Mendel remains quite sparse. See for now, Lurie, Ilia, ʿEdah u-medinah: Ḥasidut ḥabad ba-’imperiyah ha-rusit, 5588–5643 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006)Google Scholar; Biale, David et al. , Hasidism: A New History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018), 298–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Levine, Shalom DovBer, Toldot ḥabad be-rusyah ha-ẓarit (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2010), 102–58Google Scholar.

2. See Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 94–110; Biale et al., Hasidism, 301–2; Ḥayim Meir Heilman, Beit rabi (Berdiczów, 1902), III, 11b–12a.

3. Pesaḥ Ruderman, “Hashkafah klalit ʿal ha-ẓaddikim ve-ʿal ha-ḥasidim,” Ha-shaḥar 6 (1875): 104. Cited by Ilia Lurie, Milḥamot lyubaviẓ’: Ḥasidut ḥabad be-rusyah ha-ẓarit (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2018), 33. Translation, here and throughout this article, is mine.

4. See Biale et al., Hasidism, 259. Also see the relevant comments in Moshe Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), 221–23, and 243–44. Idel is critical of scholars who saw nineteenth-century Hasidism as inaugurating a trajectory of “cooling” or “retreat … from extreme forms of mystical experience,” and the methodological points that he raises are well taken. In my view, however, this critique deserves to be extended. Idel rightly suggests that “an inspection … of later Hasidic masters like R. Moshe Ḥayyim Ephraim of Sudlykov, R. Dov Baer, the middle Rebbe of Ḥabad, R. Aharon ha-Levi of Staroselye [et al.] … may lead to a different conclusion.” Yet, he upholds the assumption that “indeed, the later masters did not contribute new formulations.” The present study takes up the example of Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn to show that bold new formulations are not absent from nineteenth-century hasidic literature, and moreover that this is not only true of crossover figures such as R. Dov Ber and R. Aharon ha-Levi (who bridged the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries) but also of at least one figure who belongs wholly to the nineteenth century.

5. One of the few monographs to focus on a hasidic figure who lived wholly in the nineteenth century is David Assaf, The Regal Way: The Life and Times of Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin, trans. David Louvish (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002). Another important exception to this rule is the significant attention paid by several scholars to the school of Izbica, whose key figures lived in the nineteenth century. See Alan Brill, Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok HaKohen of Lublin (New York: Yeshiva University Press; Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2002); Morris M. Faierstein, All Is in the Hands of Heaven: The Teachings of Rabbi Mordecai Joseph Leiner of Izbica (New York: Ktav, 1989); Shaul Magid, Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003). Other works that pay attention to the nineteenth century within the scope of larger, multigenerational studies of particular hasidic streams include, Gadi Sagiv, Ha-shoshelet: Bet Ẓernobil u-mekomo be-toldot ha-ḥasidut (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2014); Benjamin Brown, Ke-sefinah mitaltelet: Ḥasidut Karlin ben ʿaliyot le-mishbarim (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2018); Dov Schwartz, Maḥshevet ḥabad me-reshit ve-ʿad ʾaḥrit (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2010). The latter work is most relevant to the present study and will be critically engaged below.

6. See the relevant remarks regarding the history of hasidic ideas in Biale et al., Hasidism, 260. On the overreliance on the maskilic point of view in studies of the relationship between Hasidism and Haskalah see ibid., 836.

7. See Israel Bartal, “The Imprint of Haskalah Literature on the Historiography of Hasidism,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011), 367–75; Marcin Wodziński, Haskalah and Hasidism in the Kingdom of Poland: A History of Conflict, trans. Sarah Cozens (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2005), 235–41; Biale et al., Hasidism, 499–500.

8. Benjamin Brown, “Substitutes for Mysticism: A General Model for the Theological Development of Hasidism in the Nineteenth Century,” History of Religions 56, no. 3 (February 2017): 247–88.

9. Ibid., 248–49.

10. Ibid., 249.

11. Ibid., 259.

12. Joseph Weiss, “Contemplative Mysticism and ‘Faith’ in Hasidic Piety,” in Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism, ed. David Goldstein (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 44. On Weiss and the significance of his contribution to the field see Jacob Katz, “Joseph G. Weiss: A Personal Appraisal,” in Rapoport-Albert, Hasidism Reappraised, 9; Joseph Dan, introduction to Weiss, Studies, xiv–xvi. For a critical discussion of the merits of this particular characterization of Hasidism see Eli Rubin, “Questions of Love and Truth: New Perspectives on the Controversy between R. Avraham of Kalisk and R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi,” Shofar 38, no. 3 (2020): 243–47.

13. Naftali Loewenthal, “Habad Approaches to Contemplative Prayer, 1790–1920,” in Rapoport-Albert, Hasidism Reappraised, 288–300.

14. For the history of its distribution in manuscript copies and its subsequent publication in print, see the preface (hakdamah) to Shalom DovBer Schneersohn, Kuntras ha-tefillah (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2016). Since the appearance of Loewenthal's article there have been several additional discussions of Chabad contemplative prayer in the earlier part of the nineteenth century. For a recent contribution to this discourse that includes a broad survey of relevant work see Jonathan Garb, “Contemplation, Meditation, and Metaphysics in Second-Generation Habad,” in Jewish Spirituality and Social Transformation: Hasidism and Society, ed. Philip Wexler (New York: Herder and Herder, 2019), 185–201.

15. Loewenthal, “Contemplative Prayer,” 288–89.

16. Brown, “Substitutes for Mysticism,” 259.

17. Ibid., 259–60.

18. Ibid., 259; Rashaz, Likutei ʾamarim tanya, part 1, end of chapter 3.

19. Shalom DovBer Levine, ed, ʾIggerot kodesh ʾadmor ha-Rashab, vol. 2 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1986), 754–55 (#407). Regarding Tract on Prayer, see the brief discussion in Biale et al., Hasidism, 302. There a similar point is made: “Shalom Dov Ber recommended contemplating Hasidic teachings independently of prayer. Such contemplation should actually serve as an exercise prior to the intensive meditation during prayer.”

20. Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn, Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, shaʿar teshah ʿasar, sefer 5637, vol. 2, ve-kakhah—5637 (New York: Kehot, 2013), 610 [139]. This text belongs to a wider discussion of the nature of daʿat as a form of union that is marked more by intimacy than by cerebral mediation. This notion of daʿat has a long history in Chabad discourse, beginning with the very passage from Tanya cited in Brown's paper: Rashaz, Likutei ʾamarim tanya, part 1, end of chapter 3. There, reference is made to the biblical use of a conjugate of daʿat to describe the sexual union of Adam with Eve (Genesis 4:1).

21. See Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 65–78.

22. Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 5a; Levine, Toldot ḥabad, 148.

23. See Shalom DovBer Levine, ed., ʾIggerot kodesh ʾadmor ha-Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2013), 197–98.

24. Ibid., 148. Thus far, five of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's sons have been named. He was also survived by his eldest, Rabbi Shalom Barukh (1805–1869). As will be discussed below, he was less active in communal leadership, both during his father's lifetime and thereafter.

25. Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 11b–12a.

26. Ibid.

27. Pinḥas Dov Goldstein, “ʾEḥad be-ʾeḥad yigashu,” Kerem ḥabad 1 (1986): 61. Cf. R. Menachem M. Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2009), 284.

28. See Amram Blau, “Te'ur ḥaẓar ha-Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek u-vanav be-ḥayav ve-’aḥarei histalkuto,” Heikhal ha-besht 15 (2006): 118–19; Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 21–26.

29. Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman, 283. Cf. Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 12b: “R. Barukh Shalom … was a humble person … and did not conduct himself as a rebbe even after his father's passing.” Here it is pertinent to clarify that these two sources are respectively representative of the two main branches of Chabad that derived from the succession controversy of 1866: While Reshimot ha-yoman was penned by the seventh rebbe in the Chabad-Lubavitch line (heir to Maharash), Beit rabi was composed by a Hasid with close personal ties to several rebbes of the Chabad-Kopust line (heirs to Maharil).

30. Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman, 233.

31. Ibid., 209. See also further citations in Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 96n10.

32. MS 1011, in the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad - Ohel Yosef Yitzchak Lubavitch, New York, contains eleven discourses penned during this period. See Yehoshua Mondshine's description of the manuscript and its contents in his notes to “Mafteaḥ mamarei 5626,” in Shmuel Schneersohn, Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5626 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1989), ix.

33. Yehoshua Mondshine, “Ẓava'ato shel ʾadmor ha-‘Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek’,” Kfar ḥabad 1041, http://www.shturem.net/index.php?section=blog_new&article_id=34&lang=hebrew. See Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 11b–12a.

34. A fragment of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's legal will published by Yehoshua Mondshine in Kfar ḥabad, ibid.

35. Clauses of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's legal will as excerpted in documents authored by Maharash and published in Shalom DovBer Levine, ed., ʾIggerot kodesh ʾadmor ha-Maharash (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2016), 39–40.

36. Yehoshua Mondshine, Migdal ʿoz (Kfar Chabad, 1980), 603. Mondshine described it as “possibly” the handwriting of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek (אולי גוכתי”ק). It was subsequently published in Levine, ʾIggerot ha-Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, 164. Levine described it as “a facsimile of his handwriting” (תצלום כתי”ק), thus expunging Mondshine's hesitation. Comparing it with other samples of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's handwriting I identified many replications of specific letter and word forms, and therefore concur with Levine's conclusion. Mondshine likely hesitated in his attribution because in this example the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's hand is shakier than in other examples, which coheres with Heilman's report that towards the end of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's life he was so ill that he could only move his hands with extreme difficulty. Versions of this fragment appear in the Moscow and Petersburg manuscripts as well.

37. The National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, Russia, Ms. EVR IV 172. This manuscript has been digitized and made available online by the National Library of Israel, https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH000089399/NLI. A facsimile of this manuscript also appears in Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 133–35. For Lurie's discussion of this manuscript see ibid., 98–102. My references to the number of distinct tsetlekh follows Lurie's divisions, ibid., 130–32. This manuscript is without doubt of Lubavitch provenance; the “will” is followed by a talk delivered by Maharash's son and successor in Lubavitch, R. Shalom DovBer, dated Simḥat Torah, 1906, and transcribed in the same hand.

38. The Russian State Library, Moscow, Russia, Fond 182, no. 284. This manuscript has been digitized and made available online by the Russian State Library, https://dlib.rsl.ru/01006568170, and the National Library of Israel, https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH000140691/NLI. On folio 126b [677] a note states that one of these ẓetlekh was addressed “by the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek to his son the ʾadmor of Lubavitch [i.e., Maharash],” was “found in the writing of the ʾadmor of Lubavitch after his passing in 1882.” Most of the ẓetlekh, however, appear on folio 117b [660]. It is therefore unclear whether they too are to be associated with this note.

39. MS 2045 in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York. This manuscript has been digitized by the National Library of Israel: https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH000104579/NLI. It includes a copy of the damaged and partially illegible will of Maharash himself (folio 435a). This is immediately followed by a single tsetl, attributed to the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, which does not appear in other manuscripts I consulted, but does appear in an independent print source and in other manuscripts. See Ẓvi Har-Shefer, “Lubavitch: ʿIr moshav ʾadmorei ḥabad bimei ha-’admor Rabbi Shmuel,” He-ʿavar: Revuʿon le-divrei yemei ha-yehudim ve-ha-yahadut be-rusyah (1954): 87. Har-Shefer also notes that this tsetl was said to have been found following Maharash's passing. For references to other manuscripts that contain iterations of this tsetl, but which I have not seen myself, see Levine, ʾIggerot ha-Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, 163. There are minor variations between Levine's text and the New York manuscript. Also see the relevant discussion in Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 97 and 102.

40. The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel, Ms. Heb. 3547=28, folios 371a–373a. This manuscript will be described below, and has recently been digitized by the National Library of Israel: https://www.nli.org.il/en/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH000045871/NLI.

41. Lurie, ʿEdah u-medinah, 98–102 and 133–35.

42. Mondshine, Migdal ʿoz, 603; the Petersburg manuscript, VIII.

43. The Petersburg manuscript, tsetlekh I and II. An iteration of tsetl II appears on folio 117b of the Moscow manuscript. Tsetl I does not appear there.

44. Historiographers of both Kopust and Lubavitch affiliation explicitly state that they wish to withhold the precise details of the controversy, which is one of the reasons why only some fragments of the relevant material have appeared in print. See Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 13b: “I do not wish to speak of this, for it was but the work of Satan who confuses the world, and who contrived divisiveness between the brothers.” Likewise see Shalom DovBer Levine, Mi-beit ha-gnazim (New York: Kehot, 2009), 242: “The specific differences of opinion that were between them, and which are mentioned in the continuation of the letter, have been omitted here.” These statements are expressions of the sentiment shared by Kopust and Lubavitch loyalists in regard to the sons of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek that “all of them are beloved, all of them are mighty, and all of them are holy.” The latter phrase is from the daily prayer liturgy and is said to have been applied to the sons of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek by R. Shmuel DovBer Lipkin of Borisov (“Rashdam”), one of the senior Hasidim who supported Maharash. See Raphael Nachman Kahn, Shemuʿot ve-sipurim mi-raboteinu ha-kedoshim, vol. 1 (New York: Yitzḥak Gansburg, 1990), 69.

45. The Jerusalem manuscript, folios 371a–373a.

46. One page of this letter has been published in Raya Haran, “Shivḥei ha-rav: Le-sheʾalat ʾaminutan shel ʾiggerot ha-ḥasidim me-’ereẓ-yisra'el,” Katedrah 55 (1990): 55–56, but its contents are almost entirely peripheral to her discussion. See the treatment of Haran's argument in Yehoshua Mondshine, “ʾAminutan shel ʾiggerot ha-ḥasidim m-ʾereẓ-yisra'el, ḥelek sheni,” Katedrah 64 (1992): 86.

47. The Jerusalem manuscript, 271b.

48. Ibid., 272a.

49. Ibid., 272b.

50. Ibid., 273a. Cf. Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 13b, where the following words closely follow this language: “On the way back to his home [in Lubavitch], in all the places he passed through, when they came to ask him to deliver hasidic teachings and to be the rabbi in the place of his holy father, he said to everyone that he did not want any change of title or any new departure at all from how it was before, but rather to repeat hasidic teachings as he did during the lifetime of our rabbi whose soul is in Eden.” Emphasis added.

51. See Heilman, Beit rabi, III, 20b–21a, where explicit note of this letter is made—albeit without divulging its polemical content—in a brief portrait of its recipient, R. Zalman of Krāslava. More will be said below about the polemical nature of these documents and the associated methodological problems involved in evaluating their historiographical worth. In the case of this letter, however, I regard Heilman's attestation as sufficient grounds to accept its authenticity. Two other items related to the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's will (included in the Jerusalem manuscript and described below) seem more likely to have been fabricated, but this cannot be settled with certainty. Be this as it may, all three items were clearly preserved in order to support Maharil's legitimacy as the sole arbiter of the authenticity of ẓetlekh attributed to the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek.

52. The Jerusalem manuscript, 371a–b. The first item is described as “that which was found in the prayer book” of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek. Purporting to be a personal prayer in his voice, it entreats “healing of the soul, that our hearts shall cleave to your Torah and your commandments all the days of our life … and healing of the body, to heal ourselves and to send complete healing to my son R. Shmuel … and that after the exceeding length of my life, my son shall lead ʾanash, my son Yehudah Leib … and that he shall see to the livelihood of my son Shmuel … so that he shall have livelihood in plentitude, etc.” While all the other documents take the form of communiqués addressed to particular individuals, or to the Chabad community, this one is addressed to God. In the former case it is understandable that the central protagonists of the succession controversy would be singled out for special mention. In the latter case, however, one would expect the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's personal prayer for physical and spiritual healing to mention all of his sons or none of them.

The second item is described as having been found in the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's “pouch.” It reads: “My ẓetlekh, which are in the abovementioned closet, should be read only by my son Yehudah Leib, and they shall be burnt, except for the requests to my son that are required regarding my son R. Shmuel. And the rest, those that could cause offense or error, shall be burned.” This item, too, is different from the other documents discussed in that it does not purport to inform us of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's will, but rather expresses his desire for the suppression of ẓetlekh that express his will. The only one who may read these ẓetlekh, apparently, is Maharil, which would render him the only person with the authority to testify regarding their content.

Both items were clearly copied, curated, and likely fabricated, in order to bolster Maharil's position as rightful heir to his father, and his authority as the sole arbiter of the will.

53. Levine, ʾIggerot Maharash, 41.

54. Ibid.

55. The Petersburg manuscript, I.

56. Ada Rapoport-Albert, “The Problem of Succession in the Hasidic Leadership with Special Reference to the Circle of R. Nachman of Braslav” (PhD diss., University of London, 1974), 73. Also see Rapoport-Albert, “Hasidism after 1772: Structural Continuity and Stages” in Hasidism Reappraised, 76–140.

57. The New York manuscript, folio 435a.

58. Sagiv, Ha-shoshelet, 41.

59. Assaf, Regal Way, 171–72.

60. Here I follow Heilman's account in Beit rabi, III: Regarding R. Barukh Shalom, see folio 12b; for R. Ḥayim Shneur Zalman, see folio 14a; for R. Yisraʾel Noaḥ, see folio 14b. During this early period these brothers remained in Lubavitch, but they did not attract large followings, and Heilman notes that they were sometimes forced to travel to other communities to raise funds. Of Maharash, by contrast, Heilman writes: “After the passing of our master a large contingent of ʾanash attached themselves to him to receive teachings from his mouth and to seek spiritual and physical advice from him” (folio 16a), which implies that his court in Lubavitch immediately became well established on a firm basis. Maharash's authority as the primary ʾadmor in Lubavitch, despite the presence of three older brothers, is also affirmed in a letter by R. Shlomo Zalman (published in Mondshine, Migdal ʿoz, 612) wherein he considers the opinion of Maharash, but not that of the other brothers, as to whether he should serve as ʾadmor in Kopust in place of his father or return instead to Lubavitch.

61. Samuel C. Heilman, Who Will Lead Us? The Story of Five Hasidic Dynasties in America (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), 219–20.

62. Naftali Loewenthal, “Lubavitch Hasidism,” in YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Lubavitch_Hasidism.

63. On the particular case of the Lubavitch court during the time of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek see Lurie, ʿEdah, 1–61. On hasidic courts during the nineteenth century more generally see Biale et al., Hasidism, 403–28.

64. Levine, ʾIggerot Maharash, 3–5.

65. Heilman, Beit rabi, III,13a.

66. Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman, 283

67. Har-Shefer, “Lubavitch,” 87 and 89.

68. Ḥayim Tchernowitz (Rav Ẓa'ir), Pirkei ḥayim: ʾOtobiographiyah (New York: Bitzaron, 1954), 105. See also Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman, 209: “[Maharash] was a cheerful personality, but mischievous.” Several other sources similarly attest that Maharash did not abandon his sense of humor and sharp wit with his assumption of the leadership. See Yehoshua Mondshine, “Be-derekh ha-laẓah,” Shturem.net, http://www.shturem.net/index.php?section=artdays&id=748. One source cited therein records Maharash's wryly self-conscious affirmation of his humorous inclination in the form of an ironic denial: “A witticism?! With me there are no witticisms!”

69. Yehudah Chitrik, Reshimot devarim (2009), 149. On different modes of prayer within the Chabad tradition, and in particular the contrast of “wild enthusiasm” with “silence, immobility, and abnegation,” see Naftali Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the Habad School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 109–17. For a broader discussion of prayer and trance in Hasidism see Jonathan Garb, Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), esp. chaps. 4–5.

70. Har-Shefer, “Lubavitch,” 87. On Rabinowitz see Eliyahu Stern, Jewish Materialism: The Intellectual Revolution of the 1870s (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), esp. 85–95 and 107–13.

71. Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman, 245; Ilia Lurie, “Lubavitch u-milḥamotehah: Ḥasidut ḥabad be-maʾavak ʿal demutah shel ha-ḥevrah ha-yehudit be-rusyah ha-ẓarit” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2009), 19.

72. For details of his travels see Levine, ʾIggerot Maharash, 17–21. On his sartorial style see Chitrik, Reshimot devarim, 157. On the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's permissive attitude to modern or “non-Jewish” dress see Amram Blau, “Gedolei ha-ḥasidut u-gezirat ha-malbushim,” in Heikhal ha-Besht 12 (2005): 107–8; Glenn Dynner, “The Garment of Torah: Clothing Decrees and the Warsaw Career of the First Gerer Rebbe,” in Warsaw: The Jewish Metropolis, ed. Glenn Dynner and François Guesnet (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 112.

73. Schneerson, Reshimot ha-yoman, 188.

74. Kahn, Shemuʿot, 69–70. For other iterations of this story, all of which are recorded by students of R. Shmuel Gronem Estherman, who was later an extremely influential mentor and teacher in the Tomkhei Temimim Yeshiva in Lubavitch, see Chitrik, Reshimot devarim, 147–48, and further citations there, n. 11. According to Kahn's iteration, Rashdam related this anecdote when Estherman asked him which of the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek's sons to attach himself to. This detail, however, does not appear in other iterations of this story, and is further thrown into doubt by the possibility that Estherman was no more than six years old when the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek passed away. On the question of his birthdate, see Yitzchok Wilhelm et al., “Skirah keẓarah me-toldot ha-me-ḥaber,” in Shmuel Gronem Estherman, Biʾur ʿal ha-tanya (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2016), 345n2; 350n13.

75. Cf. Tchernowitz, Pirkei ḥayim, 105, where it is recorded that many younger and more intellectually inclined Hasidim were drawn to Maharash while their more conservative elders rallied around Maharil.

76. Schwartz, Maḥshevet ḥabad, 187. Translations are mine.

77. See Nochum Grunwald, “‘ʾAyin Beis’ as the Culmination of a Conceptual Renaissance: The Mystical Thought of the Rebbe Rashab,” Chabad.org, chabad.org/1931533. Grunwald is not only a scholar of Chabad Hasidism, but also a Chabad scholar. Accordingly, his claim raises the question of how biases within the secular academy may sometimes influence internal perceptions of hasidic history within segments of the hasidic community. This can occur through numerous modes of cultural interchange, both direct and indirect. Indeed, the complication of the dichotomy between “academic” and “partisan” historiography on Chabad has already been noted. See Wojciech Tworek, “Beyond Hagiography with Footnotes: Writing Biographies of the Chabad Rebbe in the Post-Schneerson Era,” AJS Review 43, no. 2 (2019): 409–35. There is, however, an entirely independent reason that Maharash's teachings remain understudied, and therefore underrated, even within the Chabad community; namely that he was eclipsed by his son, Rashab. The latter built on his father's innovations in a distinctly educational context, which makes his discourses especially accessible to young yeshiva students, and which also ties them very closely to the legacy and self-image of the successor institutions of the yeshiva that he founded, Tomchei Temimim Lubavitch, which have formed the backbone of Chabad's education network over the course of the last century. See Naftali Loewenthal, “‘The Thickening of the Light’: The Kabbalistic-Hasidic Teachings of Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneerson in Their Social Context,” in Habad Hasidism: History, Thought, Image, ed. Jonatan Meir and Gadi Sagiv (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2016), 7*–43*. Just as the present paper was being prepared for print Grunwald published a new article that considerably revises his previous conclusions and notes his surprise to discover many innovations associated with Rashab were anticipated by Maharash, see Nochum Grunwald “ʾAv u-beno she-ra'u ʿet ha-ḥidush,” Heikhal ha-Besht 40 (Summer 5780): 134–56.

78. Biale et al., Hasidism, 302.

79. Loewenthal, “Lubavitch Hasidism”; Loewenthal, “‘Thickening of the Light,’” 10*–11*. See also the relevant discussion in Ariel Roth, Keiẓad likro’ ʾet safrut ḥaba”d (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2017), 94–97. Roth is to be commended for his attentiveness to questions relating to Chabad's literary corpus, and to the various genres that it encompasses. However, the usefulness of his work is sometimes hampered by an overreliance on secondary sources, which sheds more light on the reception of the corpus than on the corpus itself.

80. Shmuel Zalmanov, “Torat Shmuel,” Koveẓ Lubavitch, year 2, 3:45–46.

81. First circulated in manuscript, it was later published as Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, shaʿar revi'i, ve-kakhah—5637 (New York: Kehot, 1945); Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, shaʿar teshah ʿasar, sefer 5637, vol. 2, ve-kakhah—5637 (New York: Kehot, 2013). The newer addition includes the pagination of the original format, and it is the original pagination that is referred to throughout.

82. For a fuller overview of the main themes of Ve-kakhah, see Eli Rubin, “Hemshekh Vekakhah Ha-gadol: Treading the Path of Redemption, Unveiling the Face of Effacement,” Chabad.org, chabad.org/3646985.

83. Rashaz, Likutei ʾamarim tanya, chap. 18. Cf. chap. 35, where a very similar characterization of ḥokhmah is attributed to “my teacher,” i.e., Rabbi DovBer of Mezeritch.

84. Rashaz, Torah ʾor, 6c. Also see Rashaz, Likutei torah – ba-midbar, 44d; 87c.

85. R. DovBer Shneuri, Torat ḥayim—shemot, vol. 2 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2003), pikudei, 453d [906]–454d [908].

86. Ve-kakhah, 27–30.

87. See Daniel C. Matt, “Ayin: The Concept of Nothingness in Jewish Mysticism,” in The Problem of Pure Conciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy, ed. Robert Forman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 121–59.

88. Ve-kakhah, 27.

89. Rashaz, Likutei torah – va-yikra, 11d. This source is not cited by Maharash himself, nor was it cited in the annotated edition of Ve-kakhah, published in 2013. The relationship between this source and Ve-kakhah will be discussed in more detail below.

90. On the kabbalistic concept of ẓimẓum and its history, see Moshe Idel, “ʿAl toldot musag ha-ẓimẓum be-kabbalah u-be-meḥkar,” in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought: Proceeding of the Fourth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism 10 (1992): 59–112. On the Lurianic concept of ẓimẓum that is invoked here, see esp. Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1967), 260–61; Christoph Schulte, Zimzum: Gott und Weltursprung (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag im Suhrkamp Verlag, 2014), 47–48. See also Tamar Ross, “Shnei perushim le-torat ha-ẓimẓum: Rabbi Ḥayim mi-Volozhin ve-Rabbi Shneur Zalman mi-Liady,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 153–69; Yoram Jacobson, “Torat ha-briʾah shel Rabbi Shneur Zalman mi-Liady,” ʾEshel Be'er Sheva 1 (1976): 307–68. A full review and discussion of academic literature on Chabad's interpretation of ẓimẓum is beyond the scope of this paper.

91. Ve-kakhah, 29. It should be noted that this discussion of ḥokhmah and ẓimẓum also appears in Shneuri, Torat ḥayim—shemot, vol. 2, 454a [907]. In addition to the interventions mentioned above, here Maharash further sharpens the theorization by crystallizing the distinction between the higher and lower aspects of ḥokhmah, referred to as mah and koakh respectively, and emphasizing that it is the higher aspect that is referred to here. Maharash further elaborates on this point in various different ways throughout the hemshekh. This interpolation is drawn from a classical work by the sixteenth-century kabbalist, Rabbi Moses ben Jacob Cordevero. Cf. Cordevero, Pardes rimonim, gate 23 (Shaʿar ʿerkhei ha-kinuyim), chap. 8, ʿerekh ḥokhmah.

92. Compare Rashaz, Torah ʾor, 14b: “This concealment is the absence of light to the point that it can't be called by any name at all, that it should be referred to by the appellation ḥokhmah … till after many descents and concatenations of stations … then the capacity is made for the creation of a certain station that will be a source of a source for the station of ḥokhmah.” This text, which is a locus classicus for Rashaz's conception of ẓimẓum, asserts the utter absence of light and the utter impossibility of the direct emergence of ḥokhmah in the aftermath of ẓimẓum. Maharash, by contrast, construes “the concealment of ḥokhmah” as the medium through which ẓimẓum directly discloses at least “some revelation” that “remains from the essential light.”

93. Zalmanov, “Torat Shmuel,” 45–46.

94. Ve-kakhah, 27–36.

95. Zalmanov, “Torat Shmuel,” 45–46.

96. For Rashab's transcript, see Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, shaʿar teshah ʿasar, sefer 5637, vol. 2, ve-kakhah—5637, 785–89.

97. See, for now, Nochum Grunwald, “Ha-shitot ve-ha-shit'tiyut be-derushei rabeinu ha-zaken: Hagdorot ve-sivug shel shitot ve-deʿot be-merḥavei ketavav shel ʾadmor ha-zaken be-mishnat ha-Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek,” in Harav (Mechon Harav, 2015), 573–86; Eli Rubin, “'The Pen Shall Be Your Friend': Intertextuality, Intersociality, and the Cosmos—Examples of the Tzemach Tzedek's Way in the Development of Chabad Chassidic Thought,” Chabad.org, chabad.org/3286179; Rubin, “Traveling and Traversing Chabad's Literary Paths: From Likutei torah to Khayim gravitser and beyond,” In geveb (October 2018), https://ingeveb.org/articles/traveling-and-traversing-chabads-literary-paths-from-likutei-torah-to-khayim-gravitser-and-beyond. Also see Ariel Roth, “Reshimu—maḥloket ḥasidut lubaviẓ ve-kopust,” Kabbalah 30 (2013): 243n122; Schwartz, Maḥshevet ḥabad, 158–86.

98. Rashaz, Likutei torah – va-yikra, 11d; Ve-kakhah, 6–7.

99. Ve-kakhah, 7–27.

100. Va-kakhah, 52; Rashaz, Likutei torah – va-yikra, 11d–12a.

101. Va-kakhah, 52–76. Cf. Rashaz, Likutei torah - shir ha-shirim, 39a–c. Maharash refers to this discourse directly in Va-kakhah, 157.

102. Va-kakhah, 137–72. Cf. Rashaz, Likutei torah - devarim (sukkot), 79d–80d. See also Maharash's direct reference to this discourse and its glosses in Va-kakhah, 109.

103. For a discussion of the wider literary context and resonance of this move from the micro to the macro see Rubin, “Traveling and Traversing.”

104. See Rubin, “Hemshekh Ve-kakhah Ha-gadol,” esp. part 1.

105. Ve-kakhah, 139–41, and 150. Regarding this principle see Rabbi Ḥayim Vital, ʿEẓ ḥayim (also titled Derekh ʿeẓ ḥayim by Rabbi Meir Poppers), section 5, gate 23 (Shaʿar moḥin de-ẓelem), chap. 8. There it is first explained that when speaking in terms of “externality” (ḥiẓoniyut) keter is enumerated among the ten sefirot, whereas when speaking in terms of “interiority” (pnimiyut) it is not enumerated and is instead replaced with daʿat. In the next passage the question is raised: “What is the interiority of daʿat, and from where is it drawn?” In ʿEẓ ḥayim this question is left open, but Maharash answers it with the inference described here. On Chabad's preference for the enumeration of daʿat rather than keter, see Elliot R. Wolfson, Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menaḥem Mendel Schneerson (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 301n1.

106. See the relevant discussion and literature review in Avishai Bar-Asher, “‘Be-kadmut ʾeyn sof’: Pirush ʿeser sefirot le-Rabbi David ha-Kohen talmid ha-Rashb”a,” Daʿat 82 (2016): 151–52.

107. Versions of this aphorism can be found in various prehasidic texts, with the closest formulation found in a work by fourteenth-century philosopher and poet, Rabbi Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi (Hapenini), Beḥinot ʿolam, chap. 13, section 14: תכלית מה שנדע בך שלא נדעך. Cf. also, Rabbi Yosef Albo, Sefer ha-ʿikarim, 2:30; Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, Shnei luḥot ha-brit (Amsterdam, 1649), 191b. All of these formulations seem to read as statements of negative theology. The particular formulation found in Ve-kakhah, however, first appears in hasidic texts. On the very first page of Rabbi Yaʿakov Yosef of Pollonye, Ben porat Yosef (Koretz, 1781), a teaching is transcribed in the name of “my master” (i.e., the Baal Shem Tov) on הידיעה שלא נדע. Though the word תכלית is not included, the rest of the formulation is aligned. In the version of this text excerpted in Keter shem tov ha-shalom (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2011), 8, the omitted word does appear. Also see Rabbi Yaʿakov Yosef of Pollonye, Toldot Yaʿakov Yosef (Koretz, 1780), 155b: תכלית הידיעה אשר לא נדע. The first published appearance of the phrase as found in Ve-kakhah (without the word אשר) may have been in Rabbi Naḥman of Bratslav's Likutei Moharan tanina (Mohilev, 1811), 52b. It is also found in a discourse by Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk, as transcribed and published in Ḥesed le-Avraham (Lemberg, 1864), 30b, and twice in Rabbi Aharon ha-Levi of Staroselye, Shaʿarei ha-yiḥud ve-ha-’emunah (Shklov, 1820); once in the introduction and again in part 1, chap. 21 (folio 41a). It likewise appears multiple times in transcripts of Rashaz's oral teachings. Most of these remained unpublished until the latter part of the twentieth century, but Mahrash had access to many such discourses in manuscript. For examples, see Mamarei ʾadmor ha-zaken ha-keẓarim (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1986), 207; Mamarei ʾadmor ha-zaken ʾathalekh lioznya (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1957), 124; Mamarei ʾadmor ha-zaken 5568 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1972), 163; Mamarei ʾadmor ha-zaken ʿal ʿinyanim (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1983), 410. This last source might reveal the influence of the teaching attributed to the Baal Shem Tov in Ben porat Yosef as cited above. While this formulation appears in other hasidic sources as well, we should note that it also appears in a work by a disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, namely Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, Mayim ʾadirim (Warsaw, 1886), 5a [9].

108. Va-kakhah, 141.

109. See Yehoshua Mondshine's description of the discourse and its iterations in his notes to “Mafteaḥ mamarei 5626,” in Shmuel Schneersohn, Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5626 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1989), ix.

110. Mi Chamocha 5629 - True Existence: A Chasidic Discourse by Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn of Lubavitch, trans. Rabbi Yosef Marcus (New York: Kehot, 2002). For the context of this publication see Baila Olidort, “A First in English: A Chasidic Discourse Composed in 1869,” Lubavitch.com, August 21, 2002, https://www.lubavitch.com/a-first-in-english-a-chasidic-discourse-composed-in-1869/.

111. See Schwartz, Maḥshevet ḥabad, 187–92.

112. R. Shmuel Schneersohn, Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5626, 17.

113. See (1) Rashaz, Mamarei ʾadmor ha-zaken - ketuvim (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2012), 112–13 (83 in old pagination); (2) R. DovBer Shneuri, Be'urei ha-zohar, rev. ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2015), 96c [192] (43c in the old pagination); (3) R. Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, Derekh miẓvotekhah (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1999), 54b [108]; (4) R. Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, ʾOr ha-torah - shemot, vol. 2 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2013), 488.

114. For a particularly pointed intervention see Yoram Jacobson, ““Bi-mevokhei ha-‘ʾayin’ u-be-mevukhat ha-‘yesh,’” Kiryat sefer 68 (1998): 229–43.

115. To be clear, this assertion holds true so long as the terms of the debate are restricted by a simple binary conception of acosmism. However, Elliot Wolfson's much more sophisticated notion of “acosmic naturalism,” is certainly capacious enough to encompass Maharash's view as well. See the relevant discussion in Wolfson, Open Secret, 46–48 and 87–103.

116. Rashaz, Torah ʾor (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2001), 86c. In the earlier iterations of this discourse Maharash merely cites Torah ʾor, without specifying which page or discourse he is referring to. But the precise citation is explicated in the following later iterations of this discourse: “Bitkhu bo,” in Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5632, vol. 1 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1999), 275, and “Ve-hayah she'eirit Yaʿakov,” in Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5634 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1988), 361.

117. It is worth emphasizing that this shift should be understood as one of rhetorical and theoretical emphasis, rather than an outright break with the fundamental theological and cosmological orientation of early Chabad teachings. Indeed, Naftali Loewenthal has already shown that one of the innovative characteristics of early Chabad thought is that contemplative mysticism is counterbalanced by the apotheosis of action. See Naftali Loewenthal, “The Apotheosis of Action in Early Habad,” Daʿat 18 (1987): v–xix. At the same time, we should note that there is a distinction to be made between the apotheosis of ritual action, as prescribed by the biblical commandments, and the more general apotheosis of the physical realm in its entirety, which comes to the fore in the aftermath of what is described here as Maharah's “recalibration” of Chabad theology. On the apotheosis of physicality in the broader sense see Loewenthal, “The Apotheosis of Physicality in the Thought of the RaShaB,” Chabad.org, chabad.org/1931473.

118. Schwartz, Maḥshevet ḥabad, 187.

119. Ibid., 192.

120. R. Shmuel Schneersohn, Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5626, 17.

121. On the motif of the trace in Chabad thought see Elliot R. Wolfson, “Nequddat ha-Reshimu—The Trace of Transcendence and the Transcendence of the Trace: The Paradox of Ṣimṣum in the RaShaB's Hemshekh Ayin-Beit,” Kabbalah 30 (2013): 75–120; Roth, “Reshimu”; Eli Rubin, “Absent Presence: The Revelatory Trace (Reshimu) of Divine Withdrawal,” Chabad.org, chabad.org/3004920. Roth's article is of particular relevance to our current discussion of Maharash's approach and the controversy it provoked. On this score also see Wolfson, “Nequddat,” 110n147.

122. See R. Meir ibn Gabbai, ʿAvodat ha-kodesh, 1:8, quoting Rabbi Azriel of Gerona. On Meir ibn Gabbai see Roland Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay: Le Discours de la kabbale espagnole (Leuven: Peeters, 1981). See also the discussion and further citations in Jonathan Garb, Hofatav shel ha-koaḥ be-mistikah ha-yehudit (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 232–46.

123. Ve-kakhah, 69. Emphasis added. See the relevant discussion and citations in Wolfson, “Nequddat,” 109–10, esp. n. 147.

124. Sandra Valabregue-Perry, “The Concept of Infinity (Eyn-sof) and the Rise of Theosophical Kabbalah,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 102, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 428–29. Also see the relevant discussion in Elliot Wolfson, Heidegger and Kabbalah: Hidden Gnosis and the Path of Poiēsis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2019), 210.

125. For extensive discussions of Chabad theological discourse on divine unity and its meaning, see, for example, Jacobs, Louis, Seeker of Unity: The Life and Works of Aaron of Starosselje (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1966)Google Scholar; Elior, Rachel, The Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism, trans. Green, Jeffery M. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, esp. 147–53. For an antecedent of Maharash's invocation of ʿAvodat ha-kodesh in which, however, the reshimah is not mentioned, see Rashaz, Likutei torah, ʿekev, 16a: “The aspect of supernal will that transcends all worlds is that He radiates infinitely, and there is the aspect of ẓimẓum and the empty space, which is the departure of the infinite aspect, that it should be in the aspect of concealment … and this is the initial revelation in ḥokhmah. … And so it is written in the book ʿAvodat ha-kodesh, 1:4, in the name of the early authorities, thus: The infinite is complete without lack, and if you say that it has capacity for infinitude but not for finitude you are detracting from its completion, etc., and the limitation that first comes into existence therefrom are the sefirot, etc.” This passage, which was likely inserted into the transcript of Rashaz's teaching by the Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, certainly anticipates Maharash's synthesis between medieval and Lurianic kabbalistic concepts. Yet it is Maharash who nurtures this intertextual seed and develops it into a fully explicated theorization of ẓimẓum as a medium of continuity, rather than rupture, between divine infinitude and finite creation.

126. See Roth, “Reshimu.” See also the further comment by Maharash in Ve-kakhah, 163, equating Rabbi Azriel of Gerona's doctrine with the Lurianic doctrine of ẓimẓum: “This matter of ẓimẓum was explained by the Arizal, yet it is not an innovation, for the earlier sages of the Kabbalah explained this matter itself in a different lexicon, and as is written in the book ʿAvodat ha-kodesh in the name of the early authorities.” This synthesis between pre-Lurianic Kabbalah and Lurianic Kabbalah further underscores Maharash's emphasis of the fundamental continuity between infinite divinity and finite creation, which is not merely understood to withstand the rupture of ẓimẓum, but actually entails a reinterpretation of ẓimẓum not as a straightforward limitation of the infinite but rather as a form of infinite (de)limitation.

127. “Mi kemokha,” in Likutei torah—torat Shmuel, sefer 5629 (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1992), 163.

128. Wolfson, “Nequddat,” 119–20. On the divergence between Lubavitch and Kopust on this point see 110n147.

129. Elliot R. Wolfson, “Achronic Time, Messianic Expectation, and the Secret of the Leap in Habad,” in Meir and Sagiv, Habad Hasidism, 46*.

130. Wolfson, Open Secret, 21–24.

131. Ibid., 24: “From this ideational stance … one can legitimately move through the present from past to future or from future to past.”

132. See Grunwald “ʾAv u-beno,” and Loewenthal, “‘Thickening of the Light.’” As mentioned above, Rashab's transcripts of his father's discourses are extant, providing another dimension through which to examine the degree to which his own contributions to Chabad thought were shaped by those of Maharash. For some comparative comments on the relationship between Maharash's Ve-kakhah and Rashab's Samakh vav, see Rubin, “Hemshekh Vekakhah Ha-gadol,” part 2.