Setting Times for Torah Study in R. Shneur Zalman of LiadyFootnote 1
There seems to be a scholarly consensus that R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (Rashaz, 1747–1812) broke new ground by making esoteric lore meaningful and inspirational to broad circles of his followers.Footnote 2 The innovative path of the founder of Ḥabad had already been acknowledged by many of his contemporaries: on the one hand masses of followers flocked to his court,Footnote 3 while on the other hand many responded with fierce criticism. A wave of criticism of Rashaz was prompted by the publication in 1796 of Sefer ha-tanya, perceived as a far too radical attempt to open up hasidic experience to non-pneumatic individuals. Rashaz's opponents among hasidic Jewry were displeased by the fact that Tanya enfolded hasidic concepts in Lurianic garb and so made them intelligible and meaningful to broader, supposedly unworthy, audiences.Footnote 4 Additionally, in his teachings Rashaz invested common experiences and the precepts of normative, nonmystical Judaism with mystical meanings, and thus proposed a new, inclusive concept of mystical experience. The reinterpretation of the precept of setting times for Torah study (kevi‘at ‘ittim la-torah) in Rashaz's writings was one of the factors that greatly contributed to the re-evaluation of the role of ordinary people in religious life, and to shaping Ḥabad's inclusivist vision of mysticism.
Setting Time for Torah Study in Halakhah
The origins of the precept of setting times for Torah study can be traced back to a talmudic saying attributed to Rava. According to Rava, when a person is judged in the next world, the second question the heavenly court asks him is if he had set times for Torah study (kava‘ata ‘ittim la-torah?).Footnote 5 Commenting on this passage, Rashi observed that the basis of setting times for Torah was practical. A person ought to divide his time between Torah study and his mundane occupation (derekh ’ereẓ); fixing times for Torah study was intended to establish a balance between these two. On the one hand, one should not entirely neglect his worldly responsibilities for the sake of Torah study; on the other hand, one could easily become engrossed in worldly matters and shun his religious obligations. Accordingly, allotting a certain time of the day solely to the purpose of study was regarded a simple technique to integrate Torah learning into the daily routine and preserve one from transgressing the commandment of Torah study.Footnote 6
Medieval commentators followed Rashi's view on fixing time for Torah study as a means to fulfilling a miẓvah rather than a miẓvah in its own right, and did not count it as one of the 613 commandments. For example, both the author of Sefer ha-ḥinukh and Maimonides considered fixing times for Torah study a procedure that makes the commandment of Torah study accessible to everyone, including the less gifted and the busiest men, married men and bachelors, rich and poor, healthy and sick. Although the commentators did not dwell upon the technicalities of kevi‘at ‘ittim la-torah, they read it as an obligation to study Torah day and night in order to fulfil the biblical obligation: “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night” (Joshua 1:8).Footnote 7 Some of the rabbis attached particular significance to the fact that the Talmud uses the plural form of the noun “time” (‘ittim), and perceived it as an implicit obligation to set at least two times for study, one during the day and one during the night.Footnote 8 Additionally, the main codices of Jewish law determined the time just after the morning prayers to be appropriate for the daily fixed time of study.Footnote 9
Ideas outlined by the medieval halakhists were fostered by Rashaz in Hilkhot talmud torah—one of his few books published during his lifetime, and the first attempt since Maimonides's Mishneh Torah to provide an extensive and original treatment of the subject of Torah study.Footnote 10 Just like the aforementioned halakhists, Rashaz juxtaposed setting times for study with full-time learning. In Rashaz's view, one should strive to learn the whole of the Oral Torah, and in order to do so, he should devote his entire time to study. But if this were not possible, one is obliged by the Torah to allot “a significant portion of time [‘et gedolah] to Torah learning,” defined by Rashaz as at least half a day, in addition to night-time study. Rashaz explained, referring to the Talmud (B. Yoma 19b), that in order to fulfil the biblical command: “And thou shalt talk of them,” (Deuteronomy 6:7) one should “Make his Torah [study] perpetual and his occupation—casual” (torato keva u-melakhto ‘ara'i). The opposite situation—occasional study and permanent work—makes studies futile: one ends up forgetting once learned passages before he manages to memorize the entire Oral Torah.Footnote 11
Rashaz was aware of the fact that devoting most of one's day and night to study was an ideal that not many could realize. He maintained, rather pragmatically, that only a scholar (talmid ḥakham) who has prior experience of study, or someone who has a “fine mind” (she-da‘ato yafah), which makes him able to become a scholar in the future, could make Torah study his permanent occupation. In every other case, sacrificing most of one's time to learning would be pointless, as such a person's lack of disposition would prevent him from grasping the entire Torah, no matter how much time he would be able to invest in study. Therefore, full-time Torah study was an occupation restricted to the intellectual elite.
Such an elitist approach to full-time study should not be read as relegation of Torah learning to a secondary role in divine worship, as has been argued by Norman Lamm;Footnote 12 on the contrary, Rashaz held Torah study in very high esteem.Footnote 13 Instead, his approach should be viewed as pragmatic: even though the religious ideal dictated that everyone should master the entire Torah, reality showed that only a few gifted individuals are predestined to do so, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are doomed to remain “ignoramuses” (burim) as a result of their limited intellectual disposition.Footnote 14 The term bur, used by Rashaz to denote the unscholarly class, may be misleading, as in this context it refers to people who study the Torah, yet do not stand up to the very high standards of the talmid ḥakham. These standards include a perfect memory that enables one to remember the entire Oral TorahFootnote 15 and an ability to learn “reasons and sources of commandments” (ta‘amei ha-halakhot u-mekoran).Footnote 16 As a result of setting such high standards, Rashaz sometimes counted among the burim people who mastered the Pentateuch and the Mishnah, yet were not trained in the Talmud.Footnote 17 Therefore, in this context, the term bur should not be perceived as a pejorative reference to people who are actually ignorant,Footnote 18 but rather as a term that covers a broad range of personalities who do not fall under the category of scholar. For this class of people Torah study still plays a tremendous role in religious life, but this is based on setting times for study as opposed to full-time study, and on orientation to practical laws as opposed to comprehensive knowledge of the entire Torah.
Consequently, Rashaz's halakhah delineates a community of Torah students, divided into two groups: scholars and ordinary men.Footnote 19 Both these groups bear obligations, determined according to different criteria.Footnote 20 The scholars are obliged to study full-time at all costs, even if it compels them to live in poverty and destitution, whereas the laymen should not risk poverty but rather engage in a full-time occupation. For the latter group Rashaz determined setting limited time for study every day and night as a way of fulfilling the commandment of talmud torah.Footnote 21 Moreover, in particularly difficult circumstances, their study may be further limited to one chapter in the morning and one in the evening. If someone is compelled to work the whole day, he may fulfil his obligation of Torah study by merely reciting the Shema during the morning and evening prayers.Footnote 22
The distinction and different obligations that follow are based on Rashaz's understanding of the commandment of Torah study. In his collection of laws of Torah study, Rashaz pointed out two substrates of the commandment:Footnote 23 the commandment of knowing the Torah (miẓvat yedi‘at ha-torah)Footnote 24 and the commandment of “Thou shalt meditate therein day and night” (ve-hagita bo yomam va-lailah).Footnote 25 These two components are interrelated. On the one hand, despite the apparent superiority of miẓvat yedi‘at ha-torah over ve-hagita, achieving the former does not exempt one from Torah study, for everyone should keep the latter, too.Footnote 26 On the other hand, lack of ability to achieve the former is not equal to transgressing the commandment of Torah study at all; in this case the focal point is moved to the latter part of the commandment (ve-hagita bo), which is fulfilled by setting times for Torah study, while the criterion for fulfilling the commandment of knowing the Torah is relativized to individual intellectual dispositions. Therefore, a layman still ought to fulfil the obligation of comprehending the Torah, but in his case it means that he shall “grasp and comprehend as much as it is possible for his soul to grasp from the knowledge of the Torah [yedi‘at ha-torah].”Footnote 27 Moreover, the commandment of “Thou shalt meditate therein day and night” obliges the unscholarly to invest every moment free of work in Torah study, as anything else is considered by Rashaz “idle chatter” (devarim betelim).Footnote 28 Similarly, Rashaz prohibited studying gentile wisdom on the grounds of the sin of neglecting the Torah (‘avon bitul torah), permitting only the scholars (talmidei ḥakhamim) to learn it occasionally for the sake of divine worship.Footnote 29
Rashaz's pragmatism is conspicuous in further concessions in the laws of Torah study that he was willing to grant to those who were particularly troubled. Perhaps in response to the social and economic hardships of his followers,Footnote 30 Rashaz expanded the scope of circumstances in which fulfilment of the obligation of Torah study might be limited to two chapters a day or even merely to reciting Shema. Not only sick and elderly people, whose health makes lengthy study impossible, but even scholars, when occasionally burdened by extensive work necessary to provide them with livelihood, should set times for study.Footnote 31 The latter leniency, however, refers specifically to unplanned situations and does not stand in contradiction to the earlier obligation to suffer deprivation rather than to give up on full-time study. Interestingly, Rashaz imposed the obligation of full-time study on everyone who is sustained by others or lives off charity, with no regard to his intellectual skills. Although in certain conditions one can limit study to allow for work, people who live off charity and do not work should spend their spare time on study and on nothing else, even if their capabilities prevent them from mastering the Torah.Footnote 32 However, their obligation to permanent study is not bound by the commandment of knowing the Torah (miẓvat yedi‘at ha-torah), but rather by the commandment “Thou shalt meditate therein day and night” (ve-hagita bo yomam va-lailah) literally (ke-mishma‘o).Footnote 33 In addition to obligating individuals to study at set times, Rashaz obligated entire communities to complete the entire Talmud every year, by apportioning the tractates among the congregants.Footnote 34
The distinction between miẓvat yedi‘at ha-torah and hagita bo in Rashaz's halakhic works effectively identifies two parallel modes of Torah study: elitist and egalitarian. The former, available to the few, is based on continuous study with the purpose of memorizing the entire Torah. The latter, intended for the majority, is based on limited study sessions, focused on laws of proper conduct.Footnote 35 The majority is not obliged to comprehend the entire Torah; the criterion for fulfilling the commandment of knowing the Torah (miẓvat yedi‘at ha-torah) is their particular intellectual disposition. The main focus of their study is on the second part of the commandment of Torah study: “Thou shalt meditate therein day and night” (ve-hagita bo yomam va-lailah), which means reciting the Torah twice a day at fixed times.Footnote 36 Following the main codices of the Law, Rashaz pointed out the time immediately after prayer as a suitable moment for fixed study.Footnote 37
Setting Time for Torah Study in Rashaz's Mystical Teachings
The halakhic reasons for the precept of setting times for Torah study are reinterpreted in the mystical writings of Rashaz. His mystical doctrine has been broadly discussed in hasidic scholarship, most prominently in the works of Rachel Elior and Moshe Hallamish, who examined Rashaz's writings through the prism of the conceptual apparatus of theology.Footnote 38 The result was a rather rarefied image of Rashaz's teachings, framed within an onto-theological system governed by rationally intelligible, if paradoxical, notions. Moreover, as pointed out by Naftali Loewenthal, as a result of this methodological approach, Ḥabad scholarship has tended to focus on the acosmistic aspects of Rashaz's teachings, and to see the spiritual project of early Ḥabad above all as the quest for transcending worldliness in order to dissolve within the divinity (Upper Unity). This approach has yielded important studies of Ḥabad's mystical path to self-nullification in the divine nothingness by means of contemplative prayer and study, yet it has overlooked an equally important, worldly aspect of early Ḥabad doctrine, identified by Loewenthal with Rashaz's concept of Lower Unity.Footnote 39
The present discussion of the mystical aspects of Torah study at set times aims to reintroduce the worldly aspect of Rashaz's doctrine into the scholarly Ḥabad discourse. Admittedly, the quest for transcendence is of paramount importance in early Ḥabad, but it is important to keep in mind that Rashaz was the leader of a broad community of people who were fully engaged with the world rather than a secluded group of mystics and pneumatics. His hasidic leadership was not limited to the delivery of mystical sermons but comprised a good deal of halakhic teachings, too. It is not surprising, therefore, that the endeavour to include ordinary householders in the hasidic experience constituted an important aspect of his hasidic project. For the majority of his followers, the possibility of finding God within their mundane everyday existence must have been much more compelling than a highly abstract and sophisticated quest for transcendence. Placing the routine of Torah study at set times within a mystical framework was an expression of the worldly and practical dimension of the early Ḥabad doctrine, and one of the ways by which Rashaz injected hasidic spirituality into the everyday religious experiences of his followers.
Setting Time for Torah Study as Repentance
One of the reasons that the halakhists embraced the obligation of setting times for study was to incorporate Torah learning into a daily routine. Allotting times for study was meant to prevent neglect of the commandment to study twice a day under the pressures of everyday life.Footnote 40 However, in one of his discourses Rashaz presented this ostensibly commonsensical idea as underlying his mystical concept of repentance (teshuvah). In Ḥabad tradition, setting times for Torah study is related to repentance in non-mystical ways, too, as the praxis that helps to keep away from sin;Footnote 41 and here, Rashaz explored the literal meaning of the Hebrew word for repentanceFootnote 42 to present setting times for study as an actual act of return to God from profanity and mundaneness:
When businessmen [ba‘alei ‘asakim], who is [sic!] not always for God but only sets times for Torah study, returns from dealing with mundane matters to learning, then it is called repentance [teshuvah], for he returns [shav] from what he was dealing with at first . . . . In this way the ecstasy [hitpa‘alut] becomes more intensive than if he had not been dealing with worldly matters at first … for ecstasy is an essential change [shinui mahut]…. The ecstasy comes about for his essence has changed, from dealing with worldly matters to being a Torah student…. It is written: “As in the days of thy coming forth out of the land of Egypt will I show unto him marvellous things” [Micah 7:15], namely, like at the Giving of the Torah [matan torah], as it is written: “The Lord spoke face to face” [Deuteronomy 5:4], the disclosure of God below is in the aspect of “face,” for prior concealment of the face [hester panim] in the 212 years of the exile in Egypt was necessary so that later “face to face” will be possible.Footnote 43
This excerpt encapsulates several ideas that recur throughout Rashaz's writings and here are intertwined into the praxis of setting times for Torah study and the concept of repentance. The concept of repentance presented above seems to lack an element that is usually perceived as its condition sine qua non—the sin committed.Footnote 44 Here, the tradesmen do not transgress Jewish law, and yet everyday matters separate them from God. For them, setting times for Torah study, defined by the halakhah as the absolute minimum of observance of Torah study, becomes both a vehicle of return to the divine and of their inner transformation.Footnote 45 The latter is tantamount to transformation of the attributes (midot) through redirecting them from mundane desires to God. This process, which entails a pivotal change of self, demands eradicating one's interests in this world in complete nullification (bitul ’amiti), drawn from “Kindnesses of the Father” (ḥasadim de-’aba), a place that is beyond the reach of the “external” (evil) forces (ḥiẓoniyut). In this description, setting times for Torah study, a routine ritual demanding no special intellectual or spiritual abilities, proves its advantage over permanent studies, which allow one to reach only the “Kindnesses of the Mother” (ḥasadim de-’ima), a divine aspect that is below the “Kindnesses of the Father.”Footnote 46
In the idea of self-preparation for a personal Exodus and the Giving of the Torah, through setting times for Torah study, one can discern echoes of the commandment to remember the Exodus everydayFootnote 47 and of the talmudic dictum that everyone should see himself as if he himself went out of Egypt (B. Pesaḥim 116b). In Rashaz's doctrine, however, the ritual of remembrance becomes an actual act of personal redemption. When ordinary persons turn their mind away from mundane affairs and delve into the Torah, they actually go forth out of Egypt (Miẓrayim), decoded by Rashaz as the “boundaries and limits” (meẓarim u-gevulim)Footnote 48 of materiality and finitude, and reconnect themselves with the spiritual and infinite divine.Footnote 49 Indeed, routine study twice a day becomes the personal experience of the Giving of the Torah (matan torah), during which God reveals himself to a person in the recited words of halakhah “face to face,” as to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Hence, Rashaz re-evaluated the seemingly routine ritual of studying Torah at fixed times, and endowed it with profound mystical implications by inscribing it into his concept of repentance.
The excerpt above reveals an ostensibly paradoxical feature of Rashaz's thought: he seems to value study at fixed times by ordinary people more than continuous study by full-time scholars. This seemingly contradictory approach is based on an appreciation of the transformative aspect of kevi‘at ‘ittim la-torah, and of the much higher effort a simpleton must undertake to turn himself to God than does a Torah scholar. According to Rashaz, a merchant who returns to the Torah at fixed times attains a higher level of ecstasy (hitpa‘alut) than someone who studies continuously. The meaning of hitpa‘alut, one of the prevalent notions in Rashaz's writings, remained a matter of dispute in later generations of Ḥabad.Footnote 50 In this context it is defined in ontological rather than psychological terms, as an essential change (shinui ha-mahut) in a person, which need not to be accompanied by an emotional outburst.Footnote 51 The transformative aspect of setting times for Torah is emphasized elsewhere, without referring to psychological notions, as above:
This is the advantage of setting times for Torah study by a tradesman, that it is more in the aspect of subjugation [’itkafya] [of the evil side] than in the [case] of those who dwell in tents [i.e. full-time scholars].Footnote 52
In the dynamic image of reality that emerges from Rashaz's writings, ordinary people subject to the ongoing struggle with materiality seem to be valued more than the scholars and mystics dwelling permanently in the spiritual realms. The gesture of a layperson who gives up some of his worldly interests to set times for Torah study is paramount to subjugation of profanity to holiness, termed in Ḥabad the subjugation of the evil side (’itkafya de-sitra ’aḥra). This is not the case for full-time scholars, who are invariably joined with the divine, and therefore do not need to make efforts to subjugate the evil side and to reconnect with God.
To summarize: setting times for Torah study means return-repentance, tantamount to self-transformation and preparation to receive God's revelation in the words of Jewish law; additionally, worship through setting times for Torah study produces a more intense state of ecstasy (hitpa‘alut) and is more effective at subjugating the evil side than the worship of full-time scholars, who study the Torah continuously.
The Theurgical Significance of Setting Times for Torah Study
Rashaz's notion of repentance is not confined merely to the spirituality of a human being. Repentance, alongside its personal aspect, also bears a theurgical meaning: it effects a restitution of order in the divine realm by way of restoring the order of the letters constituting the divine name.Footnote 53 Both the personal and the theurgical aspects of repentance meet in setting times for Torah study; according to Tanya, one must overcome his nature and join his emotional and intellectual attributes to their counterparts in the Godhead. In particular, his mind and speech shall cleave to “God's word, namely halakhah.”Footnote 54 Overcoming one's nature also means achieving more than one was used to in his study, as it is written in the Midrash: “If he was accustomed to study one page [of Written Law], let him study two; if he was accustomed to study one chapter [of Oral Law], let him study two.”Footnote 55
What is presented in Tanya in general terms as increasing Torah study acquires much more concrete shape in one of Rashaz's discourses, in which the plural form (“two chapters”) is understood as referring to the two times (‘ittim) one must set for the Torah: “‘If one was accustomed to study one chapter, let him study two’: this stands for setting times for Torah study: [two] times indeed.”Footnote 56 Given that halakhic material is also divine word, its study and recitation bring about the re-unification of the soul, which is the “part of God above,”Footnote 57 with the divine life-force (ḥiyut), identified as a theurgical mode of repentance (teshuvah): the reconnection of letter hey with the divine name. Indeed, the theurgical process of restoration of order in the divine name appears to be available to practically everyone, and actually commanded of everyone. An activity, previously reserved to pneumatic figures immersed in mystical texts and practices, appears here to be open to any literate person through a routine study of normative, halakhic literature.Footnote 58
The re-evaluation of the laymen's study at fixed times may seem paradoxical, given the prevalent image of Ḥabad as the intellectualist movement among hasidic streams,Footnote 59 yet it appears more sound when seen against the background of Rashaz's broader enterprise, intended to empower ba‘alei miẓvot, the less scholarly-oriented and supposedly lower class of Jewish society. In numerous places throughout Rashaz's writings the talmudic saying recurs: “Where penitents (ba‘alei teshuvah) stand, not even the perfectly righteous can stand” (B. Berakhot 34b). Rashaz recognized fixing times for Torah as a path of repentance. Setting times for prayer thus also serves as a means of elevating the ordinary person above the righteous and the scholarly, and of drawing attention to the more intense ecstasy (hitpa‘alut) and greater subjugation of the evil side that the layperson can achieve.
The Relation between Torah Study at Set Times and Full-Time Study
Rashaz acknowledged that non-scholars would always constitute a substantial proportion of the Jewish community, be it because of the socioeconomic situation, the intellectual limitations of common folk, or because of their place in the hierarchy of souls. Moreover, in the book of Tanya, Rashaz stated explicitly that there was only a handful of true ẓadikim,Footnote 60 divided from the beinonim by a clear-cut and non-negotiable border.Footnote 61 Rashaz did not perceive as problematic the existence of tradesmen who were immersed in materiality and engrossed in the troubles of everyday life. On the contrary, their inferior position presents them with opportunities and tasks that the full-time scholar would never have.Footnote 62 Hence setting times for Torah study can serve complementary yet different purposes from full-time Torah study; it can incorporate laymen in activities that were previously restricted to the spiritual vanguard, and can even serve purposes that are beyond the reach of the scholarly and pneumatic class.
Torah Study at Set Times as a Complement to Full-Time Study
In one of his late discourses Rashaz resorted to kabbalistic imaginary in order to express the interdependence of scholars and laymen.Footnote 63 He took a passage from the Song of Songs as a point of departure: “Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my bride; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one bead of thy necklace” (Song of Songs 4:9). In his interpretation, this passage refers to two separate groups among the Jewish people: the “eye” denotes leaders of the community, namely the scholarly elite, whereas the “bead of thy necklace” represents the laymen. Such an interpretation aims to bring to the reader's attention the equal status granted by the biblical author to both these groups. In spite of the fact that “Ostensibly there can not be any comparison between them at all” (li-kh’orah ein ‘arokh benehem kelal u-khelal), they capture the heart of the groom equally, or in other words, they are equally cherished by God.Footnote 64 As Rashaz continued to explain, both these groups are assigned different, albeit complementary roles. Scholars, as “the eyes of the congregation,” bring down the Wisdom (Ḥokhmah) from its source in direct light (’or yashar), while laymen respond through elevating the Torah in reflected light (’or ḥozer).Footnote 65 Rashaz stressed not only two different modes of study (“drawing down” in full-time study and “elevation” when it is pursued at set times), but also two different dispositions: the scholars’ study is intellectual, for they bring down the wisdom of the Torah, whereas the power of the laymen's Torah lies in their voice. Moreover, the laymen draw the power of Torah from their deeds. Rashaz explained that the laymen purge the husks of Nogah through faithful business (mas’a u-matan) and achieve the state of “polished precious stones”—hence “bead of thy necklace”—capable of reflecting the divine light.Footnote 66 For these reasons, ordinary men participate alongside scholars in a theurgical act of bringing the flow of divine light and the Torah's wisdom into the world. Through their effort to study Torah at fixed times they enable reunification of the light of the Torah with its supernal source, after it has been drawn down to the world by the scholars. Therefore, their Torah study at set times is perceived as a necessary element of the dynamics of the divine light, and a kind of counterbalance to the learning of the scholars.
The picture, in which ordinary people purify the material world around them, becoming a mirror that reflects the divine light encapsulated in the sound of the Torah they recite, demonstrates not only the interdependence of scholars and laymen, but also the correlation of Torah study and deeds. The excerpt cited above from Ma’amrei ’Admor ha-Zaken 5571 states that purification through deeds paves the way for the reunification of the Torah with its supernal source in the reflected light; yet in another discourse the relation between deeds and Torah study appears to be reversed: setting times for Torah study actually provides strength (‘oz) for purifying the sparks of holiness, which fell into the husks during the cosmic process of the breaking of vessels.Footnote 67 At this point mystical imagination intertwines with halakhic pragmatics: in the view of Rashaz's halakhic books, those who fix times for study should concentrate on practical laws that regulate their everyday life and determine the way they act. Accordingly, it is precisely their halakhah-abiding deeds that purify the sparks of holiness entrapped in material reality. Rashaz anchored this idea in the talmudic saying: “Study is greater [than practice] for it leads to practice” (B. Kiddushin 40b), and explained: “A deed without study cannot prevail; however, study without a deed is not the essential thing [ha-‘ikar] either, for ‘The essential thing is not study (midrash),’ etc. [but deed] [M. Avot 1:17].”Footnote 68 This saying has evolved with time into one of the popular slogans of Ḥabad-Lubavitch: “Deed is the main thing” (ma‘aseh hu ha-‘ikar), while the attitude that underlines it has led some scholars to present Rashaz's doctrine as relegating Torah study to a secondary place.Footnote 69 However, both excerpts from Ma’amrei ’Admor ha-Zaken 5571Footnote 70 seem to prove the opposite, for they show Rashaz's efforts to reveal the hidden significance of fixed times of study, both mystical, as reflected light (’or ḥozer), and magical, as the strength necessary to achieve the purification of the sparks. The passage discloses a broader function of Torah study than mere intellectual cognition, and through the idea of study at fixed times it finds a way to incorporate the non-scholars' study into the hasidic mystical project. As a result, even apparently futile study at fixed times, by the unqualified and ignorant who are nevertheless devoted to the halakhic lifestyle, serves a purpose complementary to the study of scholars and pneumatics.
Torah Study at Set Times as an Alternative to Full-Time Study
In certain cases, when laymen set times for Torah study, their study gains a dimension previously reserved for the Torah study of scholars and pneumatics. This is expressed, for example, in the idea of person as a substitute temple for the Divine Presence.Footnote 71 The hasidic authors based the idea of a human temple on the biblical verse: “Let them make me a sanctuary and I will dwell in them” (Exodus 25:8). The fact that God had said “in them” (be-tokham) — in the people of Israel—instead of using the seemingly more suitable “in it” (be-tokho)—in the sanctuary—led the Safedian kabbalists and the hasidic masters who followed in their footsteps to believe that Scripture had actually intended to declare humans God's sanctuary (mikdash) in the world.Footnote 72 In their view, the commandment of building the sanctuary is detached from its biblical setting and should be understood as referring to everyone, at anytime: “It is not written ‘in it,’ but ‘in them,’ to say that each and every Jew must build the tabernacle (mishkan) in his soul,” that is, draw down the revelation of God through prayer,Footnote 73 commandments, and Torah study.Footnote 74 Among these three, Torah study occupies a distinguished place, and the talmudic saying that: “Since the destruction of the temple, the Holy One blessed be He has nothing in the world but four cubits of halakhah alone” (B. Berakhot 8a), prompted Rashaz to declare the Torah “verily the tabernacle of the Holy One, blessed be He.”Footnote 75 According to Rashaz, drawing down the Divine Presence into the human temple is achievable not only by lengthy studies, but also by setting times for studying halakhah.
The process of building a human sanctuary is detailed in Tanya.Footnote 76 It follows the pattern of the biblical narrative, albeit in a spiritual setting. In the biblical narrative, the Israelites were commanded to build the sanctuary when it became clear that they were not able to receive divine revelation and remain alive. As it is described in the Talmud, during the revelation at Mount Sinai, “At every utterance their soul took flight” (B. Shabbat 88b). Rashaz interprets this to mean that they could not have handled the ultimate nullification of existence (bitul bi-meẓi’ut).Footnote 77 Accordingly, only the creation of the sanctuary—a suitable vessel for the divine revelation—made possible the unity (yiḥud) of God in the world, without the annihilation of existence.
The creation of the human temple follows the very same pattern. Full disclosure of the Torah is to come about only in the future.Footnote 78 Yet, even before this happens, it is possible to draw the divine down to one's personal temple through the ritual of Torah study. Without a doubt, there is a difference between divine revelation in the Jerusalem Temple and the revelation within its human counterpart in the exile, in regard to the place of the Shekhinah in the order of concatenation. In contrast to the time of the Temple, the Shekhinah in the exile descends to the lowest sefirah of the lowest of the four worlds: Malkhut of ‘Asiyah. Nonetheless, what apparently can be taken as the degradation of the Shekhinah is given a rather positive characterisation in Rashaz's writings. In the Temple only the high priest was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies in order to commune with the divine, yet in the exile, where a person's heart is the Holy of Holies,Footnote 79 this experience is open to every halakhah-abiding Jew able to recite the words of Torah.Footnote 80 Elsewhere Rashaz stated explicitly:
Therefore, after one has meditated deeply, according to his abilities, on the subject of this above-mentioned self-nullification (bitul bi-meẓi’ut), let him reflect in his heart as follows: “The capacity of my intelligence and of my soul's root is too limited to constitute a chariot and a sanctuary (merkavah u-mishkan) for God's unity in perfect truth, for my thought cannot grasp or apprehend His unity at all with any degree of comprehension in the world, not an iota, in fact, of that which was grasped by the patriarchs and prophets. This being so, I will make Him a sanctuary and an abode (mishkan u-makhon) by studying Torah at fixed times by day and by night, to the extent of my free time, as stipulated by the law governing each individual's situation, set forth in the Hilkhot talmud torah, as our sages say, “Even one chapter in the morning and one at night” (B. Menaḥot 99b).Footnote 81
Rashaz stated unequivocally that God's abode on earth is not created by a scholarly or pneumatic elite, but rather by anyone who sets times for Torah study, even if he fulfils only the halakhic minimum of reciting one chapter in the morning and one at night during the morning and evening prayers. Obviously, a scholar differs from the ordinary person in the way in which he grasps the divine, yet it is beyond question that both of them, according to their degree of comprehension, constitute the abode for God. This difference is illustrated by the verse: “How goodly are thy tents, o Jacob, thy dwellings, o Israel!” (Numbers 24:5), where tent, or casual abode (dirat ‘ara’i), stands for study at fixed times, and dwelling (mishkan), or permanent abode (dirat keva), for study by the scholar.Footnote 82
Torah Study at Set Times as a Higher Level Than Full-Time Study
Rashaz's persistent effort to reinstate a balance between scholars and laymen, full-time and part-time Torah study, as well as Torah and deeds, is conspicuous in the idea of a human being as an intermediary who carries down the divine light into the world. The idea of a human being as intermediary is rendered in different configurations throughout hasidic lore, especially in reference to the role of a ẓadik as a connection between heaven and earth.Footnote 83 In several places in his teachings Rashaz indicates that ordinary people are bound to play an analogous role.Footnote 84 This follows the more general tendency present in Rashaz's teachings to re-evaluate the layperson's immersion in the material aspect of reality. The particular place that the layman occupies in the world impacts his task as transmitter of divine vitality:
Also a businessman [ba‘al ‘esek] must fix times for Torah, for every drawing down [hamshakhah] [of divine influx] needs to go by degrees, through a transmitter [ma‘avir]. Even though the essence of drawing down is performed here by a deed [ma‘aseh], the first stage must be performed by thought and speech [maḥashavah ve-dibur], and only later by deed. Therefore one needs to set times for Torah study, which is thought and speech.”Footnote 85
The passage follows Rashaz's description of drawing down the divine light, divine will (raẓon), and associated with it, divine delight (ta‘anug),Footnote 86 by means of Torah study for its own sake (torah li-shmah).Footnote 87 Rashaz explained that the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah in drawing down and disclosing the divine light, for through elucidation of the laws that the Written Torah only mentioned, the Oral Torah spread the divine will in the world and made it comprehensible.Footnote 88 Rashaz added that not only extensive and detailed studies of the Oral Torah bring down the divine light, but also study at fixed times by ordinary men. Indeed, an ordinary person draws down the influx mainly through his deeds, yet the deeds must be preceded by thought and speech, as these three dispositions amount to the “three garments of the soul” a person should direct to God.Footnote 89 Drawing down (hamshakhah) by means of deeds takes place when someone follows the halakhah in performing practical commandments, while the initial drawing down by means of thought and speech is achieved by studying Torah at fixed times.Footnote 90 The reference to the delight (ta‘anug) derived from Torah study elsewhere provides the reason for studying twice a day rather than continuously. Rashaz referred to a hasidic maxim, whereby “constant delight is no delight,” either to the donor, or to the recipient.Footnote 91 For this reason, setting two times in the morning and evening is truly a source of delight, whereas continuous study turns delight into an affliction.Footnote 92
The discourse effectively juxtaposes studying Torah li-shmah and at fixed times. Here, the meaning of li-shmah is explicated as “drawing down the light of the Infinite (’or ’ein sof) into ḥokhmah and binah,” a goal achievable not only through detailed intellectual studies or mystical practices, but also by the repetition of the words of Torah at set times by an ordinary, halakhah-abiding Jew.Footnote 93 Moreover, in some cases, Torah study at set times, described as “spiced wine” (yein rokeaḥ), is cherished more than continuous study by scholars—“plain wine” (yayin stam), even when they delve into the secrets of Torah, for the Torah of ordinary people crosses the boundaries of intellect and is brought into the material world: “This is the case of tradesmen [‘oskei masa u-matan] who occupy themselves with the Torah and commandments by means of their palate and tongue, as it is written: ‘And the roof of thy mouth (of the congregation of Israel, etc.) like the best wine’ [Song of Songs 7:10], in the manner of scent that is above the delight limited to wisdom and understanding, which are the vessels.”Footnote 94 In this passage, Rashaz took the opportunity to present the intellectual deficiency of non-scholars as their advantage. Indeed, their study is restricted to short sessions twice a day, and they do not enter the secret, inner pathways of the Torah; nonetheless this should not be perceived as a disadvantage, but rather as a gift, by virtue of which they bring the Torah out of the ivory tower of intellectual cognition. In other words, the non-scholars do not comprehend the Torah fully, be it because of lack of time or because of their intellectual deficiency, but they can experience it sensually, or as Rashaz put it, with their “palate and tongue,” and therefore they disclose the Torah on the sensual, material levels, which are beyond the reach of the scholars. Greater delight results from such revelation of the Torah, than from its revelation on higher, intellectual levels, for the former transcends the “vessels” of the Torah—wisdom and understanding—and reaches down to the lower, sensual attributes.Footnote 95
Worship through setting times for Torah study is thus presented in three ways in Rashaz's doctrine. Firstly, it is a necessary complement to worship through full-time Torah study or, in kabbalistic terms, the reflected light that complements the direct light in the economy of the divine light. Secondly, Torah study at set times resembles the Torah study of the spiritual elite inasmuch as it makes a human being the transmitter of divine influx to the world, or the sanctuary and abode of the divine in the lower worlds, allowing the ordinary man to attain in exile the spiritual level of the high priest in the Temple. Thirdly, particular features of Torah study at set times, when it is accompanied by deeds and immersed in materiality, determine its superiority over full-time study: Torah study mixed with materiality is more far reaching than purely intellectual study.
Study That Follows Prayer
Halakhah, which dictates study in everyone's daily routine, encourages the undertaking of study immediately following prayer, assuming that otherwise one is liable to become overwhelmed by mundane responsibilities and forget about learning. The pragmatic considerations that underline the halakhic regulations acquired a variety of other explanations in Rashaz's mystical doctrine, connected to the theurgical purposes of Torah study. These include the idea that prayer is a necessary preparation for study by way of the raẓo that precedes shov, and that the Torah is a factor that perpetuates the self-nullification and unity with God that are achieved during prayer.Footnote 96
Prayer as Preparation for Torah Study
The assumption that prayer is an appropriate preparation for Torah study is compatible with the halakhic call to set times for study immediately after prayer on pragmatic grounds. According to Rashaz, Torah study and other religious obligations are interdependent: Torah study cannot function on its own but should form part of a harmonious, multifaceted regimen of divine service. Moreover, study li-shmah demands self-nullification. According to Rashaz, “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not come to rest on someone who is an existent being (yesh ve-davar), for I and he (’ani ve-hu) cannot dwell [together] in the world.”Footnote 97 Nullification of the self (’ani), equivalent on the spiritual level to self-sacrifice (mesirat nefesh) in sanctification of the Divine Name (kiddush ha-shem), is achievable through the recitation of the Shema and, more generally, prayer.Footnote 98 Following the nullification of one's will, one substitutes the will of God for it, which is embodied in the words of the Torah, thus achieving a level similar to that of Moses, when “the Shekhinah was speaking from his throat.”Footnote 99 According to Tanya, the blessings of prayer repeat the gesture of returning one's soul to God and reuniting it with Him; they functions as necessary preparation for the beinonim to attain the intention li-shmah. Only after such a preparation can one begin one's regular course of study (shi‘ur kavu‘a). This preparation should be repeated whenever one sits down to learn the Torah.Footnote 100
The interdependence of Torah and prayer is set forth in numerous places in Rashaz's lore, as the relation between ascending and descending, or the lower and upper “arousal” (’it‘aruta di-le-tata and ’it‘aruta di-le-‘ila). The soul ascends to God in ecstatic love during prayer, and through this it merits the power to bring the divine light down to earth in the Torah.Footnote 101 Thus prayer and Torah are inscribed on the scheme of raẓo va-shov,Footnote 102 the continuous dynamics of ascent and descent, nullification and the drawing down of the divine. The former, raẓo, is achieved through the desire to leave the body and to efface subjectivity in ecstatic prayer; only when there is no subjectivity, no particular will, which functions as a barrier separating one from God, can the divine light descend, clothed in Torah and commandments.Footnote 103
What is expressed here in technical kabbalistic terms as raẓo va-shov, lower and upper arousal, is elsewhere directly applied to the routine stages of everyday worship. Praises of God, recited out loud in Pesukei de-zimra, serve as a means of attaining ecstasy, which reaches its peak when the word “one” (’eḥad) of the Shema is spoken. The silent prayer of Amidah, which follows, signifies the eradication of self.Footnote 104 The hasidic masters, in a manner recalling the Aristotelian definition of a human being as zoon logon echon, defined the faculty of speech as the unique faculty that elevates human beings above other creatures;Footnote 105 hence silence during the Amidah equals giving up one's uppermost faculty and substituting God's speech for it by means of Torah study, since it is not a person itself who recites the words of Torah but rather “the Shekhinah speaking from his throat” with “my words which I have put in thy mouth” (Isaiah 59:21).
Despite stressing the importance of preparatory prayer, Rashaz did not mean that studying Torah without it did not have any impact on the divine reality. Nevertheless, he argued in favour of study that followed prayer: “with all thy might” (be-khol me‘odekha; Deuteronomy 6:5), which draws on keter to ḥokhmah, in contrast to study with no preceding prayers, which draws only from ḥokhmah.Footnote 106 As Rashaz put it elsewhere, study that follows prayer brings down “verily supernal wisdom” (ḥokhmah shel ma‘lah mamash) and is identified with torah li-shmah, while study without preceding prayer brings down merely shades of the supernal wisdom (novlot ḥokhmah shel ma‘lah).Footnote 107
Temporal Prayer and Eternal Torah
Discussion of ecstatic prayer leads to another significant aspect of the obligation to study directly after prayer: the self-nullification and unity with the divine achieved by means of prayer are only temporary; while the spiritual achievements attained through Torah study are eternal. Contemplation of the words of Pesukei de-zimra and the Shema stands for accepting the yoke of Heaven. Therefore, whoever does so, “will always be bound in contemplation, i.e. nullification of the worlds, to the one who brings them to life and constitutes them [meḥayeh u-mehaveh], and it is only in his corporeal body he will not be able to achieve true nullification, so during the recitation of the Shema, he shall direct his mind to Torah study in the words ‘thou shalt talk of them’ [ve-dibarta bam; Deuteronomy 6:7]. Namely, through Torah study his divine soul [nefesh ’elokit] will become truly unified [na‘aseh yiḥud ’amiti] with the Torah, and the Torah and the Holy One blessed be He are verily one [’orayta ve-kudsha berikh hu kula ḥad mamash].”Footnote 108
According to the hasidic worldview, corporeality separates human beings from the divine and prevents them from true unity with God. One possible path of breaking this barrier leads through prayer, culminating in the nullification achieved by pronouncing God's unity in the first passage of the Shema. Such nullification, however, is only temporary, for the ecstatic state achieved during prayer ceases when the recitation of the Shema is over, and the ecstatic love of God is transformed into its opposite, the love of corporeality.Footnote 109 One can sustain the ecstatic state so long as one undertakes Torah study immediately after the prayer.Footnote 110 In Rashaz's writings, the Torah emerges as the third way that transcends the duality of divinity and materiality, and bestows lasting unity with God in the material world.Footnote 111 The principle that Israel, Torah, and God are a unity is used to present the way to perpetuate self-nullification through Torah study.Footnote 112 However, the unity is understood as an obligation one should strive for rather than a description of the actual state of things. Accordingly, a person who studies Torah and puts its laws into practice nullifies his will before the will of God,Footnote 113 and even when he is busy with his daily concerns, he does not break his communion with God.Footnote 114 Here too, prayer plays a preparatory role, as substituting one's will with the divine will requires of the ordinary person that he transcend his nature, and prayer arouses the hidden love concealed in the heart of every Jew, a love that surmounts his nature.Footnote 115 Obviously, one may choose not to study immediately after prayer, and return to study later in the day, but in that case, one loses the state of love achieved during prayer, and moves away from God.Footnote 116
Rashaz continued to elucidate the essential difference between Torah study and prayer that determines whether the devekut they engender is temporary or perpetual. According to one explanation, the union with the divine can be perpetuated by memorization of the words of the Torah. Since “Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are one,” when a person has the words of the Torah “carved in the mind of his memory which is in his soul,” it is as if he is united with God Himself, even if he is engaged in mundane occupations.Footnote 117
According to another explanation, the difference between these two modes of worship lies in their different ontological features. The love engendered by prayer ceases, for prayer is time-bound, whereas the Torah is above the dimension of time.Footnote 118 The Torah itself is eternal, and therefore Torah study provides a glimpse into eternity.Footnote 119 The words of Torah recited by a student are the very same words that were spoken to Moses on Mount Sinai:
Even though the Torah was given in time and place, and it has been already three thousand years since the Torah was given, it shall be in your eyes as if it was given verily this day [ha-yom mamash], as it is written: “Which I am commanding thee this day” [Exodus 34:11], namely every day when we recite the Shema. And this is why they said: “Every day [these words] will be in your eyes as new,”Footnote 120 and the meaning is that the “I” [’anokhi] is the one who “commands thee,” and is in the nature of the general encompassment [sovev ha-kelali], namely he is completely above time …. And the sages said that “He who sits and reads and learns, the Holy One blessed be He sits and reads and learns in front of him,”Footnote 121 that is to say, even if a man reads in time and the Holy One blessed be He is above time ..., the Holy One blessed be He sits and learns in front of him, from above time to the dimension of time, and because of that, He said: “Which I command thee this day,” as verily in the time of the Giving of Torah [matan torah], which was above time.Footnote 122
A dichotomy of the corporeal and the spiritual is inscribed into the hasidic metaphysics of light: Torah study is bound to the light of ’Ein Sof, the surrounding light that shines equally everywhere and is above time, as opposed to the light that fills all the worlds and is bound to time.Footnote 123 For this reason, the words of Torah are not subject to the passage of time, but are always perceived as new. Every time someone recites the words of Torah it is as if he has just received them from God: “Each interpretative gesture is a re-enactment of the revelatory experience, albeit from its unique vantage point, each moment a novel replication of the past.”Footnote 124 Even though study by man is bound to time, the words of Torah are not; hence studying the Torah brings down the eternity and unity into the world of temporality and multiplicity, whereas in the case of prayer, the situation is opposite: one reaches out of temporality into the moment of infinity in an ecstatic gesture of unity with the oneness of the divine.
The relation between prayer and study, described above in terms of the mutual relation between two types of divine light (sovev and memale), is depicted in sefirotic terminology as a correlation of malkhut and ze‘ir ’anpin:Footnote 125
Contemplation in prayer … is in the nature of raẓo, the elevation of nukba, and is called “temporal life” [ḥayei sha‘ah], for time is in malkhut, and when one elevates it from the state of being [yesh] it is called “temporal life.” The main thing, however, is “eternal life” [ḥayei ‘olam], namely that ze‘ir ’anpin should become specifically world [‘olam]. This is shov, the disclosure of the [light] surrounding all the worlds [sovev kol ‘almin] and which comes to dwell specifically in the lower worlds [dirah ba-taḥtonim], which is called “eternal life”: drawing down the divine actually and specifically into the world.Footnote 126
Rashaz described prayer in terms of the elevation of nukba (the feminine aspect of the Godhead, a term used interchangeably with malkhut)Footnote 127 above the sphere of being (yesh). Furthermore, since malkhut is identified in Rashaz's writings as the source of time in the sefirotic structure,Footnote 128 prayer appears as an ecstatic moment that restores time back to its source, where all three tenses exist as a unity.Footnote 129 “Temporal life,” a phrase coined by the Talmud in reference to prayer (B. Shabbat 10a),Footnote 130 emphasizes here the momentariness of this experience: as ecstatic love that ceases immediately after the completion of prayer.Footnote 131 In fact, in prayer one transcends the differentiation between past, present, and future; yet one does not transcend time as such. Prayer is a transcendental experience that reaches the borderline between divine nothingness and worldly being—the sefirah of malkhut, the point comprising the past, the present, and the future, and yet not going beyond it.
Torah study, by contrast, is called “eternal life,” for it draws that which is beyond time into temporal reality. The passage is based on the double meaning of the word ‘olam, as both “world” and “eternity.” Here, ze‘ir ’anpin—an aspect of the divinity above malkhut, which is not subject to temporality—is drawn down into the world (‘olam) to give it eternal life (hayei ‘olam),Footnote 132 which amounts to transforming it into “the dwelling place [of the divine] in the lower worlds,” a conspicuously eschatological idea in the Ḥabad tradition.Footnote 133 Prayer leads to the source of time, where the three temporal dimensions coexist, albeit in potentia only; Torah study, however, allows for apprehension above this source, at the level of ze‘ir ’anpin, of the “source of the coming-to-be of time that is in malkhut” (mekor hithavut ha-zeman she-be-malkhut), as described by Rashaz's son, R. Dov Ber.Footnote 134 The “eternal life” in Rashaz's discourses also denotes “articulation of words of halakhah,”Footnote 135 that is, the egalitarian study of halakhah has an eschatological value, too. In their day, Rashaz explained, the sages could give up on temporal life (prayer) and focus solely on eternal life (Torah),Footnote 136 but nowadays, at a time of “the footsteps of Messiah “(‘ikveta de-meshiḥa), to enable the articulation of halakhah in order to draw down the divinity into the world, one had to sacrifice one's soul in prayer.Footnote 137
There emerges a paradoxical relationship between worship by means of prayer on the one hand and Torah study on the other. Prayer liberates from the limits of transience and corporeality, but some of its essential features make its purpose—the attainment of ecstatic experience—fallible. Firstly, since the rhythm and time of prayer are externally determined by Jewish law, the ecstatic experience one strives to attain is incorporated in the temporal frames set by halakhah; secondly, ecstasy in prayer is the product of human's corporeal powers, namely love and fear of God. As such, it is subject from its inception to the limitation of corporeality. Consequently, the ecstasy of prayer is a transcendental experience that reaches the borderline of temporal existence, where the past, present, and future are amalgamated, but it does not reach beyond temporality and is followed immediately by a return to the domain of time and matter.
On the other hand, permanent release from time is attainable by means of the ritual of Torah study at set times. Through Torah study one draws down onto oneself and into the world the eternity enclosed in the letters of the Torah. And, contrary to the ritual of prayer, the precise time of ritual Torah study is determined not by an external authority (Jewish law), but rather by the individual himself (even though preferable times are suggested in the halakhic texts). The gesture of setting times for ritual study triggers the process of release from the bounds of time, achievable within the material world rather than beyond it, by adhering to an entity (Torah) that originates above and beyond the source of time.
Setting Time for Torah Study in the Context of Rashaz's Leadership
The teachings of Rashaz demonstrate that adherence to the Torah, which entails the transformation of self and sanctification of the world, can be achieved through the seemingly trivial ritual of Torah study at set times. The precept of Torah study at set times, framed in halakhic literature as a means of motivating even the unscholarly classes to a routine of daily study, has been endowed in Rashaz's sermons with mystical and magical significance. This re interpretation of setting times for Torah study should be considered not only in the framework of Rashaz's concept of time but also in the wider context of his unique style of leadership, marked by his endeavour to empower ordinary people to re-evaluate their mode of religious service, and to create a more inclusive Judaism, which was eventually to become the emblem of the Ḥabad movement.Footnote 138
The emphasis placed on the precept of setting times for Torah study exemplifies some conspicuous trends in Rashaz's style of leadership and in the early Ḥabad community. It shows the level of spiritual independence enjoyed by Ḥabad Hasidim under the leadership of Rashaz: although he was eager to provide guidance in divine service to his followers, he nonetheless held each and every Hasid responsible for his own spiritual achievements.Footnote 139 The “Liozna Regulations” bear witness to Rashaz's continuous efforts to set limits on access to his court for the growing number of his followers.Footnote 140 It is therefore plausible that the elevation of routine Torah study at set times as spiritual engagement was aimed to create the possibility of full spiritual involvement for every follower, without the need for his permanent, or even temporary, presence at the rebbe's court.
One can surmise that Rashaz's style of leadership was to a great extent determined by the fact that his constituency of followers consisted predominantly of middle-class businessmen and householders, people whose everyday duties allowed only limited time for study, prayer, or visits to the rebbe's court.Footnote 141 The re-evaluation of their limited daily Torah study was one of the means by which Rashaz included them in his spiritual project. Others means were the re-evaluation of their prayer,Footnote 142 and related to this, Rashaz's direct instructions not to appoint men who overly prolonged the prayers as sheliḥei ẓibur. All this was intended to accommodate the needs of many congregants, who “have to get up early and leave for their daily travail,”Footnote 143 and who therefore could not afford stay for longer services in the synagogue. Finally, frequent visits to Rashaz's court were replaced with guidance through pastoral letters and emissaries, as well as by the transfer to local leaders of some of the functions usually performed by the rebbe during the private audiences he granted his Hasidim on an individual basis (yeḥidut).Footnote 144
One can only speculate about the factors that shaped Rashaz's unique doctrine and style of leadership. The Ḥabad tradition has preserved an image of Rashaz as a reluctant rebbe, who even considered immigration to the Land of Israel in order to avoid the mantle of leadership.Footnote 145 It may have been this reluctance that prompted him to construct his ideal of the distanced hasidic leader, who guides a decentralised network of autonomous congregations of followers by means of letters and emissaries rather than direct involvement with a close-knit court. The personal example of Rashaz's mentor, Menaḥem Mendel of Vitebsk, who continued leading his followers in a similar way over many years following his own immigration to the Land of Israel, must have had an impact on Rashaz.Footnote 146 During the years preceding his ascent to leadership, Rashaz was responsible for maintaining a network of fundraisers for the hasidic settlement in the Land of Israel.Footnote 147 After his ascension, this network was used to spread and enforce hasidic doctrine and lifestyle.Footnote 148 Hence it comes as no surprise that in Rashaz's Hasidism so much attention is given to the spirituality of middle-class, independent, and relatively well-educated householders and businessmen; these people had constituted the core of Rashaz's successful fundraising network, and when he became a rebbe in his own right, they formed the core of his hasidic community. The implications of Rashaz's transition from chief regional fundraiser for the hasidic settlement in the Land of Israel to full-fledged hasidic leader still await thorough research. It seems reasonable to assume that emphasis on the spiritual efforts of businessmen and householders was closely related to this transition.
Rashaz's teachings have reverberated in the traditions of all subsequent leaders of Ḥabad. It is thus plausible that Rashaz's re-evaluation of Torah study at set times laid the conceptual basis for the rejection of the so-called “kolel-culture” by the seventh leader of Ḥabad-Lubavitch, R. Menaḥem Mendel Schneerson.Footnote 149 The relation between the conceptual and the historical contexts of Torah study in twentieth-century Ḥabad demands further investigation.
Conclusions
The precept of setting time for Torah study constitutes an integral part of Rashaz's project of making hasidic spirituality accessible to “intermediate” men, a project that attracted many people to Ḥabad during his lifetime and beyond. This precept, which occupied a secondary place in the halakhic tradition as a means of preserving study within the daily schedule of working men, was employed by Rashaz to form a new spiritual paradigm, in which the routine religious praxis was invested with mystical meaning. Rashaz saw setting time for Torah study as an ideal for the majority of his community, and restricted full-time study to a presumably narrow scholarly elite. The many remarks in his mystical sermons touching on the requirement to set times for study show that not only did he ascribe equal value to this method as to full-time study, but also that he invested study at set times with particular importance because of its perceived role in both the individual and the cosmic dimensions of repentance.
In some sermons, Torah study at set times by the masses is presented as a complement to the full-time study of the elite: while the elite draws down the divine light by fulfilling the ideal of full-time study, ordinary men reflect it by purifying the lower world when they comply with the halakhic requirement to study at set times. In other sermons, Rashaz made study at set times an alternative means of achieving comparable effects to those achieved by the elite, as both scholars and ordinary people play a part in the construction of God's sanctuary by means of their study. Moreover, even simpletons could do so by fulfilling the minimum halakhic requirement of reciting no more than one chapter of the Torah during the morning and the evening prayer. To underscore the value of this method of study, in some places Rashaz presented Torah study at set times as superior to full-time study, because it brings the wisdom of Torah out of the intellectual ivory tower of scholarship into the sphere of materiality and corporeality. This mode of study that enables an ordinary person to detach himself from mundane affairs and to turn instead toward the divine words of Torah brings more divine delight and produces a more intense state of ecstasy than the static study of the full-time scholar who is permanently engrossed in holiness.
The instruction that Torah study at set times should follow prayer is of paramount importance. What was traditionally seen as a means of encouraging ordinary people to study before leaving the synagogue after prayer to resume mundane work was incorporated by Rashaz into the dynamics of raẓo va-shov. Where prayer was identified with the raẓo mode of worship at the preparatory stage, in which one effaces one's subjectivity in ecstatic prayer, study was identified with the shov mode, where the divine light clothed in the Torah descends into the world.
These two sequential modes of worship have special significance in the personal quest for eternity. Prayer, whose timing is determined arbitrarily by Jewish law, grants the worshipper an instantaneous release from the bonds of past, present, and future, but this transcendental experience of ecstatic prayer is ephemeral, as it depends on the corporeal powers of love and fear. Paradoxically, it is Torah study, whose times are set by the worshipper himself, that ultimately allows him to transcend temporality by drawing down the eternal Torah into the temporal world.
Rashaz's concept of setting times for Torah study allows for a better understanding of the ideology that lay behind his unique style of hasidic leadership. It highlights one of the tools that helped him build and sustain a decentralized network of Ḥabad communities, whose members could remain his Hasidim in the full sense of the word even without frequent visits to his court, engagement in lengthy ecstatic prayer, or full-time dedication to study. It freed his Hasidim from the need to resort to activities that put their livelihood at risk. The mystical reinterpretation of the halakhic precept of setting time for Torah study helped Rashaz to reinvent Hasidism as a movement open to broad circles of independent businessmen and householders. This ideology may well have played a part in shaping Ḥabad's inclusivist vision of mysticism in the twentieth century, but the question of doctrinal continuity and change in the history and ideology of Ḥabad still awaits thorough research.
