Chassidus: Hashem's Most Precious Treasure

Chassidus: Hashem's Most Precious Treasure

Rabbi Y. Oliver

The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, passed away on 10 Shevat, 5710.

Towards the end of his life he would edit Chassidic discourses and instruct that they be printed and distributed for study on particular days of note in the Jewish or Chassidic calendar. These discourses were often edited several months in advance. In the case of the discourse entitled Basi LeGani, the discourse that the Previous Rebbe distributed was a longer one to be released in a series of installments. The previously designated date of the release of the first discourse coincided with 10 Shevat, which turned out to be the day of the Previous Rebbe’s passing. After his passing, the later installments were released on the days that he had earlier designated.

In any case, on 10 Shevat of the following year, 5711, the Rebbe based his first Chassidic discourse (which can be heard here) on the one that had been distributed for study a year earlier, Basi LeGani.

Below the Rebbe discusses this discourse:

The Previous Rebbe’s famous discourse,[1] which he distributed with the intention that it be printed in its entirety, discusses the analogy of a king who has “all the precious treasures of fabulous wealth that was collected and amassed for many years, generation after generation, and which was never used for any purpose, but remained hidden and sealed from all eyes. Nevertheless, when he is in the process of winning the war, he squanders all the treasures.”

This analogy is also mentioned in the Chassidic discourses of the Tzemach Tzedek; however, those discourses do not explain this concept at length, with all the minute detail that is found in the discourse of the Previous Rebbe. The Previous Rebbe specifies that these are “hidden treasures” that contain “fabulous wealth” that was amassed by one’s ancestors, and “never used for any purpose,” not even for his ancestors themselves or for their families, and these treasures are even “hidden from the sight of anyone.” Yet in order to win the war, the king opens up all the treasures, and even squanders them.

This appears to require explanation. Chassidic discourses in general are precise in every detail, and only mention the most relevant details. This is surely so in the case of the discourse that was released [to be studied] on the day of the Previous Rebbe’s passing, when “all the deeds, Torah, and service that he performed throughout his life” rise up to their source in the most sublime manner.[2] It is absolutely certain that every detail of this discourse is totally precise.

Accordingly, why did the last discourse given by the Previous Rebbe before his passing discuss so elaborately the concept of squandering all the treasures? In general, why is it important for people like us, simple people, to know about the way that a king acts in general, never mind knowing about the king’s most precious treasures, fabulous wealth amassed by him and his ancestors, if simple people have no clue of the existence of these precious treasures?

The explanation of this is simple. This analogy is relevant to the general activity of the Previous Rebbe, for he began the squandering of all the treasures, by publicizing numerous Chassidic discourses which until this generation were “hidden and sealed from all eyes.” To the extent that the king himself “never used them for any purpose”; nevertheless, in this generation these treasures were revealed.

The Rebbe Rashab[3] once said that there are numerous discourses and topics in the teachings of the Mitteler Rebbe[4] (and thus also in those of the Alter Rebbe,[5] whose teachings are included in those of the Mitteler Rebbe) that still had not begun being worked on. Obviously he was referring to those who are on the level to [truly] “work on them”; in other words, he said this concerning himself. This is similar to the language of the above analogy, “he never used them for any purpose.”

Yet even these hidden, sealed-away treasures were revealed in this generation ... and even squandered, all for the sake of winning the war [i.e., bringing Moshiach]. This generation is the last generation before the redemption, and its purpose[6] is to fight against those who “blaspheme the footsteps of the Moshiach,”[7] and thereby bring the victory of this war. In order to attain this victory all of the most precious treasures have been revealed.

In this generation the final war is being fought, “the war of the house of David,”[8] whose purpose is to fight against those who “blaspheme the footsteps of the Moshiach” and therefore all the most precious treasures must be revealed and squandered, and there is nothing more to wait for, since we find ourselves very close to “that time” when “There will be no more war.”[9]

Hisva’aduyos 5746, Vol. 1, pp. 87, 88, 89.

______________________________________________________
[1] Sefer HaMa’amarim Admur HaRayatz 5710, p. 132.
[2] Tanya, Igeres HaKodesh, epistles 27-28.
[3] The fifth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch.
[4] The second Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch also known as “The Mittele Rebbe.”
[5] The first Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the father of Rabbi DovBer.
[6] See the discourse from the Rebbe Rashab in Sefer HaSichot 5702, p. 141 ff.
[7] Tehillim 89:52. As explained in the above address from the Rebbe Rashab, this phrase from Tehillim alludes to the phenomenon of those who dismiss and oppose the belief in the coming of Moshiach, in the generation immediately before his arrival.
[8] The war of the house of David” refers to the struggle to strengthen and promote the belief in the coming of Moshiach.
[9] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 12:5.

There is so much to be said here.

I wish to focus for now on the analogy from precious treasures, and the emphasis of the Rebbe that Chassidus Chabad is in fact these most precious treasures—the most sublime, profound secrets that would otherwise have been completely inaccessible, and are only being revealed now for the purpose of bringing Moshiach.

We may know about this concept, but how often do we think about it? (I’m talking to myself here too.) How spoiled we are. Di Rebbe’im hobn gegosn (the Rebbes of Chabad poured freely the teachings of) Chassidus, Hashem’s most sublime, hidden secrets, so hidden that no earlier generations were privileged to them, all so that we would learn it and teach it, and thereby bring Moshiach, and ... that is how we treat it?

How much do we learn it? How much do we teach it? And even if we do learn and teach it to some extent, how do we relate to it—as one relates to Hashem’s most hidden treasures, or as merely interesting philosophy, intellectually stimulating, another edifying topic for study amongst many others?

Let’s face the truth: If we’re not running to learn it, we haven’t truly internalized this analogy.

With Hashem’s help, this year on Yud Shevat we’ll truly grasp this message, and this recognition will affect our attitude and conduct accordingly until next Yud Shevat, by which time Moshiach will, im yirtzeh Hashem, already have arrived.

Covering ground in learning Torah

Different people learn differently.

My personal inclination while learning is to learn slowly and carefully, reviewing once or twice at the end of each paragraph, or every ten lines or so when learning unbroken text, and then reviewing again at the end of several paragraphs or ten lines, and then several times again upon completion, and then sometimes yet again several months later, and so on. I think often of the (decidedly chilling) statements of Chazal (Sanhedrin 99a) that one who fails to review his studies is akin to “one who sows but does not reap” and to “one who bears a child and then buries it” (G–d forbid), and this spurs me to review often.

The advantage of this approach is that what I learn, I generally remember well, and the Chassidus that I learn is accessible to me for use as material for hisbonenus.

The problem with this approach, however, is that I don’t cover much ground.

Others have the opposite inclination. I remember how several of my chavrusos (learning partners) were simply incapable, or at least unwilling, to delve into one topic, and any request that we pause to analyze the matter or study commentaries would be met with resistance. They were running, running, to the next topic and the one after that, and they wouldn’t slow down. (Unsurprisingly, those chavrusos did not last for long ... )

Of course, in Yeshivah I couldn’t get away with going to either extreme, because Tomchei Temimim (the Chabad Yeshivah) is set up (as are most Yeshivos, to my knowledge) to combine both styles of learning. In Yeshivah circles, these different approaches are known as “iyun”—in-depth study and “girsa”—learning in order to cover ground (as I understand, the non-Chabad world refers to this as “beki’us”). In seder Nigleh, the portion of the day devoted to studying Gemara, the morning and early afternoon (typically 10:45 am-2:00 pm, depending on the Yeshivah) is typically devoted to iyun, while the late afternoon (from approximately 3:30 pm-7:00 pm) is devoted to reviewing the morning study, and to girsa.

It seems that Chassidus was traditionally studied in a way of iyun, until the Rebbe changed this and introduced girsa to the study of Chassidus, as the following letters from the early years of the Rebbe’s leadership testify:

As for your question concerning the study of Chassidus: ... in all Lubavitcher Yeshivos there should be ... broader knowledge of the teachings of Chassidus. To my sorrow, a tremendous deficiency can be sensed in this area. Even students who have been learning Chassidus for several years, and know several topics in depth, only know very, very few concepts. If only I could accomplish it, I would introduce in every place the study of Chassidus not only in a manner of iyun, but a special session of study also in a manner of girsa. Although in general “Chabad demands pnimiyus” [“internalization,” nevertheless, this study is necessary in order to] become familiar with [many] concepts.

Igros Kodesh, Vol. 4, p. 95.

For the same reason that you write that it is beneficial to study a tractate of Gemara in a way of girsa—for one gains knowledge of an entire tractate, albeit superficial—for this very reason, if I had my way, I would introduce the study of Chassidus in a manner of girsa, despite the fact that Chassidus in particular requires that one study with pnimiyus. An example [of subject matter that it is recommended be studied in this way] would be the “Chassidishe sedra” [the section of Torah Ohr or Likkutei Torah corresponding to the weekly Torah portion].

ibid., p. 158.

I have already stated that one should strive for both—not only to study several concepts in depth, but also to gain, to a significant extent, superficial knowledge of many concepts. This can come through studying Shaar HaYichud Veha’Emunah and Igeres HaTeshuvah in Tanya, several [discourses explaining the] Mitzvos in the Tzemach Tzedek’s Derech Mitzvosecha, and some of the manuscripts [the Rebbe is referring to discourses that have since been published]. However, which particular manuscripts should be studied will depend upon the type of student and the way that he learns, and this the mashpia on hand must decide.

ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 312-313.

As the Rebbe makes clear, there was always an extra emphasis on pnimiyus and iyun when studying Chassidus. Thus, advocating a girsa mode of studying Chassidus (in addition to the iyun mode) means changing the way that Chassidus Chabad was traditionally studied.

To illustrate this, there were some great chassidim for whom iyun was everything, in a way that we would perhaps consider extreme.

Reb Zalman Moishe HaYitzchaki was a great chossid of the Rebbe Rashab, of the Previous Rebbe, and towards the end of his life, of the Rebbe (I wrote an article about him several years ago that can be viewed here). His approach to Torah study was extraordinary:

For many years he [Reb Zalman Moishe] maintained a fixed schedule to study Chassidus: Every day he would wake up very early in the morning and learn for six consecutive hours. Upon finishing, he would mark the place that he had reached in his studies with his pencil. It turned out that during these numerous hours he would learn only three lines! The bulk of the time went to internalizing the concept—making it enter him and affect him.

Anoshim Chassidim Hoyu p. 32.

For Reb Zalman Moishe there was only iyun. However, he learnt so much that despite his slow pace in terms of quantity, he probably amassed vast amounts of girsa knowledge as well.

In any case, regardless what was done in previous generations, or by great chassidim of former times, the Rebbe has made clear to us what is appropriate for our time: a combination and balance of iyun and girsa. This means that although the statement of Chazal that “One should always study in the place that one’s heart desires” (Avodah Zara 19a) may imply that those those inclined to iyun may focus primarily on iyun, and those inclined to girsa may focus primarily on girsa, at the same time, one must maintain a balance: The former should set aside time for girsa as well, and the latter should set aside time for iyun as well.

Studying Chassidus before Tefillah

It is the Chabad practice to study Chassidus Chabad, the intricate Chassidic discourses of the Rebbeim of Chabad, before Tefillah (prayer) daily. In this essay I will explain the sources, reasons, and goals of this practice, and I will conclude with an explanation of the connection between this study and hisbonenus (Chassidic meditation).

The earliest explicit source that I have found for this is in Kuntres Etz Chaim (pp. 52-53), where the Rebbe Rashab writes: “In general, before Tefillah, there need not be any study other than study of Chassidus” (and therefore “those who rise early should learn Chassidus for the entire time before Tefillah”). Obviously, this study serves as a preparation for Tefillah. The reason for this is not discussed there.

The footnote to these words of the Rebbe Rashab (ibid., p. 52), which was written by the Rebbe (who wrote references and glosses to many works of the Chabad Rebbeim before his succession to the position of Rebbe), references Likkutei Torah, Savo, 53c. There the Alter Rebbe writes:

... The third [preparation for Tefillah (the first two being to donate Tzedakah and immerse in the Mikveh)] is to engage in and study words of mussar [ethical rebuke], and those words of mussar found in the Zohar in particular. For the word Zohar is etymologically related to the word for illumination, for [the Zohar] illuminates the place of darkness; this is the “wisdom of truth” [a term used to refer to kabbalistic teachings]. ... [The Alter Rebbe goes on to speak about the power of this study to arouse simple faith.]

Thus, the Rebbe cites Likkutei Torah as proving the concept of learning Chassidus before Tefillah. The obvious question is: where is Chassidus mentioned there? At first glance, Chassidus is significantly different both from Mussar and from Zohar and “The Wisdom of Truth”—Kabbalah.

In later years the Rebbe explained the connection (Toras Menachem 5713, Vol. 3, p. 17; see also Toras Menachem 5720, pp. 92):

... It is written in Likkutei Torah that one should “engage in and study words of mussar [ethical rebuke], and those words of mussar found in Zohar in particular.”

However, our Rebbeim, our Nesi’im, and elderly chassidim have already said that all the concepts in works of Mussar (such as Reishis Chochmah) and in the Zohar that are needed for one’s divine service were imbued by the Rebbeim into the teachings of Chassidus. Thus, the study of Chassidus contains all these qualities, along the lines of “two hundred includes one hundred” [Bava Kama 74a].

The Rebbe explains that since Chassidus contains teachings of Mussar and Zohar (and much more), it also counts as Mussar and Zohar.

I wish to suggest another, additional and closely related connection between Chassidus and the Zohar. The study of Chassidus, in addition to including numerous actual teachings from the Zohar, accomplishes the same thing as the Zohar. For the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that the greatness of the study of the Zohar is that it illuminates with an intense divine light. Similarly, it is known that the inner dimension of the Torah, which includes both Kabbalah and Chassidus, is known as the “luminary of Torah” on account of the intense divine light that shines through such Torah study. Thus, since Chassidus shares with Kabbalah this quality of providing divine illumination, it also qualifies for the Alter Rebbe’s words in Likkutei Torah.

What indeed is the purpose of this extra divine light that shines through the study of Zohar or Chassidus before Tefillah, by virtue of which it prepares one for Tefillah? This can apparently be explained in light of on an almost identical teaching of the Alter Rebbe (Migdal Oz, p. 426):

I heard from Maharam Halevi Yaffeh, who said in the Alter Rebbe’s name, that there are three methods for warding off foreign thoughts during Tefillah: ... [Tzedakah and Mikveh] Likewise, the language in the book of Zohar has a favorable effect on the soul, even if one does not know what one is saying. Since these three things do not require conscious intent, they are effective in cleansing one of foreign thoughts.

The similarity between this quote and the Alter Rebbe’s words in Likkutei Torah makes it reasonable to assume that it is quoting the same teaching. If so, it emerges that part of the reason for the Alter Rebbe’s recommendation in Likkutei Torah to observe these three practices is in order to ward off foreign thoughts during Tefillah. And since the Rebbe refers to Likkutei Torah as the basis for the custom of chassidim to study Chassidus before Tefillah, it follows that warding off foreign thoughts is also part of the reason for this custom.

Likewise, Reb Aizik of Homil writes (Choneh Ariel, Shemos, p. 64):

... As we heard explicitly from the Alter Rebbe in Liozhna, when there is a blockage of the brain [“timtum ha’moach”—i.e., the mind is spiritual dulled and not receptive reflection on holy concepts], [in order to counteract this] it is effective to read the words of the holy Zohar, even if one does not know what one is saying.

Here it refers to timtum ha’moach and not foreign thoughts, but the two are clearly related, for one whose mind is blocked up is also more likely to be beset by foreign thoughts. Learning Zohar and the like elicits a powerful light that significantly cleanses one’s mind of negative forces (known as “kelipos”) and thereby also repels foreign thoughts.

(Similar teachings can be found in non-Chabad Chassidic traditions. For example, Rabbi Shlomo HaCohen Rabinowitz of Radomsk interprets (Tiferes Shlomo, Rimzei Purim) the following verse concerning Esther and Achashverosh in a similar manner “ובבואה לפני המלך אמר עם הספר ישוב מחשבתו הרעה”—“But when she came before the king, he commanded via letters [lit., “he said with a book”] that his wicked device [lit., “wicked thought”] should be rescinded.” When one “comes before the king,” the King of all kings, in prayer, one should employ “the book,” i.e., Torah study, in order that “the wicked thought will be rescinded,” i.e., to dispel all foreign thoughts, enabling one to pray with clarity and purity.)

Thus, it emerges that the study of Kabbalah or Chassidus illuminates a Jew with a G–dly light, which cleanses him significantly of negative forces in preparation for Tefillah. This is what is typically known as an “Ohr Makif,” an “encompassing light,” a divine revelation that has a general positive effect but does not change the person on an individual, personal level, which is called an “Ohr Pnimi,” an “internal light.” This explanation is also consistent with the Alter Rebbe’s words further in the above quote from Likkutei Torah that the study of Zohar arouses the Jew’s simple faith, for faith is an Ohr Makif quality.

However, it should be pointed out that study alone is not sufficient to bring one to love and fear of Hashem during Tefillah. Indeed, learning Chassidus before Tefillah exerts a positive effect, both in terms of illuminating the person with an Ohr Makif and developing the soul’s faculty of Binah, abstract intellectual knowledge. However, this does not change one’s emotions, for (as explained at the end of Tanya ch. 3) the only way to arouse true feelings of love and fear of Hashem is through the soul’s faculty of Da’as. One can only tap into this faculty through hisbonenus—lengthy meditation upon Hashem’s greatness before and during Tefillah.

Accordingly, the study of Chassidus before Tefillah may also accomplish the goal of providing the person with material for reflection during his hisbonenus. Thus, the Rebbe writes (Igros Kodesh, Vol. 12, p. 241) that since there is an obligation to reflect upon “the greatness of Hashem and the lowliness of man” before Tefillah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 98:1), one should learn Chassidus before Tefillah in order to enable one to engage in such reflection. 

However, what I understand this to mean is that one who has for whatever reason not studied sufficient material in order to engage in hisbonenus at the time of Tefillah must learn Chassidus beforehand in order to attain this knowledge. However, this is not to say that one must engage in hisbonenus on the same subject matter that one studied before Tefillah; one may reflect upon other topics as well, as long as the concepts that one wishes to reflect upon are clear in one’s mind. Conversely, learning Chassidus before Tefillah still has value regardless of whether one goes on to use the knowledge then gained for hisbonenus, on account of the Ohr Makif that it elicits, as explained above.

It should be noted that it is in fact not desirable to make a habit of engaging in hisbonenus on the same topic one studied that morning, for the goals of learning and hisbonenus may not coincide: When learning, one learns in order to cover ground, and the maamar (Chassidic discourse) that one learnt that morning one may have learnt for the first time. It is not appropriate to select such a maamar for hisbonenus, for one cannot truly grasp a concept without having studied it thoroughly and reviewed it several times (see Kuntres Etz Chaim, p. 52), and until the concept is fully grasped, one cannot truly use it for hisbonenus (see Igros Kodesh, Vol. 20, p. 52; cf. Kuntres HaTefillah, p. 12, line starting ve’af).

In summary, learning Chassidus before Tefillah, along with immersing in the Mikveh and giving Tzedakah, illuminate the Jew’s soul with a divine light that prepares him for Tefillah. However, in order for one to arouse true love and fear of Hashem during Tefillah, these preparations need to be followed by hisbonenus.


_________________________
Note: See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 35, p. 296. Kesser Shem Tov #120. Sefer HaMa’amarim 5700, p. 140.

Treating spiritual denial and delusion

The Previous Rebbe writes:

... We also find with respect to some bodily maladies, may G–d save us, that the sufferer may not only be unaware that he is sick, but mistakenly considers himself healthy. Some deeply afflicted people even consider the healthy people to be sick, and themselves—the sick ones—as healthy.

These emotionally sick people typically do not seek treatment; some of them even oppose it, claiming that they are healthy. Some of these people may even be very clever—original thinkers, talented orators, and the like.

The root of this sickness is the fantasies that these people have about themselves. One person has delusions of grandeur—he fancies himself the leader of the community or the city. Another views himself as the smartest fellow in the country, and the third is afflicted with yet another delusion.

They are all so busy with their imagination that they have little time to eat and sleep, and when they are brought to the people assigned to heal them, they claim that they are the healthy ones.

The person suffering from spiritual delusion and denial is even worse off than one who suffers from psychological delusion and denial, for in the case of the latter, there is usually someone to help, while those who suffer from the former are typically abandoned, and their sickness worsens and become gradually more ingrained, and they degenerate more and more as time passes.

Adapted from Igros Kodesh Admur HaRayatz, Vol. 4, p. 30.

As discussed in a previous post, it is human nature for a person to be in a state of denial about his or her spiritual sickness/es. The above letter complements that post, for it explains that this denial and delusion is even more severe than a psychological delusion, for the latter is usually detected by others and rectified, while the former is typically ignored, and is therefore more likely to go completely unchecked and atrophy.

This teaches us how careful we should be to be honest with ourselves about our spiritual state, for although there is a Mitzvah to rebuke one’s fellow Jew (Vayikra 19:17, Erchin 16b)—which includes helping them to so see that they are suffering from a spiritual malady—with regard to spiritual faults one can’t count on others doing so. Conversely, this letter also teaches us that it is a tremendous Mitzvah to inform someone of his spiritual shortcomings appropriately, for if you don’t, it is quite possible that no one else will, and the results of failing to correct these faults in good time may be unfortunate indeed, G-d forbid.

The inner—not hidden—dimension of Torah

The Rebbe taught:

As pnimiyus HaTorah [the “inner dimension” of Torah] is revealed more and more, the connection between the nigleh [“revealed”] and pnimiyus dimensions of Torah becomes more and more apparent, and the opposition of the opponents to Chassidus steadily diminishes.

Toras Menachem 5712, Vol. 5, p. 144.

Why is there a correlation between revealing the connection between nigleh and pnimiyus HaTorah and diminishing the opposition to Chassidus?

Perhaps this can be explained as follows. although they may admit on some level that it is a part of Torah, those who oppose the study of Chassidus regard it, whether consciously or subconsciously, as separate and distant from the “traditional” Torah that they know, which they view as “normative”—the nigleh dimension of Torah.

However, when they are shown that the pnimiyus is in fact the pnimiyus of the nigleh that they already know and value, they then come to accept the pnimiyus and even desire to study it.

Perhaps this can be tied to the fact that the Rebbe never uses the expressions that have traditionally been employed for “Jewish mysticism”—sod, the secret dimension of Torah, or nistar, the hidden dimension of Torah.

This choice of language was clearly deliberate, as is evident from the following anecdote: Once a rabbi remarked to the Rebbe that he did not consider himself on the level to study the nistar dimension of Torah. To this the Rebbe responded (and the Rebbe estimated that this rabbi would be able to accept this sharp rebuke): “The reason that this part of Torah is called nistar—on account of which people refrain from studying it—is because of you. For if you would agree to study it, even the nistar dimension of Torah would become nigleh!” (Toras Menachem 5712, Vol. 4, p. 236)

So this appears to be the reason that the Rebbe prefers the expression pnimiyus HaTorah. The other expressions imply that this dimension of Torah is supposed to be hidden, while the expression pnimiyus HaTorah implies the opposite—that this dimension is the pnimiyus of the nigleh. On the contrary, it is the nigleh that develops organically from the nistar, with which it is inextricably and symbiotically bound.

Although the other expressions were used by gedolei Yisroel [great Torah scholars], these expressions were appropriate in past times when this part of Torah was supposed to be hidden. Nowadays, however, when we have been charged with the mission of “disseminating the wellsprings [of Chassidus] outward,” the Rebbe has revealed to us that the appropriate term to use is pnimiyus HaTorah.