Time in the Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

 
in MAHZ
 Ketsarim
, 602. In addition, Foxbrunner (
Habad
, 52 and 
243 n. 385) gives examples of variant versions of Rashaz’s discourses, and points out that the Tsemah 
Tsedek was already often unable to draw the line between his grandfather’s words and editorial 
additions. 
21
See Foxbrunner, 
Habad
, 243 n. 363, where he criticizes Hallamish who “for some unfathomable 
reason feels [that Dov Ber’s 
Be’urei ha-Zohar
] is more attributable to R. Dov Ber than M[AHZ] 
5568
, a transcription by the latter that he does use,” and for not mentioning 
Shenei ha-me’orot 
at all in 
his dissertation.
22
Foxbrunner, 
Habad
, 53. 

---

19 
an analysis of Rashaz’s doctrine. Teitelbaum’s book hovers on the borderline 
between Hasidism and Haskalah. On the one hand, he was personally involved with 
Habad Hasidim: his brother-in-law was a member of the Habad community in 
Łódź,
23
and the man responsible for the publication of his book [
ha-mevi le-vet ha-
defus
] was Shemaryahu Shneersohn, a Habad Hasid and a direct descendant of 
Rashaz.
24
These Habad connections are noted by Hallamish, who characterises 
Teitelbaum’s work as scholarly despite the author being a “sympathiser of the 
movement.”
25
On the other hand, Teitelbaum’s philosophical vocabulary, and the 
emphasis he places on Rashaz’s philosophical and scientific skills, as well as the 
lengthy comparison he draws between Rashaz and Spinoza, have led Foxbrunner, for 
example, to claim that the book was written “from the blinkered perspective of a 
Graetzian Maskil.”
26
Be that as it may, for sixty years, Teitelbaum’s work remained the only 
comprehensive account of Rashaz’s thought, until Moshe Hallamish’s 1976 doctoral 
dissertation, entitled “Mishnato ha-‘iyunit shel Rabi Shneur Zalman” (The 
Theoretical System of Rabbi Shneur Zalman). Hallamish’s pioneering dissertation 
set a trend, which has since dominated Habad scholarship. He showed Rashaz’s 
teachings to be a system of thought drawn from the kabbalistic and medieval 
philosophical sources, with theology, anthropology, and the doctrine of divine 
service as its main areas of interest. This was an impressive achievement, and yet the 
picture it drew was rather rigid and somewhat one-sided. Even the title of the 
dissertation reveals that he viewed Rashaz as a speculative thinker rather than the 
charismatic leader of a mystical movement with a broad following. In this respect, 
the dissertation clearly was an academic product of its time: there are close parallels 
in the conceptualisation of the subject matter and organisation of the material 
23
See Teitelbaum, 
Ha-rav mi-Ladi
, 163; see also Rabinowicz, 
Encyclopedia of Hasidism
, 485. 
24
He was a great-grandson of Rashaz’s son Hayim Avraham. See Slonim, 
Toledot mishpahat
, 97. He 
was also responsible for the distribution of Rashaz’s portrait in the 19
th
century. See Balakirsky-Katz, 
The Visual Culture
, 34, 39, 45; Heilman, 
Bet rabi
, 53a-b; Mondshine, “Tsiyur temunato.” 
25
Hallamish, “Mishnato ha-‘iyunit,” 32. 
26
Foxbrunner, 
Habad
, 38. Curiously, just as Hallamish ignores the maskilic tendencies of the book, 
so Foxbrunner ignores its hasidic background. See also Roth, “Ha-korpus ha-sifruti ha-habadi,” 16 n. 
111. 

---

20 
between Hallamish’s dissertation and his mentor, Isaiah Tishby’s