The attempt to define the chasidic movement and its relationship with traditional rabbinic Judaism, has quite a history. Over the course of the last century, academic scholars have expended much effort on the attempt to accurately describe the historical development of the movement, beginning with the circle of mystics who gathered in Mezibuz around the figure of the Ba’al Shem Tov. Increasingly, they have also begun to take into account the mystical theosophy espoused by chasidic leaders over the generations. As of yet, however, I am unaware of an academic study that examines the internal attempt by chasidim themselves to define the nature of the movement. Within the Chabad-Lubavitch stream of chasidism, in particular, an entire genre of literature has developed, which describes chasidism as a faithful, yet innovative interpretation of rabbinic Judaism.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of Chabad, and his grandson, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch (known as the Tzemach Tzedek), both penned such explanations for the consumption of Tsarist government officials.1 However, it is in the writings of Rabbi Sholom DovBer, the fifth rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, that we first find such issues internally addressed for an exclusively chasidic audience. The earliest example of this genre, dating from 1907, begins with the assertion that the questions, “what is chasidism?” and “what innovation did chasidism achieve?” were “seldom discussed” by chasidim of previous generations.2 In a subsequent letter,3 dating from 1914 and addressed to his son Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak, Rabbi Sholom DovBer explained, “until I heard this question from chasidim… this never arouse in my mind; I studied, I investigated, I toiled to understand the depth of the matters [articulated in chasidic texts]… and never did I consider in my soul, what am I doing? and in what am I toiling? – I am toiling in the word of the living G‑d, and why should I seek to account for this?”

Like the preciousness of life itself... true appreciation of chasidism must run far deeper than any consciously manifest “feeling” can describe.

This ‘non-answer’ actually offers us an intimate glimpse into what Rabbi Sholom DovBer considered to be the axiomatic core of chasidim: Chasidic teachings are to be studied and practically applied for their own essential value as “the word of the living G‑d.” This being the case, he finds himself unable to relate to his son’s inquiry, not because there is no answer but because, “The answer is simple; it is G‑d’s teaching… that which gives us knowledge and comprehension of divinity… and the reason it is incumbent upon us to invest effort in this study… is that when we contemplate that knowledge… it will effect salvation in our souls.” For Rabbi Sholom DovBer, such queries are indicative of a lack of appreciation for the true “preciousness” and “richness” of chasidism, which in turn is the result of a lack of commitment to the study and internalization of chasidic teachings on the part of the questioner. “If you were essentially committed and devoted to the study of chasidic teachings, you would be tremendously animated thereby and… automatically you would have [an appreciation of] that preciousness…” Like the preciousness of life itself, Rabbi Sholom DovBer argues that true appreciation of chasidism must run far deeper than any consciously manifest “feeling” can describe.

Sixty years after Rabbi Sholom DovBer penned this letter, but long before it was found and published from manuscript by Rabbi Yehushua Mundshine, a similar point was made by the seventh Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn.4 In a landmark treatise appended to the first volume of Sefer Ha-erchim Chabad,5 and titled Inyannah Shel Torat Ha-chasidut,6 Rabbi Menachem Mendel offered a brief survey of the various explanations previously offered7 but concludes that, “the essence of chasidism is an essential point abstracted from all specifics.” Since the various explanations previously offered address specific aspects achieved by chasidism, it follows that, “all the advantages articulated in those explanations (and in others)… do not define or annunciate the essence of chasidism,” but are rather to be seen as consequential elements, mere results of the essential core. First and foremost, chasidism is the paradoxical communication of ineffable divinity.Rabbi Menachem Mendel proceeds to argue that, “the essential core of chasidism is… the manifestation of a new revelation… drawn from… the infinite that is found in the beginning that cannot be known (ain sof ha-nimtza be-RaDLAh).” First and foremost, chasidism is the paradoxical communication of ineffable divinity.

Almost the entirety of Inyannah Shel Torat Ha-chasidut is dedicated to an exposition of this bold and rather enigmatic statement. The theme most central to the treatise is the concept of “etzem”, usually translated as “essence”. The “etzem” is at once the most transcendent core of divinity, and the immanent essence of everything. It follows then, that revelation of the “etzem” simply entails a deeper and fresher perspective on existence, rather than the addition of an entirely new element. Chasidism is that fresh perspective, the manifestation of “a new vitality, the vitality of the essence [i.e. the essential vitality that lies at the core of everything]. When that new vitality was drawn into the world… all matters of the world were endowed with a new vitality, an essential vitality, and by consequence many specific innovations were achieved.” In a masterful dissertation of penetrating depth, Rabbi Menachem Mendel proceeds to back up these statements with a detailed and coherent demonstration of how this actually works.

Revelation of the “etzem” simply entails a deeper and fresher perspective on existence, rather than the addition of an entirely new element.

What is perhaps most telling, however, is the fact that both Rabbi Sholom DovBer and Rabbi Menachem Mendel see chasidism as being beyond any discrete category. Both of them argue that chasidism cannot be defined in the terms of any particular paradigm; that it is of an essential and all pervasive quality. Both of them liken chasidism to the essential quality of life itself, which vivifies the entirety of the self, the cognitive, emotive, and active faculties, and yet far transcends the whole of those specific parts.

* * *

Bearing this in mind, let us examine the chasidic treatment of two cardinal questions that have long preoccupied theologians: 1) What is the purpose of created existence? 2) What is the purpose or function of the mitzvot, the divinely mandated commandments? Here, the various approaches that have been put forward by Jewish thinkers over the centuries will be depicted in the broadest of strokes: Traditionally, there have been two general genres of Jewish theology, the first being the rationalist approach paved by the medieval philosophers, referred to as chokrim, and the second being the mystical approach of the kabbalists.8 In addressing these questions, both sought to highlight some form of advantage achieved by (or embodied in) the act of creation and the fulfillment of the mitzvot.

For the chokrim, the virtues of goodness and kindness are held to be the motivating factors that inspired G‑d to bring other beings into existence and provide them with instruction.

Arguably, the founding figure of the medieval philosophical school of thought was Rabbi Saadia Gaon (RaSaG, 882-942). The following passage from his classic work Emunot Vede’ot9 is illustrative of the rationalist approach: “It has been demonstrated that the exalted and majestic creator is a primary-being, and [originally] nothing existed alongside him. If so, the creation of the world was an expression of goodness and kindness on His part… as the verse (Psalms 145, 9) says ‘G‑d is good to all, and his mercy is upon to all His creations’. The greatest of the kindnesses extended to His creations is that He gave them their existence… and afterwards he gave them a cause through which they will reach the most complete happiness and the most complete goodness… that which He commanded them to implement and warned them to desist from.” The virtues of goodness and kindness are held to be the motivating factors that inspired G‑d to bring other beings into existence and provide them with instruction. Similarly, the purpose of the mitzvot is to bring mankind to a state of complete happiness and virtue.10

For the kabbalists however, the highest purpose of all created realms, whether spiritual or physical, is to be realized in mystic union (ye’chudim), embodied in the physical realm via the performance of the mitzvot. An ideal is not to be measured in terms of its human value, but in terms of its divine or mystic worth. This passage, by Rabbi Chaim Vital11 (1543-1620), is illustrative: “Regarding the ultimate purpose of the creation of the worlds… the cause of the matter is that G‑d blessed-be-He must be complete in all His actions and capacities… and if the worlds and all that is in them were not created, the true demonstration of His eternal being could not be made apparent…”12 Elsewhere he frames it slightly differently, “It arose in His will to create the world in order to do goodness to his creations, that they may recognize His greatness and merit to be a supernal chariot13 to cleave unto Him blessed-be-He.”14 By that token, the mitzvot serve as the physical medium for the achievement of mystical union in the supernal realms. Indeed, kabbalistic texts abound with descriptions of the different types of union achieved through performance of the various mitzvot.15

“The blessed-holy-one desired a dwelling place in the lower realms” ...this is not due to any logical requirement or reason, but only because he desired so, which is beyond understanding and reason...

Central to the chasidic discussion of the purpose of the creation the medrashic dictum, “The blessed-holy-one desired a dwelling in the lower realms”.16 This statement is cited in Tanya Chapter 36, and in hundreds of other chasidic texts, where its ramifications are explained, analyzed and explained in great depth and breadth. The first discourse of Samach Vov,17 widely regarded as the magnum-opus of Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn, provides a particularly comprehensive discussion of this question. Ultimately, he argues, the world was created “only because of craving (teshukah) – because the blessed-holy-one craved to create it, and we know no logical reason as to why he so craved… In this regard it was said, “The blessed-holy-one desired a dwelling place in the lower realms”, [meaning] that this is not due to any logical requirement or reason, but only because he desired so, which is beyond understanding and reason (and as our Rebbe [i.e. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Chabad school] said in this regard, “Regarding a desire, questions are not to be asked”).”

According to the chasidic view articulated here, creation does not fill any reasonable purpose, other than the fulfillment of a divine urge, the desire “that there should be the existence of lowly beings, and the essence of the infinite manifestation should be drawn below”. The mitzvot too, need not fulfill any particular function save that “that via the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot… the essence of the infinite manifestation is drawn into the world”. Ultimately mitzvot simply facilitate the suprarational purpose of creation. While the chasidic view offers no motivational goal, it endows created existence and the performance of mitzvot with a far more essential urgency; a potency so vital that no justification is required.

No ideal can be construed as a motivating factor for the act of creation... conceptual hierarchies were constructed only in order to satisfy the divine desire for the subversion of the ultimate hierarchy...

The essential difference between the approach of the chokrim and that of the kabbalists is that while the former measured motivating ideals in the rationalist terms of human virtue, the latter measured them in the mystical terms of divine manifestation and union. Both of these approaches assume the existence of a paradigm in which a spectrum of possibilities forms a hierarchy ranging from more ideal to less ideal. Likewise, it is assumed that such ideals might motivate and justify divine activity and instruction. In light of the medrashic dictum, “The blessed-holy-one desired a dwelling in the lower realms”, the chasidic approach is completely different: Any such hierarchy is itself a component of created existence, and it follows that no such ideal can be construed as a motivating factor for the act of creation. On the contrary, such conceptual hierarchies were constructed only in order to satisfy the divine desire for the subversion of the ultimate hierarchy, in order that – via the fulfillment of mitzvot – the very ‘highest’ could be made most manifest in the very ‘lowest’.

* * *

Earlier we cited internal chasidic sources that describe chasidism as transcending any discrete paradigm, and as uncovering a deeper – ‘essential’ – perspective, rather than introducing a new element. Our examination of the chasidic approach to these fundamental theological questions further illuminates that description: Rather than trying to supply new answers to these age old questions, chasidism provides a deeper perspective. This new vantage point subverts the axiomatic conceptual hierarchies, the very paradigms that endow the original questions with meaning and potency.18 By uncovering the essence, chasidism is providing a ‘non-answer’ in the face of which the questions simply dissolve.

By uncovering the essence, chasidism is providing a ‘non-answer’ in the face of which the questions simply dissolve.

While the questions dissolve in the face of the innovative perspective provided by chasidism, the answers previously provided do not. Instead, the explanations offered by the chokrim and kabbalists are interpreted as being part and parcel of the divine urge to have “a dwelling in the lower realms.” In order to explain this we must return to the concept of “etzem”: Earlier, we explained that in communicating ultimate ineffability, chasidism makes the transcendent core of divinity immanently manifest throughout all of created existence. It follows therefore, that included in the divine desire to have “a dwelling in the lower realms” is the desire that the divine presence and purpose will be fully recognisable within those realms themselves.

In articulating this theme, Rabbi Menachem Mendel emphasizes the medrashic usage of the word “dwelling.” There are many places where a person may be found, but a dwelling is a place where the personality of the individual is most manifest. Ideally, all aspects of the dwelling are designed to reflect and facilitate the self expression of the individual. “The function of a dwelling is... that the etzem is found in it in a revealed manner...” For that reason the purpose of creation and the fulfillment of the mitzvot must also be articulated in accordance with the paradigms that form “the lower realms.” As rational beings of mystical inclination we must be able to assimilate the divine purpose within rational and mystical paradigms.

“Therefore,” explains Rabbi Menachem Mendel, the reasons provided by the chokrim and the kabbalists retain their validity; “[the reasons] “to do goodness to his creations” and “that they shall recognize His greatness” are required... because such knowledge and recognition is a preparation for the revelation of the etzem.”19 The fulfillment of the ultimate, suprarational purpose... is itself dependent upon the rational and mystical recognition of divinity and divine purpose.The rational and mystical hierarchies themselves provide a medium for the communication of of ineffable divinity. For similar reasons, we must make every possible effort to understand the individual mitzvot and their general purpose in rational and mystical terms.20
The fulfillment of the ultimate, suprarational purpose – the achievement of “a dwelling in the lower realms” – is itself dependent upon the rational and mystical recognition of divinity and divine purpose.

I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Rabbi Mendel Morozow, a senior rabbinical student at the central Lubavich Yeshivah - Tomchei Temimim, for drawing attention to some of the sources and insights included in this article.