The Hemshekh: A New Genre of Chassidic Exposition

The significance of the new genre of the hemshekh can be better assessed if we briefly take note of the wider context in which it emerged. In the later years of his tenure, Chabad’s founder, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, would frequently follow up discourses delivered on Shabbat with elaborations (biurim) during the subsequent week. His son, Rabbi DovBer Schneuri, known as the Mitteler Rebbe, was known for his expansive and extensive explanations, and for delivering multiple discourses in quick succession. R. Shmuel, however, was the first to deliver a continuous series of discourses over successive weeks and months.1

Hemshekhim are loosely built around a central theme, often with several interwoven sub-themes. For the most part, individual discourses are not self-contained, but instead spill thematically from one into the next. Tangential explorations sometimes run the course of several discourses, but ultimately they return to align themselves with the central thread. This kind of structured flexibility allows for a greater degree of synthesis between an array of ostensibly different topics. More importantly, it allows for sustained scrutiny of a single topic, so that a richer and more comprehensive understanding can be developed. But the expansive complexity of their structure also renders hemshekhim more unwieldy, so that their study is as challenging as it is rewarding.2

Throughout Hemshekh Vekakhah Ha-gadol R. Shmuel draws heavily on the vast corpus of texts that he inherited from his predecessors—the first three rebbes of Chabad-Lubavitch. He often quotes large segments of text verbatim. Crucially, though, these are not merely restatements, but rather components of a systematic reinvestigation, in which old ideas are embellished, rescrutinized and recontextualized in the service of new arguments. Classical kabbalistic and rabbinic sources—including Lurianic Kabbalah, Zohar, Midrash and the Talmud—are likewise invoked at every turn.

As we shall presently show, R. Shmuel is adept at endowing existing teachings with transformative clarity and novel significance. Often he achieves this simply by emphasizing a particular motif. But he also reshapes and sculpts the text, cutting some sentences and adding pithy embellishments and elaborations. But the real power of the hemshekh derives from the way he organizes the material, linking the teachings together, and marshaling them in a demonstrative tour de force. Placed within a contextual flow, otherwise isolated teachings discover new momentum and—supported by R. Shmuel’s incisive embellishments—advance a compelling thesis. R. Shmuel carries with him the full weight of tradition even as he strikes out on a bold new path.

In this way, the hemshekh is actually an innovative continuation of the intertextual approach pioneered by R. Shmuel’s father, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn of Lubavitch. Now more commonly referred to as the Tzemach Tzedek, the title under which his halachic responsa were published, R. Menachem Mendel assiduously curated the original discourses of his grandfather, R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi. In elaborating and further developing his grandfather's teachings, R. Menachem Mendel also sought to preserve their original language and texture. He therefore restricted his own comments to extensive glosses (haga’ot), using parentheses to distinguish these addenda from the original text. These glosses are a subject of study in their own right, but what is most notable in the present context is the way that they contextualize individual ideas and interpretations within the broader corpus of R. Schneur Zalman’s discourses and writings, as well as within the classical canon of the rabbinic tradition. R. Menachem Mendel’s method, in short, is to place existing texts in dialogue with one another in order to extract richer insight and deeper meaning, to highlight tensions and illuminate problems.3

The move from R. Menachem Mendel’s haga’ot to R. Shmuel’s hemshekhim can accordingly be seen as a move from the micro to the macro. The former applies the intertextual method on a point by point basis, providing something akin to a running commentary that draws on other sources to contextualize and elaborate. The latter applies the intertextual method to construct an entirely new edifice, a sustained reconsideration of a single central theme. Both stylistically and ideologically, the hemshekh was cited by the seventh rebbe of Chabad, R. Menachem M. Schneerson, as a definitive expression of R. Shmuel’s bold attitude, as encapsulated in his statement, “The world says if you can’t go under, go over. I say, go over at the outset (le’khat’hilah ariber)!”4

The emergence of the hemshekh heralds a new era of conceptual integration, systemization and innovation, which would in some ways be epitomized in the teachings of R. Shmuel’s son and successor, Rabbi Shalom DovBer Schneersohn of Lubavitch. Vekakhah Ha-gadol made a particular impression on R. Shalom DovBer, who was in his seventeenth year at the time of its debut. In the fall of 1877, a few weeks before the hemshekh would be concluded, he gave forthright voice to his excitement in a letter:

This past Passover my father began a discourse [beginning with the words] vekakhah tokhlu oto, and has not yet completed it. It comprises one hundred and twenty nine sections, and no one among us knows how long,5 it may yet continue a long while. It is a very profound discourse, kabbalistic from beginning to end—deep, deep, who can find it?6—and the diction, moreover, is very terse.7

Later known as the Rebbe Rashab, R. Shalom DovBer would himself deliver many hemshekhim of renown. Two in particular—Samakh Vov and Ayin Beit—have come to symbolize the culmination of Chabad’s intellectual and institutional renaissance in the first two decades of the twentieth century.8 In contemporary Chabad these hemshekhim have tended to overshadow Vekakhah Ha-gadol; its historic importance and influence has consequently been overlooked and underestimated.9 First published in 1945 as a facsimile of a copyist's manuscript, it would not be typeset until 2013.10

The new typeset edition was further enhanced by the editors based on a manuscript in the hand of R. Shmuel himself. Though R. Shmuel delivered the hemshekh orally on Shabbat and festivals, he also committed it to writing, dividing it into chapters and—for the most part—adding brief summaries at the end of each of them. It is notable that R. Shalom DovBer also penned his own transcripts of many of the discourses after hearing them from his father’s lips, and these too have been typeset and published in the 2013 edition.11 Chabad tradition records that on completing the hemshekh R. Shmuel called on R. Shalom DovBer to celebrate with him alone, saying “come and we shall be joyous; I and you.”12

More will be said below about the influence of Vekakhah on R. Shalom DovBer’s teachings, and about differences of style and substance. But first we must better acquaint ourselves with the general content and structure of this hemshekh.

Vekakhah Ha-gadol: A Reexploration of the Redemptive Path

In its widest frame Vekakhah is an extensive rethinking of the revelatory and redemptive character of the divine faculty of hokhmah, and of the process by which this faculty unfolds in the cosmos at large and in the individual’s service of G‑d. Hokhmah is generally described as the first of G‑d’s revelatory faculties, corresponding in the human psyche to the first intimation of cognitive inspiration. In this hemshekh, the initial disclosure of hokhmah is further equated with the genesis of redemption, marked in historical terms by the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. The telos, or ultimate object, of this disclosure, is marked by the final redemption of the messianic future-to-come (le-atid lavo). In Kabbalistic terms, this telos is equated with the fundamental unification of hokhmah with all of the lower faculties (sephirot), beginning with binah, the second of G‑d’s revelatory faculties. In the human psyche, binah corresponds to the process of sustained conceptual analysis, exploration, development and application (le-havin davar mitokh davar); a process that in turn births the full spectrum of human experience and activity.

These kabbalistic paradigms require more explanation, and indeed the principle concern of the hemshekh is to explore and reevaluate the meaning and significance of hokhmah, the first of the sephirot. What are the respective cosmic and psychological functions of hokhmah? What is the nature of the relationship between hokhmah and binah? How are they distinguished from each other? How can they be unified? How does the devotional life of a Jew, as prescribed by Torah and its commandments, enact the cosmic unfolding and enfolding of hokhmah and redemption?

This conceptual line of inquiry is linked to a hermeneutical inquiry into the symbolic meaning of the verse with which the hemshech begins. In preparation for the exodus from Egypt, G‑d instructs the people of Israel, via Moses, that on the night following the 14th of Nissan they are to eat roasted lamb, together with matzah (unleavened bread) and maror (bitter herbs): “Vekakhah tokhlu oto” - “And like so shall you eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hands; and you shall eat it in haste; it is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord.”13

In the very first discourse, R. Shmuel invokes several rabbinic sources that juxtapose this passage with the prophecy of Isaiah regarding the final redemption, proclaiming: “You shall not go forth in haste.”14 The question of the significance of this distinction between the exodus from Egypt and the final redemption provides the broad frame for the entire hemshekh: Why is the genesis of redemption marked by haste, which is no longer a feature of redemption’s final form?15

In the second discourse, R. Shmuel invokes scriptural associations for three distinct elements of the opening verse. 1) “Your loins girded” corresponds to “she girds her loins with might.”16 2) “Your sandals on your feet” corresponds to “how fair are your feet in sandals.”17 3) Your staff in your hands” corresponds to “for with my staff I crossed the Jordan.”18 These three associations, which derive from the kabbalistic commentary of Rabbi Menachem Recanti, are supplemented by the Zoharic designation of matzah as “bread of faith.”19

All of the above, R. Shmuel points out, is in need of further explanation: What do these verses signify? How are they connected to exodus and redemption? What is the connection between matzah and faith? All of these questions, he continues, will be better illuminated through exploring the distinction between the celebration of the festivals and the celebration of Shabbat.

This sets the stage for a much broader discussion, which can be roughly divided into five segments exploring the following themes:

  1. The festivals as joyous celebrations inspired by our understanding—associated with binah—of the significance of the commandments (discourses 2-8).
  2. Shabbat as the ascent of the created worlds into the genesis of divine revelation—associated with hokhmah (discourses 9-14). The flow of divine revelation, via the Torah, as the antidote that neutralizes unholy folly and heals the rift between the spiritual and the physical (discourses 15-20).
  3. The distinction between being and existence, and its connection with the mitzvah of eating matzah, and with other facets of religious activity and experience (discourses 21-30)
  4. The various mitzvot that mark the celebration of Sukkot as a recipe for the disclosure of hokhmah, its integration with binah, and its communication via da’at, so that even the physical world will ultimately become transparent to the transcendent being of G‑d (discourses 31-37).

In light of the new understanding of the redemptive path of divine revelation that emerges, the final segment returns to the symbolic interpretation of the verse with which the hemshekh began (discourses 38-46).

Despite the diversity of topics discussed in the course of this hemshekh, a single argument remains the conceptual touchstone, consistently endowing the progression of ideas with structure and momentum. From the outset it is clear that the discussion of binah, and of the joy that comes from understanding the significance of the commandments, is a foil and preface for the rethinking of hokhmah in the next segment. Likewise, the potential for healing transformation is carried by the flow from hokhmah into the created realm, the realm of concealment and unholy folly. It is in speaking of this flow that a tension emerges between the being of hokhmah—which grasps the being of G‑d—and the external revelation of hokhmah, which departs from its essential being even as it makes its existence known. This tension is overcome through treading the redemptive path, prescribed by the Torah and embodied in the practice of mitzvot, rendering all of existence transparent to the transcendent revelation of divinity that is vested in the being of hokhmah.

In rethinking the meaning and significance of hokhmah, accordingly, the broader significance and function of the Jewish trajectory—in personal life and in collective history—is also rethought. It is here that we find the foundation of a project that would be further developed by R. Shmuel’s son and successor, R. Shalom DovBer, in Hemshekh Samakh Vov: The construction of an innovative philosophy of Judaism that examines all the diverse elements of religious experience and activity within the context of a comprehensive system.20