בְּחֹדֶשׁ מַרְחֶשְׁוָן תּרי"ג קָבַע הַצֶּמַח צֶדֶק, מִלְּבַד הַשִּׁעוּרִים הָאַחֵרִים, שִׁעוּר לִמּוּד עִם אַאַזְמוּ"ר בְּכָל יוֹם שְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה — בְּחוֹרֶף מַתְחִיל מִשָּׁעָה הָעֲשִׂירִית לַיְלָה וּבְקַיִץ מִשָּׁעָה הָרְבִיעִית לִפְנוֹת בּוֹקֶר. — שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים הָיָה הַלִּמּוּד: קַבָּלָה עִם בֵּאוּרֵי חֲסִידוּת. אַחַר זְמַן זֶה — עַד אֱלוּל תּרט"ז, שֶׁאָז נִפְסַק הַשִּׁעוּר, לָמְדוּ סִפְרֵי מֶחְקָר: הָרַב סְעַדְיָה גָּאוֹן, מוֹרֶה נְבוּכִים, עִקָּרִים, כּוּזָרִי, וְעוֹד, עַל פִּי תּוֹרַת הַחֲסִידוּת.

In the month of MarCheshvan, 5613 (1852), the Tzemach Tzedek scheduled — in addition to his other study sessions — a study session with my revered grandfather, the Rebbe [Maharash],1 for two-and-a-half hours every day. In the winter they would begin at ten at night, and in the summer, at four in the morning. For two years, they studied Kabbalah as explained in the teachings of Chassidus. After this time, until Elul, 5616 (1856), when this study session ceased, they would study works of medieval Jewish philosophy (Chakirah) — R. Saadiah Gaon, Moreh Nevuchim, Sefer HaIkarim, Kuzari, and others — as interpreted in the teachings of Chassidus.2

Probing Beneath the Surface

The Rebbe explains3 that Kabbalahand Chakirah each have a particular structure that defines the scope of their teachings, whereas the teachings of Chassidus embody the essence of the Torah. That essential power deepens our understanding of all other schools of Jewish thought.

The Rebbe Rashab characterized the innovation of Chassidus in these terms: Unlike Kabbalah, Chassidus is Divinity made comprehensible through the analogy of human faculties.4

On the same subject, a group of questioners once asked R. Gershon Ber of Pahr, a distinguished chassid of the Tzemach Tzedek, of the Rebbe Maharash, and of the Rebbe Rashab: “What is Chassidus?” They wanted to know what Chassidus taught beyond what they had encountered in Kabbalah or in the philosophical approach of Chakirah.

He replied: “Kabbalah describes the Sefiros, the creative attributes and manifestations of G‑d; philosophy explains how G‑d is beyond description and definition, how one cannot really understand Him at all, for if one were to know G‑d, he would be G‑d;5 Chassidus, by contrast, maintains: ‘Know Him and become like Him.’” That is to say, by the effort of trying to understand G‑d, one comes to resemble Him.6