Ben Gurion University of the Negev

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Department of Hebrew Thought

The Role of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, the Sixth Admor of Lubavitch, in the Creation of Modern Habad in the USA 1930‐1950

Thesis submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Roland Julian Mureinik

Under the Supervision of Prof Jonatan Meir

October 2018

Dedicated with love to Inez, without whose support, patience and understanding

this thesis would not have been completed

My grateful thanks to Professor Jonatan Meir,

who introduced me to the fascinating world of

Hasidism and Habad.

Contents Introduction and Historical Background ...... 1

Biography of R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn ...... 2

Bringing the Sixth Admor to live in the USA ...... 5

Historical Development of American Jewry ...... 6

Chapter 1: R Yosef Yitzchak’s efforts to manage Habad from afar ...... 9

1.1 Initial Attempts to Organize (1920-1930) ...... 10

1.2 The Impact of Rayatz’ Visit (1929-1930) ...... 17

Chapter 2: Consolidation and Expansion of American Habad under Rayatz ...... 26

2.1 Ideology and Leadership ...... 28

2.2 Hakeriah Vehakedusha ...... 31

2.3 The Organization ...... 33

2.3.1 Machane Israel ...... 33

2.4 Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch (“Melach”) ...... 39

2.4.1 Hayom Yom ...... 41

2.4.2 Mesibot Shabbat ...... 43

2. 4.3 Bet Sarah/Bet Rivka...... 43

2.5 Kehot ...... 45

2.6 Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim ...... 50

2. 6.1 Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim as a Habad-Identity Enhancer ...... 55

2. 6.2 Chederim ...... 56

2.6.3 Not only New York and its Periphery ...... 58

2.7 Strengthening Habad Identity: Using USA Jewry as a ‘Whipping Boy’ ...... 58

Chapter 3: The Religious Message of Rayatz ...... 62

3.1 Defining Rayatz’ Target Audiences ...... 62

3.2 Divrei Elohim Haim ...... 65

3.3 Teshuva and Messiah ...... 70

Chapter 4: Conclusions – Rayatz and His Heritage ...... 77

4.1 Rayatz as Manager ...... 77

4.2 Rayatz as Head of a Corporate Conglomerate ...... 80

4.3 The Habad “Business Plan” ...... 82

4.4 The Rayatz Heritage ...... 84

Appendix 1. Pictures and Reproductions ...... 86

US Dept of LaborMemorandum: Agudas Chasidei Habad ...... 87

Nameplate of the first issue of Hakeriah Vehakedusha ...... 89

Appendix 2. Organigram: Rayatz’ “Corporate” Habad: 1940-50...... 90

Glossary of Terms, Expressions, Transliterations and Explanations ...... 91

References ...... 93

Introduction and Historical Background

Late in 1939, following the Nazi invasion of Poland and the bombing of Warsaw, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, the sixth Admor1,2 of Hasidut Habad was spirited out of German-occupied Warsaw, with the assistance and support of US government agencies and reportedly in an operation involving high-ranking Nazi officials (Rigg, 2004, 2016; Altein, 2002), and sent on his way to a new life in the USA. Regardless of the immense historic irony that it was Nazi involvement that would enable the emergence in the USA of a dynamic movement of Jewish revival, it is indisputable that unless circumstances had been created for R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (Rayatz) to transfer his leadership of Habad to the USA, the face of present-day world Jewry, Hasidism and especially Habad Hasidism, would be completely different. Rayatz found in the USA a relatively small and loose association of Habad communities not having any particular influence on the larger Jewish and general communities in the USA. Nonetheless, by the time of his death in 1950 and the eventual transfer of leadership to the seventh Admor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn (The Rebbe), the institutions of Habad had been considerably enlarged and revitalized. It was these institutions that provided the platform for the much greater expansion in the size and influence of Habad that took place later under the leadership of the Rebbe. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of the R Yosef Yitzchak in the creation of modern Habad in the USA by preserving and consolidating the existing organs of Habad community that he found there, and by expanding and deepening the range of their activities. The outcome of his actions was to affect Habad worldwide. The dramatic expansion of Habad under his successor was only to become possible because of the measures undertaken by Rayatz to revitalize the movement in the USA, as well as in Canada where for the geopolitical reasons valid at the time the local community was strengthened by Lubavitcher refugees from Europe. This study thus concentrates on Rayatz’ kernel activities in 1930-50 in North America, his initiatives

1 Habad is a Hasidic dynasty in which the leadership role has been held by only seven leaders, Admorim (transliterated Our Lord, Teacher and Rabbi). The first leader and ,אדוננו מורנו ורבנו the abbreviation of the title ,אדמו''ר from the Hebrew founder of Chabad was R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), known as the Alter Rebbe (the Old Rabbi). He was succeeded by his son, R. Dovber Schneuri, known as the Mittler Rebbe (the Middle Rabbi, b 1773, d 1827; served as Admor 1812-1827). The third Admor was R Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, known as the Tzemach Tzedek (b 1789, d 1866; Admor 1831-1866). He was the grandson of R Shneur Zalman, the son of R Shneur Zalman’s daughter. The Tzemach Tzedek was succeeded by his son R Shmuel Schneersohn (b 1834, d 1866; Admor 1866-1882; known as Ma’harash). His son, the fifth Admor, was. Rashab was succeeded by his son, R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, the subject of this dissertation (b 1880, d 1950; Admor 1920-1950). R Yosef Yitzchak was referred to as Rayatz or as the Frierdiker Rebbe (the previous rabbi) in distinction to his successor, the better known and last Chabad Admor, known simply as the Rebbe, R Menachem Mendel Schneerson (b 1902, d 1994; Admor from 1950, and according to some Chabad circles, continuing to serve as Admor to this day) was the son-in-law and cousin of Rayatz. 2 Although Habad has endeavoured to show that the process of successions flowed smoothly, in many of the transitions, there were losing competitors who split off and formed their own followings or disappeared. Some of these splinters called themselves Lubavitcher Hasidim. Their history is beyond the scope of this thesis, but there is ocassional need to refer to a few of these splinter streams in this study. 1

and the religious philosophy which drove his actions that were aimed at establishing Habad as a dynamic religious force in the USA and abroad.

Biography of R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn

Although several authors have written on the life and times of Rayatz, most of these are hagiographic descriptions of a revered leader (for example: Booklet of Mercaz Yeshivos Tomchei Temimim Lubavitch 1945; Mindel 1961; Glitzenstein 1966; Segal 1990; Kaminetsky 1996), and there appears to be no authoritatively researched biography of R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn. In many instances, his life and times are presented almost as a necessary footnote in explanations of the life and times of his successor, R Menachem Mendel Schneerson even though Rayatz was a major personality in his own right. The biography of Rayatz presented here was collated from a number of sources available in Hebrew, Yiddish (or translations thereof) or English (Dahan 2014, pp. 24-38; Glitzenstein 1966; Heilman 2010, pp.75-83; Rigg 2004, 2016). R Yosef Yitzchak was born in 1880, the only son of Rav Shalom Dovber Schneersohn (Rashab), the fifth Admor of Habad, and was brought up to the expectation that he would succeed his father as leader of Habad. From the age of 18, Rayatz was involved, at his father's behest, in the administration and management of Habad. As such, he was deeply involved in the development of Habad under the direction of Rashab and was greatly influenced by his father’s outlook. Rashab was deeply concerned by what he saw as existential threats to traditional Judaism in Russia, particularly the spread of the Enlightenment: he perceived this movement as secularization, with the risk of the loss of Jewish youth to various ideological and revolutionary off-shoots—revolutionary socialism, Bund socialism and Zionism. In response, one of Rashab’s innovations was the establishment in Lubavitch, Russia, of the first Habad yeshiva, Tomchei Temimim, which was deliberately designed to be radically different from the classical Lithuanian yeshiva, such as Volozhin or Telz. In addition to Rashab’s resistance to the threatening ideological streams of the times, all of which he viewed as tainted with “moderna,” he sought to change the practice that Habad Hasidic thought was not formally introduced to students until after they had studied in “regular” Talmudic yeshivot. Rashab thus sought to implement the teaching of an ideology that would emphasize Habad Hasidism while crystallizing answers to the challenges to traditional values and practices posed by the modernization processes occurring in general (and Jewish) society (Luriah, Chinuch, 2009, pp. 190-192). In contrast to the practices of the veteran Talmudic yeshivot, the Habad study program curtailed the emphasis and time spent on Gemara scholarship and emphasized the teaching and practices of Habad Hasidism, such as the centrality and meaning of the concept of diminishment of the self into the divine (Bar-Or 2008). Rayatz was not only made responsible for the administration of the yeshiva but was also involved in developing the ideological program of Tomchei Temimim and was even charged with formulating 2

entrusted with the moral education of (משפיעים) an Instruction Manual for spiritual counsellors the young students (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Principles, 1990). Rayatz’ concerns with the importance of Hasidic education according to Habad beliefs and practices, consolidated at that time, were to find repeated expression throughout his life-time. As Admor, Rashab regarded it essential that he maintain his influence over émigré Habad communities, as well as those who joined the fold in places where Habad communities had taken root. He did this by conducting extensive correspondence with both these distant Habad outposts, mainly in the USA but also elsewhere, and with non-Habad Hasidim and members of other Jewish groups who wrote to seek his advice. The practice of correspondence reduced the importance of the traditional visit by Hasidim to the court of the Rebbe and entirely replaced the practice for those Hasidim for whom the periodic or annual visit was not possible. A significant part of the actual letter writing was done by Rayatz, and the custom of correspondence was to be greatly expanded into his modus operandi when Rayatz became Admor, particularly after his move to the USA. As one of Rashab’s most talented assistants and administrators, Rayatz was involved in issues beyond the internal concerns of the Habad community, frequently requiring interaction with the organs of the Czarist regime in regard to the religious requirements of Jews who found themselves outside of their narrow communal habitats. For example, during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, Rashab and Rayatz extracted from the Czarist regime an agreement to allow them to supply matzot to Jewish soldiers fighting in the Russian army. Later, during World War I, they were able to obtain exemption for Habad rabbis from military service at the front. Rayatz thus experienced an extended apprenticeship alongside his father in the practice of political activism for sake of the communal good despite the risks and dangers inherent therein. In 1920, R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn succeeded his father as the Sixth Admor of Habad. The last years of Rashab’s tenure and the early years of Rayatz as Admor coincided with the upheavals in Russian society that removed the Czarist regime and eventually brought to power a virulently antireligious communist regime. Jewish religious education was outlawed, but Habad continued its educational activities clandestinely. Unlike other Jewish leaders, Rayatz did not counsel his followers to emigrate from Russia, a policy that was to lead to tragic loss of life among Habad followers in Russia. During this period, Rayatz became known in the international Jewish community and even beyond for his bravery in resisting the regime's efforts to stamp out Jewish life. These efforts included the arrest in 1927 of many rabbis, teachers, and other religious functionaries, including Rayatz himself. By virtue of his public stature, diplomatic and public pressure was brought to bear on the Communist authorities, and Rayatz was released. With the realization that he could not function practically as the leader of Habad under the conditions that

then prevailed in Russia, he emigrated first to Latvia and shortly afterwards to Poland, where the central Tomchei Temimim yeshiva was then re-established. In 1929, Rayatz journeyed to the USA and Palestine. On the communal level in the USA, his visit served to strengthen his reputation as an international spiritual leader, and he exploited his time there to consolidate his acceptance as world-wide Admor of Habad, shoring up his position in particular against the breakaway group of Hasidim led by Avraham Hamalchi. He campaigned extensively in synagogues for the establishment of more yeshivot and called for Jews everywhere to repent of their “sinful ways” and become more observant: this would facilitate the coming of the messiah. (The role of messianism in Rayatz’s teaching is explored further below.) He also called for the adoption of the Habad practice that he had introduced in Russia in 1927, and later in Poland in 1933, of daily recitation of portions of the Book of Psalms followed by kaddish after regular morning prayers, in cycles such that the book was completely read over the course of a month (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Ohel, pp. 191-194). In 1935, Rayatz called for all Hasidim the world over to designate Shabbat Mevarchim3 as the day for farbrengen, a gathering of Chassidim for communal prayer and spiritual uplift in a group setting. He thus instituted customs specific to Habad that sought to enhance the sense of community between Habad followers wherever they were. Despite Rayatz’ accepted status as t Admor, his practical influence over communities of American Habad appears to have been minimal at this time and the practices of farbrengen and the monthly cycle of the reading of the Psalms did not become rooted among the American members of Habad communities. The invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in September 1939 brought an end to organized Jewish communal life in Poland. By that time, with fears of war gathering in Europe, Rayatz had already moved his headquarters from the rural town of Otvotsk to the city of Warsaw in the hope of finding greater safety there. However, the blitzkrieg in September of that year found not only Poland and its army unprepared for the onslaught but likewise the Habad community. The community was unable to function under the bombing and shelling of the capital, and Rayatz went into hiding. With the USA at this stage still a neutral observer the developing War, it was able to respond to public pressure to assist in rescuing the Admor from the clutches of the Nazis. The details of Rayatz’s escape do not contribute to the current narrative and are thus not discussed at length, but it is suffice to say that the Admor and most of his immediate family were rescued and arrived in the USA early in 1940. The majority of his followers in Eastern Europe did not survive the Holocaust.

3 Shabbat Mevarchim: The Shabbat before the beginning of each Jewish month (Rosh Chodesh). 4

Bringing the Sixth Admor to live in the USA

The involvement of the US government in the rescue of Rayatz and his transfer to the USA had been prompted in large measure by the perception created by his supporters that Rayatz was a major spiritual leader heading a global-scale religious movement. To convince the United States Department of State to exercise its influence in Germany (at this time the USA had not yet entered the War and formal diplomatic relations still existed between the USA and Germany), Agudat Chasidei Chabad presented a portfolio of documents attesting to the importance of Habad, to the stature of Rayatz as a leader of world Jewry, and to the ability of the movement to undertake financial responsibility for Rayatz and his entourage in America. Despite the fact that at the time of this intercession, Habad was no more than a minor religious grouping in America (Rigg 2004, p. 65), documents were presented to the State Department purporting to show that membership in Habad amounted to about 150,000, organized into 200 communities, that the status of “Chief Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn and his associated entourage of Rabbis was equivalent to “the Hierarchy of World Chabad” (Altein, pp 178-181;) and that Chabad constitutes an independent sect or group among Othodox Jews and is ruled by a hierarchy of which the supreme authority is vested in Rabbi Schneersohn, the Lubowitzer (sic) Rabbi, who holdss a somewhat analogous position to that of the head oif the Catholic Church (Altein, pp. 310-317).See Picture, Appendix 1) Rigg (2004, p. 65) quotes various sources giving the size of Habad in 1939 as ranging between 2000 and 100,000, with it being widely accepted that the latter figure had been considerably inflated for the sake of influencing the US government to act in the rescue of Rayatz.4 Moreover, internal Habad documents (cited by Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp 123-133) list no more than 80 American congregations at this time5. The Jewish population of America at this time numbered 4.6–4.8 million (Jewish Virtual Library, Vital), so that even the grossly inflated figure of 150,000 would have constituted no more than about 3% of the Jewish population. Nonetheless, it is clear that the presentation of Habad and its leader as being of considerably greater influence among American Jews than was actually the case did have the political result of motivating the US government to become involved in Rayatz’ case. R. Yosef Yitzchak arrived in New York together

4 Rigg, 2004, p 65, quotes various sources relating to size of Habad in 1939. Rabbi Avraham Laber, a historian of the Lubavicher movement, and Rabbi Eliezer Zaklikovsky agreed that the numbers were probably high because they included “also those who consider the Rebbe to be their leader, and thus not necessarily Lubavitchers.” The late Prof Paula Hyman, formerly Professor of History and Head of the Department of Judaic Studies at Yale University stated that the number of 100,000 is inflated and probably did not exceed 40,000. Henry Feingold, Director of Jewish Resource Centre of Baruch College, New York claimed that the number was probably not more than 20,000. Some Lubavitcher sources presented a claim that the community actually numbered 160,000 in 1939, calculated on the basis of an assumed Chabad population of 40,000 in 1929, to which was added immigration of 110,000 in the following decade. Since this decade was a period of restricted Jewish immigration, this claim was patently untenable, and Rabbi Zalman Posner, himself a Lubavitcher Rabbi, dismissed the 160,000 figures as “nonsense”. On the other side of the numerical scale, R Moshe Kolodny of Agudath Israel Archives in New York claimed that the number was probably only 2000. 5 The documentation is incomplete, and the dating is confused, but even taking a maximalist position, and disregarding comments that some of the congregations listed had ceased to function, it appears that there were no more than approximately 80 congregations, mostly small,in the USA including the outlying cities, beteen the years 1936-1948. 5

with his members of his family, including his son-in-law R. Shmaryahu Gurary, who would play a major role in his father-in-law’s rebuilding of Habad.

Historical Development of American Jewry

Conventionally, up until World War II American Jewry is viewed as having originated from three periods of Jewish immigration (Weinryb 1957, pp. 306-403; Sklare 1971, pp. 5-13; Hertzberg 1975, pp. 5-24; Liebman 1975, pp. 25-63)6. The first wave in the colonial period up to 1815 consisted largely of Sephardic Jews whose families originated in the Iberian Peninsula and who had lived in another European country (England, Holland, or Germany) before journeying to America. These settlers established the earliest Jewish communities of America and, by and large, practiced a non-demanding faith, not demonstratively proclaiming their Jewishness. The next period of Jewish immigration was peopled by Ashkenazi Jews from Germany, who started arriving in America in small numbers as early as the late 1700s, and in larger numbers throughout the 19th century. Numerically, this wave overwhelmed the early Sephardi communities, with German Jews settling throughout the country and establishing communities in cities of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest. To a significant extent, these German Jews came from a liberal, partly emancipated tradition with relatively low levels of Jewish knowledge and practice. They were familiar with Reform and Progressive ideas and practices, which they essentially copied for their new communities. It should be added that economic necessity was viewed as a strong disincentive to orthodox ritual. In contrast to the two earlier waves, the third wave (from 1880 until the early 1920s) was composed of Eastern European Jews. Regardless of their personal level of religious conviction and practice, these Jews sought to reproduce the highly socialized Jewish environment of their homeland in their new home. They thus created an Eastern European milieu of religious, Hasidic and Mitnaged, Bundist, socialist and Zionist streams, within a rich Yiddish-speaking culture. They encountered the same economic forces as the earlier waves of Jewish immigration. The economic necessities of making a living conflicted with religious practice: the need to work on Shabbat, the necessity to travel long distances as peddlers, factory work involving long, low-paid hours all combined to constitute a weakening influence on religious practice and study. Nonetheless, the Eastern European Jews, who hankered after tradition, sought it initially in the East European style to which they were accustomed, with many becoming orthodox in affiliation if not in practice, a situation comparable to that of a “lapsed Catholic”—non-practicing but attached to his church.

6 Although these works are considerably outdated in regard to their predictions concerning the future development of American Jewry, they all provide relevant descriptions of the period contemporaneous with the activity of Rayatz in America. 6

Whereas the first two waves of immigration were characterized by their relatively rapid acculturation to American society, the same cannot be said for the Eastern European immigrants. Their masses were so large that they swamped the older German Jewish population. In 1877, Jews constituted only 0.52% of the overall population, and by 1917 Jews accounted for 3.28% of the population (Sklare 1971, p. 8). Coming without capital or knowledge of English, they were untrained for the jobs available at the time in America, and unlike the German Jews they created ethnic Jewish quarters in a few of the large cities. However, the confinement of the Eastern European Jews to the lowest-class neighborhoods, and their non-acculturation, was not long lived. After enduring a generation or two in the tenements and the sweatshops of the large cities, the Eastern European Jews acquired sufficient social mobility through the creation of small businesses and by devoting their efforts to the (secular and professional) education of their children. The outcome was that by the end of World War I there had been a significant movement of the descendents of the Eastern European immigrants to the middle classes and hence to suburbia. US Immigration policy changed dramatically after World War I: whereas in the first two decades of the 20th century 24 million immigrants entered the USA, the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 reduced this flow to a trickle (Internet source: Center for Immigration Studies). This change of policy had specific impact on the Orthodox Jewish community: As noted above, many of the Eastern European immigrants were only nominally orthodox, and their ongoing acculturation and improving socio-economic status was often accompanied by further weakening of their ties to orthodox practice. The result was that the orthodox community was bleeding members who migrated away from their original communities while simultaneously the flow of fresh new blood in the form of newcomers from Eastern Europe was cut off. The core that remained in the Jewish ethnic areas thus tended to be the least socially mobile, including the “orthodox” who remained for the purposes of community that their communal way of life required (Sklare 1971, pp. 111- 130). Another major consequence of the ending of the liberal US policy on immigration was that the source of European rabbis and communal leaders dried up, forcing American religious establishments to rely increasingly on home-grown American-educated candidates for rabbinical and communal leadership positions thus bringing acculturation even further into the religious sphere. Within two decades American Jewry had become predominantly “native American.” The emergence of American-centered and -trained leadership brought with it the development of new outlooks on Judaism and interpretations of the tasks confronting religious groups, among them the desire for growth by courting religiously unaffiliated groups. In response to these societal changes, orthodoxy underwent a transition in methodology and techniques of communal management, while not abandoning its basic adherence to ritual practice. Yiddish-speaking rabbis of the older generation and English-speaking rabbis of the modern generation preached the same

doctrines based on supernatural revelation of divine law and scrupulous observance of the mitzvoth as interpreted by the traditional rabbinical sources. Despite having poorer resources than the Reform and Conservative movements during the pre-World War II period, Orthodoxy did manage to establish major important institutions, among them Yeshiva University (1928) and the kashrut-oversight program of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Nonetheless, in the 1930s Reform and, especially, Conservative movements were becoming the dominant streams, helped by the growing alienation and detachment of the Jewish communities from the strictures of orthodox religious practice (Davis 1960, p. 548-561), alongside the emergence of a measure of assimilation (Sklare 1971, pp. 39-42). By and large, Hasidic communities stayed outside the mainstream of American Jewry and did not show signs of becoming part of the American Jewish milieu, opposing as best they could acculturation into the American model. “The Hasidic movement was considered a ‘strange plant’ in America even by some of its most ardent devotees” (Davis 1960, p. 561). However, in order to understand the development of Habad Hasidism in America under Rayatz, it is necessary to evaluate it in the context of American Jewish life of the time. Upon his arrival in the USA in March 1940, Rayatz found a weak Habad community composed of about 40 loosely affiliated, small and widely scattered synagogues. Not only was Habad weak but, [all of Ultra] Orthodoxy was under siege. Observant communities were clustered around a number of small congregations. Habad and all of Orthodox Jewry were insignificant, seen as out-of-date by the rest of Jewry and with little influence.… In New York [R Yosef Yitzchak] found a Habad that was a faint shadow of the life he had left behind (Steinsalz, Rebbe, 2014, pp 50-52). Steinsaltz’ descriptions referred more specifically to what would today be called the Haredi (Ultraorthodox) segment, even though, as noted above, all of orthodoxy was being eclipsed numerically and in communal influence by the Conservative and Reform segments. Rayatz thus faced the problem of re-establishing Habad under the multiple constraints and challenges of diminishing Jewish adherence to orthodox Jewish religion, acculturation to the American society that affected even his closest “constituents,” the growing importance of the English language and English-speakers in rabbinical and communal leadership positions, together with limited financial and human resources, at least in the initial stages. During the decade that followed, Rayatz set out to recreate what he had left behind. He ignored the warnings that what had existed in Eastern Europe could not take root in America, with the phrase that became one of his hallmark expressions “Amerika iz nisht andersh.” In the following chapters, an analysis is presented of his modus operandi (in terms of both his philosophical stance and administrative actions), and an evaluation of his successes and failures, up till his death and the subsequent transition of Habad to the leadership of R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson.

Chapter 1: R Yosef Yitzchak’s efforts to manage Habad from afar

The efforts of R. Yosef Yitzchak to build Habad in America along the lines of the model of the movement that existed in Eastern Europe began after the death of Rashab and Rayatz' inheritance of the mantle of Rebbe — well before Rayatz’ arrival in America. From his earliest letters to Anash7 in America (for example, Schneersohn, Y.Y., Vol. 1, Letter 79, 28 Sivan 5681 [1921]) it is clear that his view of American Habad reflected two working principles: firstly, that American Habad was an important source of contributions, and secondly, that its religious level was lower than that in European Habad. Rayatz adopted a two-pronged approach to address his mission of creating a “European Habad in America.” On the one hand, he instituted actions of an administrative-managerial nature aimed to create the actual organs of administration without which no undertaking of the size and scope that he envisaged for Habad could exist. On the other hand, in the realization that such an undertaking must have a raison d’etre, he set out to infuse into the organization a religious fervor that was driven by his understanding and teaching of Habad theology. The above letter reflects in microcosm this approach. He suggests that In addition to Rabbis “which you have in every city” (which in the context of his negative appraisal of the religious level in America, implies strong criticism of the religious leaders), it was necessary to and carry out 8(דברי אלוהים חיים) to teach Habad Hasidism (משפיעים) appoint spiritual counsellors other tasks (my emphasis), thus addressing both the religious level and the organizational structure.. The interwoven nature of these two streams of activity will be demonstrated in various sections below, as amply demonstrated in the letters and other material written by Rayatz or promoted by him in order to “justify,” motivate, and execute the achievement of each facet of the larger whole. To enable an orderly discussion of the fusion of the institutional and religious streams, it is necessary first to present a partial chronology of the major organizational activities initiated by Rayatz: in each of these, insight into Ratyatz’ thought and philosophy and his overall drive for a large Habad movement can be found. Each major organizational stage is therefore presented against the background of the religious thinking that accompanied it. The source material for this analysis is taken largely from Habad publications of different types. Various researchers have noted (for example, Rapoport-Albert 1988) that Habad literature is often hagiographic rather than historical, and therefore greater emphasis is placed on the documentation generated contemporaneously with the activity rather than on the subsequent Habad redactions thereof. Of

7 Anash: abbr. of “anshei shlomeinu”; the term used by Rayatz to refer to adherents of Habad. Former adherents whose .”from Habad stock“ ,מזרע חב''ד links to religion or to Habad had become weakened were generally referred to as 8 lit. the words of the living God: The term refers to the teachings of Habad mysticism based ,דברי אלהים חיים ,Original on Kabbalah, Tanya and the interpretations and teachings of the Admorim. The Hasidut of Rayatz is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

course, these sources are under the same ''suspicion'' of hagiographic presentation and are thus to be treated with some measure of caution. Nonetheless, as will be seen from the texts cited in this study, it seems likely that the large volume of documents created contemporaneously with the events themselves have not been subjected to hagiographic editing, particularly in those cases where the subject matter is not particularly flattering.

1.1 Initial Attempts to Organize (1920-1930)

Although neither Rashab nor Rayatz encouraged immigration of the followers of Habad to America, a trickle of adherents immigrated to the USA in the period 1900-1930. These groups established small synagogues and settled in the poor areas of a few of the larger American cities, predominantly along the East Coast. After Rashab’s death in 1920, it was important for Rayatz to establish and legitimize his position as Rebbe of these communities as well as of those in Eastern Europe where he was already a known and respected figure in Habad. These efforts were conducted by correspondence: Rayatz’ initial declarations that he had inherited the mantle of his father were followed by letters ostensibly centered around three main topics, namely, the state of religious practice and knowledge among Habad immigres and their descendants, the need to continue financial support to Habad institutions and to the support of Rayatz’ cadre of permanent students in Eastern Europe, and mechanisms for exerting “control“ over the religious activities of the communities of Habad affiliates and their descendants. Soon after Rashab’s death, Rayatz wrote to one of the American adherents of Habad, R. ,([Sivan 5681 [1921 27 ,[ג'תשנו] Eliyahu Axelrod (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 11, Letter 3746 including in his letter notification of his father’s death and the statement that Rashab had requested in his will that Rayatz, his designated successor, was to be entrusted with the spiritual of his followers, including those geographically )"ברוחניות ובגשמיות") and material well-being distant. Whether intentionally or not, this letter served to officially inform Habad followers in the USA that R Yosef Yitzchak was the successor of Rashab in all matters that concerned organized Habad and that he, Rayatz, did indeed intend to take charge of these matters. In the same letter, he requested the names and addresses of all known Habad members, so that he could write to them personally, informing the addressees that he would send them copies of Rashab’s will, thus buttressing his position as legitimate heir to the Habad leadership and as the ultimate authority in Habad. Balakirsky (2010, p. 11) suggests that Rayatz’ concern to ensure orderly, unchallenged succession to the position of Admor was informed by the situation faced by his father Rashab upon his inheritance of the mantle of Admor. Rashab and his elder brother, R. Zalman Aharon Schneersohn, shared the leadership of Habad after the death of Maharash for a period of eleven years, before Rashab fully assumed the position. Balakirsky cites Rayatz as having recorded his ill father incomprehensibly yelling out “How can I apply myself to Hasidim when Hasidim don’t 10

recognize me?“ (Balakirsky 2010, p. 11). The reasons concerning the failure to decide on a successor to Maharash immediately on his death and thus avoid a leadership crisis are not readily apparent, and Habad hagiography presents Rashab’s elevation as part of an unbroken, untroubled dynastic succession. In addition, two issues were of importance for Rayatz at this juncture. Firstly, he sought to ensure the continuation of the monetary support that Habad had received in the form of donations from the followers in America. As will be shown below, the subject of the financial support of Habad was never far from Rayatz’ concerns, albeit that this was often couched in religious and spiritual terms. Secondly, it was important for him to reach a clear understanding of the true situation of the movement in America, the reality of which was very different from the one he described in his letter to R Axelrod: I always used to hear that in their places9 there are many who are completely with us in their opinions, and I also used to receive various letters, [from] which I remember that they wrote that they built for them[selves] batei midrash [study rooms] and various synagogues named for the Tzemach Tzedek and the like, [but] in recent times I know nothing [of the situation of our people]…. (ibid.) His assumption (supported by future correspondence (for example, Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. Tevet 5690 [1930]) was that ,[ג'תתכה] Iyar 5786 [1926]; Letter 3825 25 ,[ג'תשצט ] Letter 3799 ,11 the religious levels of the US Habad community was below the standards of those in Eastern Europe. In the letter quoted above, as in much if his future correspondence, Rayatz invokes the aura of Rashab and the awe in which his father was held by declaring that whoever would assist R. Axelrod in the task of distributing copies of Rashab’s will would merit that God will be his helper in every matter, by virtue of the merit of the glory of the our holy fathers and rabbis, of righteous and holy memory, blessed of life in the world to come, whose souls are in the upper world and whose merits will protect us. (ibid.) )זכות הוד כ''ק אבותינו רבותינו הקדושים זצוקללה''ה נבג''ם זי''ע( Similarly in Rayatz’ subsequent open correspondence with Anash in America, Rayatz makes use of the stature of Rashab and his reputation in order to push for programs that he wishes to promote. Thus, in a follow-up open letter for general distribution to Anash (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 1, Av 5681 [1921]), it is to his father Rashab that he attributes the desire that in 8 ,[פג] Letter 83 every town there should be a mashpi’a (spiritual counsellor) totally devoted to the teaching of Habad Hasidism,10 and calls upon the community to support the sending of one of Rayatz’ brightest students to America for this purpose. He returns to this theme in a letter (Schneersohn, Shvat, 5683 [1923]) to a veteran immigrant to the USA, R 13 ,[קיז ] Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 1, Letter 117

9 Rayatz always used the formal third person in addressing the person to whom he was writing. 10 As Rayatz’ understanding of the state of religious behavior and knowledge among American Jewry, including those of Hasidic stock, deepened, he came to differentiate between the need to teach the necessity for the performance of basic practical Judaism (Shabbat, Hagim, kashrut, tefillin, family purity, etc.), and the desire to revive and spread the study of Hasidut. This is addressed in Chapter 3. 11

presumably because of his acquired ,(גביר - Arieh Lev HaCohen , whom he terms a gvir (a rich man wealth and status in his community. The assistance that Rayatz expects from R HaCohen center on two aspects of religious administration.. For the first, he asks that the “gvir" use his influence “to demand that Anash in USA set fixed times for public Torah study, in groups of faithful friends around the table on weekdays, and on Shabbat Kodesh for lessons in Gemara and Divrei Elohim Haim.” Secondly, he requests that there be someone present in the Shabbat groups who can memorize and repeat orally what was said (according to the Habad tradition by which the discussions and discourses - sichot and ma’amarim - given by the Rebbe were leant by rote so that they could be transcribed after Shabbat - see Section 2.1).” In addressing this request to R HaCohen, he was appealing to HaCohen’s conscience as one of the senior adherents of Habad in the USA and to his historic obligation to the traditions of Habad in setting up synagogues as places of learning. Rayatz further asked for information about Anash in the USA: "the addresses of all the synagogues, large and small, in every city, all the batei midrash, all the names and addresses of gabbaim and the names and addresses of all Anash who prayed in these and other synagogues.” These requests are repeated on numerous occasions in the following years, suggesting both that Rayatz was unaware of the difficulty of the task he was setting his correspondents and that the response to these requests was minimal, leading to the feelings of exasperation that Rayatz expressed in his letter R David Shifrin, (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol 1, Letter 140, 25 Heshvan 5683 [1924]) It would seem that only some years after Rayatz initiated his first organizational venture in regard to Habad in the USA (the formation of the Association of Chasidei Chabad in America and Canada in 1923-4) that some of the required information was supplied (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 15), quoting correspondence between Rayatz’ secretary R Haim Lieberman and R David Shifrin in 1928). Rayatz made his first call for the establishment of “Agudat Chasidei Chabad” in two letters ] Heshvan 5684 ,[ק לח ] to America, one to Anash, (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol 1, Letter 138 of the same month). The tones of the two , ]ק לט[ and one to the Rabbis (ibid., Letter 139 ,([1923 letters are noticeably different: in the former he plays on the sentimental memories that he assumes Anash would have for the ways and customs of the past, “[the ability to visit and] prostate themselves in direct conversation with the Tzadikkim; to glow in the light of the communal menorah (both physical and metaphorical), to be warmed in the light of communal prayer and to be strengthened thereby].” He compares their past with their present in which, because of the distance from their sources and the realities of their current lives, “day chases day and the years pass…, [but nonetheless] it is their duty and mitzvah, as commanded by our Rebbes to continue to study …like all Anash [wherever they are].” He proposes that they unite in one Association of Hasidei Habad and establish by-laws for the new organization, according to which

times would be fixed for public Torah study and Habad Hasidism would be learned from texts, while on Shabbat and Festivals there would be study and repetition by an expert in recollecting lit. rooms, study rooms for :חדרים) the spoken words. Moreover, he declared that chederim children)11 would be established to meet the needs of educating the children. In his parallel letter to the Rabbis and Gabbaim, Rayatz offers circumspect criticism of the failure of his addressees to meet the needs of ongoing Habad education, by cynically praising them for establishing synagogues and courts, creating batei midrash and uniting in one organization for the study of Torah and fixing hours for study of Torah and Habad Hasidism — in all of these issues Rayatz strongly felt that the local rabbinical leadership had failed in their for the sake (התעוררות) communal duties. He calls on the Rabbis in a spirit of religious awakening to join in the )עבודה שבלב) of Torah and in true, heartfelt prayer as taught in Habad Hasidism creation of an Agudat Chasidei Chabad that would serve as an inspiration for the Rabbis, their flocks and the Habad heritage. These two letters serve to illustrate Rayatz’ attitudes to the state of Habad in America at that time. He was despairing of the low state of religious practice and knowledge among Hasidei Habad and highly critical of the rabbinical leaders of the time who were proving inadequate to the task of halting further deterioration. Furthermore, he made the implicit assumption that superior learning existed only in the institutions of the “old country” and that unless suitable teachers, rabbis and mashpi’im were to be found among the immigrants who had previously acquired the requisite levels of study in the old country, or unless these functionaries were imported, it would not be possible to restore religious life, in general, and Habad Hasidism, in particular, to the levels of the old country. In this attitude, Rayatz was simply echoing the feelings of many Eastern European Jewish religious leaders who regarded America as a treife medina where traditional Judaism was under attack. As early as the first wave of eastern Jewish immigration to America (c. 1880-1910), the Rabbi of Slutsk visited America and, appearing before a public meeting of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, is reported to have “chastised the assemblage for having emigrated to this treif land” (Liebman p. 34). Rayatz appointed the Rabbis Eliyahu Simpson, David Shifrin and Moshe Eliezer Kremer to be his emissaries in the work of establishing the Aguda, and he explained the nature of the mission in ,([Heshvan 5683 [1923 25 ,[קסה] his letter to Shifrin (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol 1, Letter 165 laying out before him in detail the tasks involved in creating the infrastructure for the establishment of the Aguda. This style of work allocation and “micromanagement” of the people involved will be seen to be typical of Rayatz’ management approach which is discussed in Section 4.1. Shifrin was authorized to use the name of R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn as representative of

11 Chederim: in Yiddish-inflected Ashkenazi pronunciation , the colloquial term for the place where children (mainly boys and youth) would study Torah and more advanced Jewish texts 13

Habad for the purpose and was promised that there would be no budgetary limitations for writing, printing, postage and even for sending an emissary to the USA. Shifrin’s tasks included the collection of names and addresses of synagogues, Rabbanim and Gabbaim “in every city,” the hiring of a dedicated letter-writer, the designation of a person in each synagogue or bet midrash as contact person in regard to scheduling and arranging the envisaged study groups, and the choice of a recent arrival in the USA to travel from town to town to promote the study associations and to teach Habad Hasidism. At this point in time only the 1921 ordinances limiting immigration had come into force, and access to the USA for potential immigrants from Eastern Europe had become more difficult but had not reached the severely restrictive levels that were shortly to come. After a period of organizational delays reflecting different community agendas in the USA, "The Association of Chasidim, Members of Chabad in the USA" was established in Tamuz 5684 [1924] and legally registered as a company under the laws of the State of New York, with a constitution, a board of 14 directors of whom at least two thirds were US citizens, formal The .([יח] signatories and by-laws, and an office address in Brooklyn, NY (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 18 aims of the Association were declared officially to be “to develop the intellectual, material and social status of its members, to enhance the spirit of Judaism among its members and their children, to create general link of mutual support and aid between the members, and to enable the formation of a communal center for its activities (communal, civic, social) in the various congregations of the Association, and to develop the American spirit My italics – this last phrase appears to have been included in the] .)ולפתח את רוח האמריקאות( Hebrew-language documentation, including a “constitution,” submitted along with other English language documents required by the various governmental bodies for official registration in 1924 as a company (ibid.). This phrase represents the complete antithesis of Rayatz’ views and intentions, as can be seen from his frequent criticisms of the way of life of American Jewry.] Following the formal establishment of the Aguda, Rayatz was able to call on the American rabbis Av 5684 25 [רי[ to support the new organization (Schneersohn, Y.Y.S., Igrot, Vol. 1, Letter 210 [1924]). Rayatz’ next step in his campaign to revitalize Habad in the USA, was the establishment in the USA of “Agudat Achei Temimim.” A small number of graduates of the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim in Eastern Europe had immigrated to the USA, and Rayatz sought to recruit and involve them in Habad activities, based on an assumption of their positive memories of the Yeshiva experience. The idea of Agudat Achei Temimim was first raised by Rayatz in a letter (Schneersohn, Kislev 5686 [1925]) to R Eliyahu Simpson, who was 6 ,[רפ] Y.Y.S., Igrot, Vol. 1, Letter 280 mentioned above in regard to the establishment of Agudat Chasidei Chabad. Rayatz employed similar arguments in promoting the establishment of the Achim as he did in driving for the

establishment of Agudat Chasidei Chabad, while calling in addition on the feelings of conscience of the graduates of the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim to instill in their present communities something of the communal warmth and the depth of study that had benefitted them in their yeshiva days. The aims of Agudat Achei Temimim were to …promote the spirit of their shared experience as Temimim students, to meet regularly to study Hasidut, to be involved in the welfare of other to be involved in other ,[(רוחני) and spiritual (גשמי) Temimim [both material Habad institutions and activities in the USA (at that time, primarily the Agudat Chasidei Chabad) and to support the Temimim Yeshivot in Europe, and the Admor and his holy institutions, as well as supporting his cadre of .([כד] poermamant students. (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 24 In bringing about this association, Rayatz exhibited the same concerns and patterns of managerial behavior as discussed concerning the formation of the Aguda. On the managerial side, Rayatz Iyar 5686 [1926]) that the 25 ,[רצא] demanded (Schneersohn, Y.Y.S., Igrot, Vol. 1, Letter 291 Agudat Achei Temimim have specific aims and goals, to be defined in the society’s statutes, following the holding of a conference of all Temimim to discuss the new society, formulate its charter and elect office bearers. As will be discussed below, Rayatz is evidenced here as a strong believer in the importance of conferences, charters and statutes, the establishment of committees and designation of officers and responsibilities as well as the need for formal summaries of the protocols of meetings. As had been his wont in earlier correspondence, once again he called for the collection of names and addresses of all US-based Temimim, their curriculae vitarum, specifically, places of work (especially if employed in a communal capacity (rabbi, shochet, teacher etc.), and their ability and willingness to teach Divrei Elohim Haim. Rayatz’ letter then repeats the (by-now) familiar themes of setting fixed times for study, establishment of chederim, and the assistance to be provided by Achei Temimim to (the by-now established) Agudat Chasidei Chabad. Together with the educational and social aims that Rayatz espoused in open correspondence, he also sought to make use of Achei Temimim in a less publicly disclosed manner. According to Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 25) Rayatz sent to R Jacobson, who had been appointed Director of Agudat Chasidei Chabad, “secret letter“ containing a “secret lecture” in which, he stipulated two goals for the work of Achei Temimim: they were to )הרצאה חשאית( work for the benefit of the Temimim in USA (the public goal) while at the same time they were to work towards the undisclosed goal of bringing fellow Temimim to the USA (Schneersohn, YYS, Iyar 5786 [1926]). Rayatz noted that “clearly the two 25 ,[ג'תשצט ] Igrot, Vol. 11, Letter 3799 issues are complex and involve many other considerations where it was imperative not to fail.” For example, there must be differentiation between Anash and Temimim in such a way that Anash will see the Temimim as a separate group at a higher level than their own level. For the

Temimim in the USA, the main aim after the organization of the Achei Temimim and the regularization of fixed hours of study, was to collect funds and strive for the establishment of a Yeshiva in the USA along the lines of the Tomchei Temimim of Eastern Europe. This last aim appears not to have been generally publicized until sometime after the establishment of Achei Concerning the aim of importing Temimim .([כד-כח] Temimim (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 24-28 graduates from Eastern Europe, Rayatz wrote that the role of the US base was to determine where there were openings in the USA for rabbis, teachers, mashpi’im and shochtim, to inform their fellow Temimim in USA and abroad, and to assist in working towards bringing these people to the USA. Rayatz’ sense of the need for strong organizations is expressed explicitly here: “all these aims depend on the existence of a well-established and recognized organization, which must be firstly an organization of Hasidim that binds Anash in every place …so that they have a feeling of common purpose and belonging…in the spirit of practical Habad Hasidism [that] strengthens Torah students and shomrei mitzvoth. Practical Hasidism is not limited to making charitable contributions for a good purpose, but requires participation in Torah study….” Rayatz thus saw in the establishment of the Achei Temimim a manpower resource for the attainment of the same objectives as had been stated when the Agudat Chasidei Chabad was formed, as well as for serving as an initial source of influence by the employment and “infiltration” of his students into existing communities to carry his messages of Habad Hasidism. From the same secret lecture noted above, it is possible to gain insight into Rayatz’ perception that the tasks needed in order to realize his vison of a large Habad movement in USA, had simply been neglected by the American affiliates. He quotes an (unnamed) American Jewish journal that cites the existence of 1000 synagogues in Newark, and further states that he has found out that there are 1.7 million Jews in that area (no indication is given of the source of these data), from which he deduces that the minuscule number of Habad synagogues is simply a consequence of lack of initiative and involvement. “I have looked into how many synagogues of Anash there are, and how many there could be with work and action, and with God’s help.” Rayatz proceeds to take to task Anash in America, “who live in a huge country with freedom to publish, to speak out clearly, to raise the issues of fixed times for Torah, for organizing yourselves, for strengthening Torah students, to call on Anash to arouse them to the need for chederim, public meeting places and unity, to be for one another Achiezer and Achisamach" (ibid.) 12. The “secret letter" contains a melange of mixed messages: In addition to his exasperation that so little has been done, mixed with a measure of apparent naiveté that dismisses the objective difficulties of operating in the American reality that is very different from Rayatz’

12 Although the reference to Achiezer and Achisamach is Biblical, it is interesting to speculate about a possible cross- appears in the “Ten Commandments of the השומר הוא אחיעזר ואחיסמך cultural influence on Rayatz. The sentence Members of Hashomer Hatzair", the Zionist Socialist youth movement, from the late 1910s until the 1940s (Shemdi, 18; Ophir, 14). 16

idealized picture, Rayatz also urges an image of moderation. The call to Anash must be written in English, “in gentle language that is easily understood… and should be edited to ensure special Iyar 5786 25 ,[ג'תשצט] attention to moderation.” (Schneersohn, Y.Y.S., Igrot, Vol. 11, Letter 3799 .([עא] p. 81 ,[1926] Eventually the arrangements were concluded, and Agudat Achei Temimim was established in 1926. At the second meeting of its management, the proposal to work towards the establishment of a Central Yeshiva in America, along the lines of the Tomchei Temimim of Eastern Europe, was discussed and rejected because of the perceived inability to raise the necessary funds and because of the lack of sufficient students possessing a suitable level of knowledge. The proposal to build a yeshiva was replaced by a the more modest target of setting up more chederim, along the lines of those in Eastern Europe and employing the teaching methods and materials of Eastern Europe, while continuing to promote the immigration of more Temimim to .(]כח[ the USA (Levin , Toldot, 1988, p. 28 During the period 1926-27, the major concern for Habad and the Admor was the persecution of Jewish educators in Russia following the communist revolution, and the policies against Jewish practice and education implemented by the Yevseksia. These events ultimately led to the arrest of Rayatz, his subsequent release from prison on 14 Tamuz 5687 [1927], and his exile, first to Latvia and thence to Poland. In 1928, Rayatz and his immediate family and entourage moved to Riga, but most of his followers remained behind in Russia, thus cutting him off from the significant sources of income that were needed to maintain the Rebbe’s personal and public expenses and his secret work such as the printing of sichot and ma’amarim, the upkeep of all his institutions, and in particular the ongoing support of his cadre of permanent students.13 The greater part of his income came from Anash in Russia but this change would now make the support of American Anash all the more important. In the USA, this period saw a near cessation of the activities of the Agudat Chasidei Chabad with the exception of fund collection, until their next large task—the visit of Rayatz himself to the USA. Essentially all work on the topics discussed above was superseded by the need .(]לז- מ[ to plan and coordinate the details of Rayatz’ tour (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 37- 40

1.2 The Impact of Rayatz’ Visit (1929-1930)

In Nissan 5689 [1929], Rayatz announced his plan to visit USA, and harnessed the members of Agudat Chasidei Chabad to prepare the visit, which took place in Elul of that year, after a short separate trip to Palestine. Letters were sent to all known Habad and “Nusach Ha’ari” synagogues

13 Permanent, on-going study was considered a virtue of supreme importance: the duty to support and maintain life- להחזיק - long students was covered by the term used frequently by Rayatz in the context of the aims of his fund-raising את המעמד 17

asking once again for lists of members and their addresses.14 A general meeting of Hasidei Habad n America was called for, and local community meetings were held in an attempt to build up enthusiasm for the visit. A Kol Koreh (public appeal) was sent to Habad centers calling for their participation in an asefa clalit (general meeting), and similar notices were published in Jewish Much of the visit was taken up with .(]לח[ newspapers of the time (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 38 issues relating to the arousal of public awareness about the state of Russian Jewry, which Rayatz viewed as the main purpose of his visit, but he also wrote (during the course of his visit) that he had come in response to an invitation from Hasidei America, who financed the trip, and that he would endeavor to strengthen Habad Hasidism ((Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 11, Letter 3828 Iyar 5786 [1926]). The issue of Russian Jewry is beyond the scope of this paper and 25 ,]ג'תתכח] will not be discussed further: what is relevant here is the activity undertaken by Rayatz during his visit for the sake of strengthening American Habad. Despite the facts that notices were placed in three of the largest circulation Yiddish newspapers of the time (Der Tag, Morgen Zhurnal and Forverts) and that each carried reports of the arrival of Rayatz in New York on 17 Elul 5690 [1929], his reception was modest. Levin (Toldot, ascribed this to the fact that most American Jews were not informed about or (]מא[ p. 41 ,1988 interested in the doings of world Jewry leaders (at a time when dissemination of news was relatively primitive compared to present-day mass media coverage), and the arrival of Haredi visitors in the USA was unusual, and thus, of minor consequence. On his arrival Rayatz himself expected to address a formal audience with the people involved in his visit, but he was initially accommodated in the apartment of R Eliyahu Simpson above the synagogue on Borough Park, and no audience had been arranged. The press coverage of Rayatz’ arrival in Morgen Zhurnal and Der Tag spoke of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak’s following of Habad Hasidim as numbering thousands in New York and the rest of the USA, and told of hundreds of Jews from various Jewish organizations that wished to meet him. The articles also described the Lubavitcher Rebbe as one of the most important figures in Orthodox Jewry in the whole of Eastern Europe. However, as noted, Rayatz’ public reception did not meet these expectations, and it is certainly possible to speculate that the material for the news articles had been prepared by and received from Habad itself. A few days after Rayatz’ arrival in America he wrote an open letter to Anash ((Schneersohn, Elul 5689, [1929]), with the opening statement: “Just as 26 ,[תנח] Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 2, Letter 448 Hasidism without Hasidim is impossible, so too is it impossible for there to be Hasidim without Hasidut.” Once again drawing on the authority of Rashab’s final testament (Section 1.1) that commanded Rayatz and all Anash to ensure that in every place where Anash may find themselves

14 In lists of “Habad synagogues” reproduced by Levin (Toldot, 1988), some synagogues declared themselves as Habad communities, some were classified Habad by virtue of their known congregants, while a few described themselves as practicing Nusach Ha’ari. There is no indication in the literature studied in this work as to whether the specific declaration of the practice of Nusach Ha’ari was intended to differentiate these communities from other Habad synagogues, or was simply the jargon used by the particular communitrty to indicate that it followed Habad practice. 18

they have to gather together for the purpose of studying Habad Hasidism at fixed times and in a fixed place. This message, in essence a Rosh Hashanah greeting to Anash in America, is essentially identical to the idea that Rayatz had expounded repeatedly during the preceding years in relation to the aims that lay behind the establishment of Agudat Chasidei Chabad and Agudat Achei Temimim. The fact that, at this point of time during the week of Selichot before Rosh Hashanah, Rayatz felt obliged to reiterate the basic requirements of Hasidic communal life, was a strong indicator that these practices were not being followed by large numbers of Anash and others of Habad stock. Furthermore, that Rayatz felt it necessary in the same letter to call on all Hasidei Habad to send him their names and addresses is an equally strong indication that the communal organization that he had expected to be installed with the formation of the two Agudot had not been fulfilled. During his visit to the USA Rayatz was to see for himself the extent of the deterioration of Habad practice. Liebman (1975, p. 36) describes American Orthodoxy at this time as “under the leadership of rabbis who seemed in despair for the future of Orthodoxy , and convinced of the need for compromise in regard to religious practice, Jewish learning, the adoption of 'American modes of dress, language and behavior.” Liebman’s analysis is overly global and was conducted without applying the resolution necessary to address the Hasidic groups, and specifically Habad. Nonetheless, it is clear from the nature or Rayatz’ admonitions to American Anash that the same pressures that affected general Orthodoxy also had an effect on Habad Hasidic communities - in general all orthodoxy faced the challenges that Shabbat observance was threatened by economic pressures, that religious study and Jewish education of the children had severely deteriorated, that kashrut supervision was in the hands of people who were considered unreliable or careless, ritual baths) were simply- מקוואות) and that family purity was close to extinct because mikva’ot not available (Liebman 1975, ibid.). One of the first actions undertaken after Rayatz’ arrival in the USA was a decision of the Agudat Chasidei Chabad to establish a branch of the Aguda in every place where Hasidei Habad were to be found. This was followed by a letter reminding members that they had undertaken to assist and that they should send a list of names and addresses of Habad affiliates known to them The repeated requests to provide names and addresses .(]מט-נ[ Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 49-50) again reflect the probability that these requests were ignored or, at best, had continually yielded minimal results. This, in turn, strongly suggests the inability at this point in time to attract new and even former Habad supporters to join the Habad forums in a more active form. A quantitative measure of the weakness of the organization can be appreciated from the the city [New York] was divided into ten :(]נ[ following data supplied by Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 50 sections for the purpose of collecting information about Habad supporters, with each section separately providing a list of names and addresses. At the time of [Levin's] writing only two such

files were extant, listing 31 and 44 members, respectively. Assuming that these two districts are representative of the whole (and one of them was headed by R Jacobson, himself the leading administrative figure in Agudat Chasidei Chabad), one can conclude that the core of Habad affiliates in the whole of New York was at this time of the order of 400-500, i.e., about the size of one average Conservative or Reform congregation of the time. ([Shvat 5690 [1930 11 ,[תסט ] Rayatz’ letter (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 2, Letter 468 written more than half-way through his American visit reflects his disappointment with the local Orthodox, including Habad, leadership, but presents an optimistic picture with regard to the enthusiasm of the rank-and-file Hasidim. This letter was composed in response to a telegram bearing the signatures of the Rebbes of Gur and Alexander, the Hefetz Haim and the chairmen of Agudat HaRabbanim of Poland and Warsaw in support of Rayatz’ efforts in USA on behalf of Russian Jewry. The context of Rayatz’ letter is official correspondence between different wings of the Ultraorthodox community so that both his criticism of the local American orthodox leadership (" …much anguish was caused me when I saw how the local leadership was disorganized…”) and his praise of the rank-and-file Hasidim (“…on my journey here from the first day in every place and at all times I meet our people whose hearts are awakened for the better…and they arrive full of enthusiasm and uplifted…”) were possibly both positions that Rayatz felt obligated to take. Although Levin cites the latter passage as evidence that Rayatz’ visit had had a positive effect on the local movement, it should be noted that in the context of writing to the leaders of factions other than Habad, Rayatz could hardly be dismissive of his own faction and his own efforts for their benefit. A colder assessment of the situation in American Habad is given by Rayatz himself: I repeat what I have written several times before: the fate of Anash and their future depends on our labors, and now that I have come to this country I have seen and am convinced that it is so. From day to day by various experiences I see that the resources of life are bent, and their heads bowed between their knees with the guilt of inactivity, lack of attention and closing of the eyes. I am happy that in the 120 days I have been in this country, God has helped me to re-open the eyes of some number of Anash to their situation and to the ways of and study of Habad Hasidism…. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 11, :([Tevet 5690 [1930 ,[ג'תתכה] Letter 3825 Nonetheless, Rayatz despaired of improving the level of religious life among American Habad. He concluded this letter: God has seen my tortures of soul and wanderings and my broken heart (because of the oppression that affects my suffering brothers) …it breaks me into slivers to see their bitter fate... [God] give me the power to remove some of the rust that has accumulated on them since they settled on the sea shores of this terrible and frightening spiritual iciness. I await the light of goodness to come when the elders of Anash and the Temimim students …devote themselves to the holy work of arousing and enlightening in the light of goodness…(ibid.).

Despite Rayatz’ personal disappointment at his assessment of the state of American Habad, he maintained cordial links with them, while retaining his stance that Habad in America had to return to its roots of study and ritual practices. In 1931 he wrote: It was pleasant to meet with Anash and Torah lovers in your country and I enjoyed their inner closeness [to me] during my visit with them…I hope that of our fathers and holy leaders my labor and effort will]זכות[ with the merit give its yield of good fruit in the awakening of Anash and strengthening of Shvat 5690 11 ,[תסט ] their studies(Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 2, Letter 468 .( [Heshvan 5691 [1931 18 ,[תצד ] Letter 494 :[1930] In similar vein, he wrote approvingly to encourage local initiatives undertaken towards improving the level of knowlwdge of Habad Hasidim: I am I pleased… that from Kislev 1930 an association was established in New York filled with people of Habad stock, which was also joined by people from various walks of life including businessmen, people with higher education diplomas such as doctors and others who have come together to study Habad Hasidism. They have found themselves a teacher to study Hasidut with them: the association continues to exist to this day, and I am in correspondence Iyar 8 ,[תקעו] contact with them (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 2, Letter 576 5692 [1932]). During Rayatz’ journey to the USA he visited communities in several cities where there was some Habad following and in each of which a branch of Agudat Chasidei Chabad had been set up to These cities included .(]נח-סח[ handle arrangements for the visit (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 58- 68 Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia and St Louis and (towards the end of the journey) Washington D.C. where he was granted an audience with President Hoover. The stated purpose was for Rayatz to thank the President for the freedom granted to the Jews in USA, but the interview was clearly no more than a formality or public-relations spectacle, because out of a chapter of 360 lines devoted to the Washington visit and preparations for Rayatz’ departure from the USA, the meeting with the President was covered in no more than 20 lines (Levin, Toldot, .(]פה-פח[ pp. 85-88 ,1988 During Rayatz’ stay in the USA, the possibility of his settling in America was investigated, and at one point it seemed that the decision had almost been made (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 88 Various discussions were held between Rayatz and American Hasidim in Chicago and .(]פח[ Detroit, in which Rayatz appeared to hover between his reluctance to remain in America, because of the low spiritual level there, and his finding that there was “good material” with which to work to restore Jewish identity to Americanized Jews. Furthermore, Rayatz felt a strong obligation to return to Poland and his work with his Eastern European Hasidim (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 89-94 Another consideration may have been Rayatz’ own experience: when the Habad court .(]פט-צד[ under his father, Rashab, was forced to move in 1915 from Lubavitch (with its large Jewish population in the town itself and its environs, to Rostov-on-Don, the small size of Jewish population led Habad to lose adherents and influence (Biale, 2018, 550f).

In rejecting offers to remain in the USA, Rayatz explained that at that stage (1930), even if there was some interest among American Jews to “assume the yoke of Torah,” nothing had been done in an orderly and Hasidic manner to establish a spiritual and material base for the purpose. The establishment of a community base does not happen by itself. It requires work and promotion of the idea, all within the framework of a strong organizational structure. This challenge is not beyond the will of those committed to a brit of diligent and orderly labor and when the work is undertaken long-term with joint efforts the desired stage will be reached. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 2, Letter 494 ([Heshvan 5691 [1930]; Vol. 11, Letter 3847, 20 Heshvan 5691 [1930 18 ,[תצד] He further explained that his poor health and the needs of his Yeshivot and the community in Europe made his settling in the USA impossible. He called upon the American supporters of Habad to create the infrastructure, and fulfil the commitments that they had supposedly taken upon promoting the ideas of Habad; maintaining - )תעמולה( ”themselves, i.e., teaching, “propaganda contact with Anash and forming communities and study groups to study Hasidut at fixed times; maintaining and increasing the contributions for maintaining the Tomchei Temimim Yeshivot; and creating Habad institutions according to the teachings of Habad Rebbes. Not surprisingly, the above list of tasks is essentially identical with those he had demanded to be enshrined as the aims of every putative organization established by Hasidei Habad in America, none of which had to date produced results of the type Rayatz had expected. He therefore called upon Agudat Chasidei Chabad and its committees to meet and devote themselves to creating the organization required for the fulfillment of the enterprise (ibid.). Much later, in 1941, after some measure of successful endeavor in the USA, Rayatz commented retrospectively: I could have saved myself much suffering had I come then [1930-31]to the USA, but I saw that even the pure in heart see a sort of obligation to follow the comforts of the world, even the rabbis and shochtim are drawn to avoda and I felt what influence ]כך נהיג בעלמא[ zara that is common in this world could be exerted on this community by a rabbi or a shochet without beard ,[א'תרטז ] Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1616) [פאיות[ and side-locks 18 Heshvan 5702 [1941]). R Yosef Yitzchak remained true to his conviction that no deviation from traditional Hasidic behavior would be acceptable. Following Rayatz’ final answer that he would not be returning to settle in the USA [1931], Hasidut Habad faced the question of how to continue. Their first step was to convene a meeting to initiate the reorganization of Agudat Chasidei Chabad, which up until then had proved itself inept in bringing about congregational organization, and to present an assessment of the actual state of Habad in the USA. To further complicate matters for the Aguda, a proposal that Rayatz to the USA proved unworkable. The proposed emissary was to ( שד''ר( send a personal emissary be tasked with the dual role of travelling from community to community teaching Divrei Elohim Haim, while also collecting funds to assist in the maintenance of the Habad institutions and

The combination of the .)להחזיק את המעמד( Rayatz’ cadre of permanent students in Europe extreme difficulty in obtaining visas to the USA and the deterioration of economic circumstances following the Great Depression, in essence, ruled out this possibility for some years. It was not until 1933 that a visa was obtained for R Yitzhak Hamatmid Horowitz to enter the USA in the role of emissary of Rayatz for a period of three years. The results of R Horowitz’s work are described as having had a “tremendous influence ([צז-צח] enthusiastically by Levin (Toldot, 1988, pp. 97-98 over everyone he encountered both because of his humble presentation, his ability to make meaningful contact with his audiences and his lucid and convincing presentation of Hasidut Chabad and the teachings of Rayatz.” However, Rayatz himself summed up the stay of Hamatmid somewhat more modestly: it brought significant achievements on the financial level and raised the spirit among Anash. However, the great dispersion of the Hasidim and the lack of knowledge of the country led to the result that his work did not achieve what it should have, and it will be necessary for him to spend time in the country again .([1936] תרצו Tamuz 2 ,[תתמה ]Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 3, Letter 845) Efforts to send Horowitz on a second mission at this time failed because a suitable visa could not be obtained, and it was not until 1938 that other emissaries could be sent to the USA. One of the tasks entrusted to R Horowitz during his stay was to reverse the decline in the level of activity of Agudat Chasidei Chabad. Rayatz instructed Horowitz as follows: It is known that since Agudat Chasidei Chabad was established in USA it has very good achievements in arousing the inner feelings of the people of Hasidic there in regard to support for my activities in strengthening )גזע החסידים(stock Torah and Hasidut. However, recently the work of the Aguda has fallen strongly and a heavy deficit is felt in all aspects of support for Anash. There is an urgent need to assemble the managers of the Aguda and its branches in the various cities with the askanim of Anash and revive the activities of the Aguda. .([Iyar 5694 [1934 ,]תשכא[ Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 3, Letter 721) Rayatz’ demand for an emergency conference was couched in terms of accelerating the study of Hasidut among Anash, bringing the offspring of those with roots in Habad under the wing of the Aguda, providing educational material, and putting the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim on a sound financial basis (“all in honor of our Rebbes”) by having a branch of Agudat Chasidei Chabad in The nature of the “solutions” that were adopted serve .(]קא[ each city (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 101 to demonstrate that, in fact, the heart of the problem was that financial support from the USA for Rayatz’ institutions had fallen, making their maintenance highly problematic. The actions taken included the opening of an office for Agudat Chasidei Chabad (instead of the room it had previously occupied in the business premises of one of its major supporters15 and the employment of R. Jacobson as full-time director (a staff of one!). The Aguda commenced the

15 The office of the Aguda was apparently in the business premises of the family Kremer (Kramer), Lubavitcher Hasidim. The scion of the family Rabbi Moshe Eliezer Kramer, was a founder member of Agudat Hasidei Chabad. A son, David Kramer was a lawyer who was involved some years later in the negotiations with the US Government for their support in helping rescue Rayatz from Poland. 23

mainly ,)חב''ד בולעטין( ”dissemination of a mimeographed monthly news booklet,”Habad Bulletin in Yiddish with some Hebrew, containing ”sermons” as well as information about events to come and reports on past activities16. Events of a religious nature were also organized, but there seems to have been great difficulty in gathering a respectable audience. Each farbrengen seems to have been notified by personalized invitation, whereas according to the tradition instituted by Rayatz, each Shabbat Mevarchim should automatically have generated a farbrengen event. Invitations were drafted in ways that invoked the Rebbe’s authority to ensure participation in events that, had there been regular practice of Hasidic customs, there would have been no need for explanation. Several examples are cited in Toldot, of which the following are illustrative: From the invitation to the Shabbat Mevarchim for two Aguda branches in New York of 22 Iyar 5697 [1937]: “We are sure that you are aware of the desire of the Rebbe (Shalita) because it has been published in the Habad Bulletin” … [that you attend, etc.] (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 106 ;([קו] From the invitation to the Shabbat Mevarchim Farbrengen of the Borough Park branch of Agudat Chasidei Chabad of 21 Sivan 5696 [1936]: “We wish to convey to you the desire of the .(]קז[ Admor (Shalita) to say Psalms and to study Hasidut” (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 107 And, finally on the difficulty of attracting participants to study Habad Hasidism (from the invitation to participate in a Tanya group on 21 Sivan 5696 [1936]: “Once again I bring to your attention that we have a great obligation ... to our Rebbes... to increase the size of our study .(]קז[ group, to bring new members…whenever we meet…” (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 107 Annual conferences of the Aguda in the subsequent years (1937 and 1939) (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 161) also featured resolutions that included obeisance to the aim of uniting all Anash and their descendants and to evoke in them the spirit of Hasidut, to bring them to study and thought of Divrei Elohim Haim…to organize communities who pray nusach arizal … to oversee the spiritual needs of these communities, …and to create communities of nusach arizal where such .(]קיד[ do not exist (1936 Conference, Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 114 As seen from the preceding paragraphs, the actual achievements in these areas appear to be modest in the extreme. The above relative paucity of spiritual activity by Agudat Chasidei Chabad is to be contrasted with its activities in the economic area. Another of the decisions of the same conference was “to be of assistance to R Yosef Yitzchak and to maintain his permanent students ,and to provide him with the means to support his Yeshivot” (Levin, Toldot]"להחזיק את המעמד"[ Perhaps surprisingly, some quantitative information is available about the .(]קיד[ p. 114 ,1988

the Habad Bulletin was published between 1935-1939, but many ,(]קיט[ According to Levin, (Toldot, 1988, p. 119 16 issues have not survived. An incomplete collection is to be found in the National Libraray of Israel.

extent of the Aguda’s financial activities (or at least their intentions) following the 1936 conference. The Aguda undertook to raise $10,000 per annum (approx. $178,000 in 2018 terms) during the coming years for the benefit of Rayatz and his activities. This target sum was divided between the major communities (New York $5,000; Chicago $2000, Philadelphia $1,000, and the rest among the smaller communities). In addition the Aguda pledged to raise a further sum of $12,500 (approx. $222,000 in 2018 value), which was earmarked specifically for the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim ($6000 for Warsaw; $1500 for Vilna, and $5000 for other places with small yeshivot). Neighborhood Gabbaim were appointed to implement the collection of these sums, which were to be raised by means of collections by emissaries (meshulachim), collection boxes in private homes and “lovers of Torah” in general, appeals in synagogues on Shabbat and Testivals, donations made by private benefactors, sale of "mishloach manot" before Jewish holidays and the proceeds of payments made in return for special “honors” (such as Hatan Torah and Hatan .(]קיד-קטו[ Bereshit on Simchat Torah) (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 114 Rayatz’ reply to the report on this conference expressed thanks for the resolutions, but insisted that managerial steps be taken to ensure that all the target budgets were met, because delay in the payments caused great hardship. His reply also revealed an interesting aspect concerning the future of Tomchei Temimim graduates in Europe. Rayatz related that every year there were a number of graduates who could not find [rabbinical or similar] positions. The solution, in order to keep them within the “halls of Torah,” to allow them to concentrate on study, and not be forced into trade or business, was to set up small yeshivot where these people The whole basis of striving for greater .(]קיח[ could be absorbed (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 118 numbers of yeshivot and yeshiva students is thus to enable the “corporate apparatus" of the yeshiva network to continue to grow. This can happen only if there is sufficient financial support from outside. The similarities to present-day life in certain Israeli fields are striking. Habad life in the decade of the 30s was thus characterized by weak management, an aging population faced with economic and social pressures and subject to the “temptations of Americanization." During this period the leadership attempted to maintain the sense of community and belonging by encouraging participation in Habad activities including study of Habad Hasidism, but without significant success particularly in regard to study. At the same time they endeavored to continue to provide substantial financial support to the operations of Habad and Tomchei Temimim in Eastern Europe, while being subject to criticism from Rayatz because of poor management, and the failure to achieve results on the spiritual-educational front. This was the nature of Habad in America that faced Rayatz upon his arrival in New York in 1940.

Chapter 2: Consolidation and Expansion of American Habad under Rayatz

Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn arrived in New York on Adar Bet 9, 5700 [March 19, 1940], having survived the bombing and conquest of Warsaw by the Nazis, a danger-ridden overland transfer to Riga, Latvia, and the ocean journey from Sweden to the USA. He was accompanied by an entourage that included his daughter and son-in-law, R Shmaryahu Gurary, and three secretaries, R Haim Lieberman, R Haim Mordechai Isaac Hedkov, and R Nissan Mindel, all of whom were to play important roles in Rayatz’ efforts to reconstruct Habad in America. The situation facing Rayatz upon his arrival can be summarized as follows: his community of followers in Eastern Europe had been left behind and the great majority of those in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania were to perish in the Holocaust, while contact was essentially lost with whatever clandestine following remained in Soviet Russia. (The fate of Russian Jewry and Habad activity in Russia in this period is beyond the scope of this thesis.) Rayatz’ yeshivot had been dispersed and the physical state of his students was unknown, and the Habad community in the USA that received him was weak in number, largely aging and possessing little in communal wealth or influence on the Jewish community at large17. His stature as Rebbe of Habad appears not to have been in jeopardy: the loyalty (albeit lacking enthusiasm) of such active following that Habad did possess in America was essentially assured. However, Rayatz wanted no less than the re- establishment of Habad in the image of the Habad that was in the process of being destroyed in Eastern Europe. To attain this aim, Rayatz was faced with the need to: i. Provide inspiration via the infusion of ideas and ideology that would generate active involvement and initiate growth of the movement by bringing back former followers of Habad and introducing new members and young blood ii. Create a functioning organization that could be relied upon to ensure that members were informed and activated iii. Use the organization to promote the activities, ideas and ideology of Habad, and in so doing, turn the organization into a mass movement. Meeting these requirements would, in fact, resemble the modus operandi adopted by all the large-scale political movements that arose in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th

17 To influence American government authorities to act on Rayatz’ behalf, i.e., to intervene with the Nazis to rescue him from Poland and to provide visas for Rayatz and his entourage, Habad USA was asked to provide documentation that the organization possessed assets worth $500,000 and that the organization could support the on-going expenses of the Rebbe. Rabbi Jacobson, Head of Agudat Chasidei Chabad in America, was forced to admit that “in principle we have no system and control of the income of the Lubavitcher Rabbi, and thus cannot furnish such a statement." (Letter from Jacobson to Lawyer Rhoade of the legal team representing Habad in its dealings with the US Government; Nov 1939, cited by Rigg 2016, p. 153). 26

centuries, based on a three-pronged program of “Ideology, Organization, Propaganda.” 18 Gries ”הסתדרות ותעמולה- Sefer, 1992, pp. 32-36) has pointed out that the terms “histadrut veta’amula) are used frequently in the writings of the early Habad leaders, who sought to increase the size and influence of their movement. Moreover, not only the terms themselves but the methods used were often “borrowed” from the activities of the contemporaneous maskilim, who strove in parallel to change and influence the content, methodology and purpose of Jewish education of 18th and 19th centuries.19 Rayatz’ correspondence and other writings are replete with the terms,

and related expressions, such as “foundation ,”הסתדרות-and ”organization ” תעמולה - propaganda“

examples of which will be given in the sections that ,” הקמה - and “establishment ”התייסדות – follow. It is certain that Rayatz was familiar with the organizational programs of his predecessors, particularly the work of Rashab in which he had been personally involved, and that he understood that in order to achieve his aims of converting Habad into a mass movement in the USA, his operations would have to include strong organization and pro-active propaganda. Each of the institutions that Rayatz created, some of which are discussed below, was involved either directly or indirectly, in creating or contributing towards the creation of a strong central organization and in disseminating the message and the ideology, even though none of these institutions was formed solely to serve as one of the pillars of the “ideology, propaganda, organization” tripod. Even before effective work was started on the ideology and propaganda pillars, Habad turned its attention to providing a physical center for organization. Under the heading of providing a permanent home for the Rebbe, a building was sought that would also provide synagogue, study-hall, meeting room and office facilities. A committee of the Aguda approached a number of wealthy, established members of Anash, asking them to participate in the “growing work of Agudat Chasidei Chabad” and to contribute to the purchase of a suitable residence for Rayatz (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 178), which in August 1940 led to the purchase of the by-now iconic house at 770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn. The property served as residence, central synagogue, offices and initially as the site of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim until the latter outgrew this location: 770 Eastern Parkway remains today the spiritual center and serves as the center of administration and organization of the Habad movement. It is clear that R Yosef Yitzchak thought of himself as a personage of importance. In the crucial weeks before his rescue from Poland was effected, he was still trying to negotiate with his American rescuers for a visa that would enable him to arrive not as a simple rabbi with a license

18 Because of Rayatz’ many travels, including those in Germany, it is tempting to speculate that he was aware of the extreme and distasteful example of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. In addition to its fanatically racialist political analysis and ideology, it devotes a major section (Mein Kampf, Chapter 11, “Propaganda and Organization”) to the importance of creating a functioning organizational structure and to the need for on-going generation of propaganda to be disseminated by the active arms of the organization. 19 I am indebted to Prof Ze’ev Gries who brought to my attention his use of the phrase “Organizatzia ve-propaganda” as translation of the terms “histadrut ve-ta’amula” , as used by the early Habad leaders, and the insight he provided in understanding the processes employed by modern Habad in disemminating their message. 27

for himself and his close family, but as a religious leader entitled to a special license that would enable him to take his entourage of secretariat and a few families, together with 10-15 students (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 186). In the event, Rayatz did succeed in bringing a small entourage with him, including his three secretaries. In addition to ideology, organization and propaganda, a strong sense of identification of the individual with the movement had to be created and fostered, initially of those within the group and then amongst those to be recruited. In the case of Habad in the early 1940s, one of the means that Rayatz employed to this end was to demonize American society, and in particular American Jewry, and identify it as being responsible for the travails of the Jews in Europe. Furthermore, it was necessary to create an in-group of “True Believers” (Hoffer 1952) by promoting a “Habad-identity” based on Habad-specific beliefs, practices and rituals. The following sections deal with the manner in which the decisions, actions and instructions of Rayatz served to implement each aspect of the overall program in order to create the beginnings of a successful mass movement. It would not be correct to say that in Rayatz’ time Habad could be considered a mass movement, but it can be said with certainty that it was the infrastructure put in place by Rayatz, including the various organizations that enabled Habad to reach different segments of the Jewish community in America, that enabled his successor, R Menachem Mendel Schneerson, to convert Habad into a mass movement.

2.1 Ideology and Leadership

R Yosef Yitzchak went to considerable lengths to strengthen the legitimacy of his teachings by invoking the historic aura and authority of the Admorim who had preceded him. In so doing, he utilized the copious literature of his predecessors as well as his own writings. Roth (Keitzad, 2017) has presented a systematic analysis of the genres of Habad writings, the way they were utilized in Habad, and the way in which they were intended to be understood by the various audiences to whom they were addressed. These works include the writings known in Habad as ma’amarim, droshim and kuntresim, which are all characterized by a deeply intellectual, academic and approach. Droshim and ma’amrim are vehicles for explaining and disemminating )עיוני( theoretical the hidden or concealed kabbalistic teachings of Habad Hasidism in a way that an audience, educated in the ways of Habad, would understand and internalize (Rapaport- Albert, Hagiography, 1988, 139, n107). Drashot were generally longer and included one or more ma’amarim, and both over a period of weeks. Ma’amarim and )המשכים( were sometimes presented in installments droshim were presented orally by the Admor, who utilized specific modes of presentation involving niggunim (melodies) that were recognized by Habad communities as an essential part of the highly spiritual message being delivered. Ma’amarim were generally presented orally in public on a Shabbat or Festival, when they could obviously not be transcribed, but were written down 28

after the Shabbat or Festival, based on the combined memory of scholars trained to recall the whole of the spoken ma’amar. The subsequent “hard-copy” versions were then either the Admor’s original written texts or versions obtained from the recall process that were edited by the Admor. Kuntresim were written tracts focused on a specific theme, written by the Admor, often in response to a specific question that affected the community. Kuntresim were approach that characterized droshim and ma’amrim )עיוני( characterized by the same intellectual (Roth, Keitzad, 2017, 68ff). Sichot, on the other hand, according to Roth (Keitzad, 2017, 101-105), have none of intellectual or deeply spiritual content of the ma’amar. , The Rebbe does not stand during the presentation of sichot, and the niggunim are not those associated with the presentation or study of a ma’amar. Sichot often contain legends, folklore and stories about learned or pious Hasidim. Roth describes the difference between ma’amarim and sichot as follows: The ma’amar is a sort of immanent discussion between the “I” of the Rebbe a sort of bringing down of spiritual plenty ,)עצמות( and his own inner essence ,to the Admor himself which is generally transferred to the audience }שפע( whereas the sicha is a sort of discussion between the “I” of the Rebbe and the congregation, a sort of intra-HaBaD dialog (ibid., 105). The philosophical basis of Habad thought lies in the concept that it is obligatory to disseminate the ideas of Hasidism to as wide an audience as possible, so as to bring about the redemption (Ibid., p . 11; Loewenthal, Communicating, 1990). Rayatz made use of all the genres of Habad literarture in order to promote his ideological .and spread Habad Hasisdism as widely as possible ופרצת מעיונותיך חוצה drive to fulfil the aim of In fact, he even wrote about the necessity of using niggun whenever drosha or ma’amar is ,([Heshvan 7698 [1938 2 ,[ תתקמט] repeated orally (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 4, Letter 949 thus creating a romantic link with the simpler times of the early Admorim, where the absence of readily available printed matter created a much more “oral society.” Most of the writings in all of theabove genres have the intent of a “sermon” preaching the message of desminintaing habad Hasidism, and thus many were written in the form of an address to a synagogue community or as a lesson to a group of yeshiva students or adult study group. Even when these speeches were delivered in less formal settings, such a seudah shlishit, the preaching-teaching motif is present. Because of this teaching-sermonizing intent, many of the passages of direct speech cited below were delivered for purposes of moral, social, or religious instruction, and were perceived as such by the religious communities that constituted their audience. Reference to these texts in this study does not serve the same aims as Rayatz intended: rather, from “behind the overt message" it is possible to extract the voice of the leader seeking to re-establish a mass movement and to translate his words into a description of the reality he faced and rejected, as well as to identify the means by which he sought to change that reality.

Since the ma’amarim drew on the whole breadth of Habad belief, Rayatz was able to introduce these teachings while simultaneously “authenticating” his own teachings and displaying the source of his authority. One such example involving Habad interpretation of the Kabbala can be seen in the ma’amar delivered by Rayatz on Simchat Torah, 5706 ([1945] (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Sefer Hama’amarim 5709, p. 76; Sefer Hasichos 5705, p. 119): He refers to having heard in public the teaching that within the structure of the Sephirot, the Besht and his successor, the Maggid of Mezerich, correspond to the two levels that comprise the Sephira Keter. Within Keter, the Besht corresponds to Atik Yomin, and the Maggid to Arich Anpin. The Alter Rebbe, Shneur Zalman of Liady corresponds to the Sephira Hochma, while the Mittler Rebbe, his son and the second Admor of Habad, corresponds to Binah. The third Admor, the Tzemach Tzedek is said to correspond to the Sephira Daat. Rayatz adds that in addition to what he heard taught in public, he also heard privately the continuation through Netzach (HaMaharash – the fourth Admor) and Hod, which was ascribed to Rayatz’ father, Rashab, the fifth Admor. Although some Sephirot are missing from this “table of correspondence,” the implication is clear: in the same way that Yesod follows Hod, so too does Rayatz follow Rashab, whence Rayatz can be seen to correspond to Yesod. This dignifies and emphasizes the dominant role of Rayatz as a conduit for the teachings not only of Rashab but of all the Admorim and the founders of Hasidism who anteceded them. In the same way that the divine light and abundance is channeled through the Sephirot till it reaches the lower world through the agency of Yesod and Malchut, so too is the divine message channeled from the Besht and the Maggid through the Admorim to Rayatz and thence to the material world. Despite the fact that his rescue from Warsaw was known to hundreds in the Habad movement and outside of it, in the early 1940s Rayatz took pains to emphasize that his arrival in the USA was not consequence of his having been rescued and was not intended to be a permanent stay. Rather, he had been brought to America as part of a Divine purpose, the spiritual renewal of the Jewish people. In his Purim 5071 [1941] address to Agudat Chasidei Chabad, Rayatz justified his presence in America, which he likened to Goshen as a place of temporary residence until conditions allowed the return to the homeland: The Almighty has brought us in this land not for permanent settlement but for sojourn, just as our ancestor Jacob came to Egypt in the days of old. We, too, have been brought to this land for a brief period only, until we shall be led by Messiah to the Land of Israel (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Address 1941, p. 18). Notably, the “Land of Israel” is clearly not the secular society being established in Israel, which he totally rejected (Sections 2.7; 3.2), but rather the undefined state of existence after the arrival of the Messiah. Rayatz uses the comparison of Jacob’s temporary stay in Egypt to his own "temporary" stay in America and his campaign of reviving Habad in America in order to press for funds for the slowly emerging Habad institutions – “in all their wanderings in the wilderness, whenever they rested for a time they set up the sanctuary. Our sanctuary in the diaspora is the

Yeshiva” – and he appeals to American Jewry for financial support in building and maintaining a suitable Yeshiva, and for bringing his European yeshivot to USA. Almost a year later in Shvat 5702 [January, 1942], Rayatz uses the same theological justification, not only for his presence but also for his taking up residence in America: Divine Providence has brought me here now to America, to work on organizing endeavors for the dissemination of Torah study in the spirit of the fear of and to buttress the observance of Yiddishkeit. At the first ,(יראת שמים) Heaven meeting in my temporary address at Greystone Hotel in New York I explained that I came to this country on a mission of Divine Providence, just as Divine providence leads every Jew to a particular location for a spiritual purpose. I did not come here only in order to muster support for Torah students abroad, but also to muster the tents of Torah study here in this country… …The toil invested in these efforts over the last two years has yielded rich fruit. My labors, both in speech and in in various periodicals, have exploded the false slogan that "America is different”, that it is impossible to be the same kind of Jew with the same kind of life and education, as in the Old Country. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Sefer Hasichos 5702, p. 108). The temporariness of his sojourn in America is replaced with a new aspiration, viz., to establish in America the same institutions and form of Habad that had existed in Europe” At this point in time, Rayatz had managed to establish his mouthpiece (Hakeriah Vehakedusha-a monthly journal), a small elite corps of dedicated followers in Machane Israel (Section 2.3.1), the beginnings of the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch (Section 2.4), and the first intake of students in Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim (a yeshiva in which a small number of students studied in unsuitable premises, and which existed, in fact, only by virtue of Rayatz’ declaration that he had founded it).

2.2 Hakeriah Vehakedusha

Soon after his arrival in the USA, Rayatz realized that to promote his ideas and his Habad ideology it was necessary to have and control the means of addressing mass audiences, beyond the size and scope of sichot and sermons in his synagogue milieu. His first venture in this regard was to establish the monthly journal Hakeriah Vehakedusha, published largely in Yiddish but with a signicant proportion of Hebrew articles and ocassional English translations. During the life of the journal (Oct 1940 –Sept 1945: Tishrei 5701 – Elul 5705), it served as a vehicle for Rayatz’ own writings as well as those of other Habad authors whose material was apparently approved for publication by Rayatz. From the first issue, under the flag (nameplate) of the journal, the following appeared: (בדרך הקדושה) Reading material in accordance with the ways of holiness A journal promoting the interests of Torah and Yiddishkeit in the spirit of and blessing of the Admor of )גוטהייסונג( Hasidut Habad With the approval Lubavitch (Hakeriah, Vol. 1, No 1, October 1940, p 1: see picture, Appendix 2).

As if to clarify further the stance of the journal, the second issue (Hakeriah, Vol. 1, No. 2) carried To the .)מה אנו? מה חיינו?( ”?an editorial under the headline “What are we? What are our lives ultra-orthodox readership of the journal, the association of the editorial’s title with the ne’ila prayer of Yom Kippur carried the message that the text of the editorial dealt with matters of the highest importance. The editorial, in fact, presented the raison d'etre for the existence of Hakeriah Vehakedusha. After stating what was not the intent of the newspaper - not to bring new “converts” to Habad, not to preach morality, not to raise funds and not to compete with any existing newspaper - the editor explicitly declared that the journal would carry the thoughts of the Rebbe, which would encompass his answers to the questions of the day. "What we are and what are our lives" would be answered only by the Rebbe, R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn. It should be added that the target audience of Hakeriah Vehakedusha was precisely that segment of ultra- Orthodox Jewry that was willing to accept the word of their Rebbe as the ultimate truth. Hakeriah Vehakedusha thus served as the mouthpiece of Rayatz, as well as that of Machane Israel (Section 2.3.1) once the formal existence of this body had been announced in Hakeriah Vehakedusha. This is really a tautological statement because Machane Israel expressed loyally and absolutely the teachings and positions of the Rebbe. The content of Hakeriah Vehakedusha reflected its role as Rayatz’ mouthpiece: every issue over the 5-year period of the journal’s appearance contained a discourse by the Admor under the title “Yelamdeinu Rabeinu.” Moreover, most of the issues contained a second article by R Yosef Yitzchak, either one of his Igrot Kodesh or Sichot. Other regular features of the journal were reports from Agudat Chasidei Chabad which, with Rayatz at this time in residence in New York, was firmly under his control. In addition, features with regular authors included explanations of the meanings and significance of the tefilot, commentary on Torah (“From the Torah” by “Ish Yehudi”), and interpretations of the liturgy by G. Zarchi. Lastly, various arms of Habad, such as the Aguda and Machane Israel, used the journal for publishing notices of coming events and reports on past functions. In summary, during the five years of its publication, Rayatz used Hakeriah Vehakedusha to promote his theology, encompassing Rayatz’ apocalyptic messianism, as well as the well-known conventional Hasidut according to Habad (Divrei Elohim Haim) which drew extensively on the writings of Rayatz’ Admor predecessors, in particular Rashab. The former is best known from his four Kolot Kor’im, which appeared in Hakeriah Vehakedusha as well as in other newspapers of the time (Morgen Zhurnal, in Yiddish). A complete analysis of Rayatz’ religious thought and writing is beyond the scope of this thesis, but his apocalyptic messianism, which has been the subject of considerable academic study, will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

2.3 The Organization

During the course of the early 1940s, Rayatz founded several institutions, all of which served a role in the overall scheme of converting Habad into a major religious movement. In the beginning when these concerns were launched, as it were, in response to a particular perceived reason or justification, it would have been difficult to describe an overall pattern or purpose, other than expanding the influence of Habad. In hindsight, however, the interrelationships of these bodies and their specific tasks become clearer. These interrelationships and tasks are described pictorially in the organizational structure diagram presented in Appendix 2: the following sections describe some of the more important bodies created by Rayatz.

2.3.1 Machane Israel Machane Israel was established in 1941, initially as ,([שד] According to Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 304 to save them ,)שמד( a secret society within Habad, with the purpose to “save Jews from apostasy from eating forbidden foods, and [to introduce them] to tefillin and family purity.” The first public mention of Machane Israel appears to be in Rayatz’ first Kol Koreh (Morgen Zhurnal, 26 May 1941 [29 Iyar 5701], and later in Hakeriah Vehakedusha (Vol 1. (9) of Sivan 5701 (1941). (Rayatz’ Kolot Kor’im are discussed in Section 3.2) The monthly journal Hakeriah Vehakedusha, the mouthpiece of Rayatz as well as of Machane Israel, is discussed in more detail in Section 2.2, above. In Rayatz’ second Kol Koreh he calls on believers and doubters alike to join our Machane Israel. It does not come to compete with any movement… It is not in anyone’s personal interest…. Help us to enlarge the camp (orig. Machane) and do the work that is needed at this time for the community of Israel…. The camp has already quietly accomplished the greatest of holy things … saving Jewish souls, recovering them from apostasy and saving them form a life of shame, remaking them into dear and holy Jewish souls (Morgen Zhurnal, 11 June 1941 [16 Sivan 5701]; Hakeriah Vehakedusha, Vol. 1 (10) Tamuz 5701 [1941].20,21 Rayatz also claimed to have tens of documents that demonstrated these accomplishments. In the context of the Kol Koreh, it is clear that Jews were called upon to join the movement for the sake of carrying out their personal teshuva and thus creating a groundswell of penitents in the House

20 In this issue of Hakeriah Vehakedusha, which carried Rayatz’ second Kol Koreh with its call to join Mahane Israel, a large section of a periodic report of the activities of Agudat Chasidei Chabad was devoted to describing the (“previously unpublished activities”) of Machane Israel. The simultaneous appearance of two publications describing the activities of an organization of which there is no earlier record does not appear to be coincidental. The descriptions in Kol Koreh II and in in Hakeriah Vehakedusha are similar although the Kol Koreh is cast in more in more general terms - )דורך דער מחנה ישראל זענען ארויסגעראטוועט פיעלע אישיע קינדר און עס ווענדען זיר צו איאר איצט עלטערען... דורך מיטגלידער פון מחנה ישראל ווערעןם פיעלע אידען באיינגעטופט צו אויפגעבען חילול שבת...( The activities of Machane Israel are described as having been conducted in secret even though Rayatz’ claims in the Kol Koreh that “tens of documents demonstrate these accomplishments.” It seems more likely that that Machane Israel did not actually exist as an organization prior to Rayatz’ Kolot Kor’im, and that Rayatz called Machane Israel into being in the two Kolot Kor’im in order to supplement the growing organizational framework that needed a core of strongly committed followers for the dissemination of his Teshuva campaign. 21 English translations of the four Kolot Kor’im appear in Greenberg, Teshuvah, 2007, pp. 171-185. 33

of Israel. This messianic task differs considerably from what Machane Israel evolved into over time. Under R Menahem Mendel Schneerson, the movement became the social welfare organ of Lubavitch, which concerned itself with religious welfare, promoting campaigns for family worship, the saying of psalms, the distribution of religious literature etc., in short, not essentially different from the central Habad educational unit established almost contemporaneously by Rayatz under the leadership of R Menahem Mendel, the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch (Section2.4), but with the efforts of Machane Israel being directed towards adults, rather than children and youth (Levin, .(]ערה[ Toldot, 1988, p. 275 Some initial confusion prevailed in Habad after the publication of the establishment of Machane Israel in Hakeriah Vehakedusha. Even prominent members of Habad were taken unawares by the claims that those who were not involved in the supposed early actions of Machane Israel were not supposed to know about them because these activities had been undertaken in secret. Thus, R. Eli Axelrod wrote to R Yisrael Jacobson (the director of the Association of Chasidei Chabad in America) for explanations and asked: what he must to do join? who are members, whether the Tomchei Temimim students are members? and how do members of Habad who are not residents of New York, join the movement? (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 304 Rayatz’ intentions behind the creation of Machane Israel can be deduced from his words in .([שד] his second Kol Koreh, as well from the explanation he gave in his discussion on the last day of Pesach 5701 [1942] The society welcomes all members equally, as long as they are dedicated workers in the program of Machane Israel…strengthening Yiddishkeit, tefillin, observance of Shabbos, and taharat hamishpachah, Torah schooling and cultivating a love of fellow Jews(Schneerson, Sefer Hasichos, 5702, pp. 194- 197). This wish-list of the observance of practical Judaism could be found in any and all streams of orthodox Judaism, for which observance of Shabbat, kashrut, and family purity along with ongoing Torah study [in the widest interpretation of the concept “Torah” so as to include the Bible and commentaries, Mishna, Gemara and commentaries, dinim (ritual laws), ethics, etc.] are part and parcel of their identification as orthodox Jews. The aspect that set Habad and Machane Israel apart from all the other orthodox streams in the 1940s was their extremist outreach approach that, in turn, was driven by Rayatz’ teshuva campaign ( Section 3.2). The task that Rayatz allocated to Machane Israel at its inception was “to tell [Shabbat, kashrut, etc., as listed above] to themselves and others, not only in beis midrash and shul, but in the street and in the park.” This drive to convince Jews to carry out the mitzvoth was not for the sake of the value of the mitzvah per se, but as part of the preparation for the advent of the Messiah. “We and our families are all standing on the threshold between life and (God forbid) its opposite. The birth pangs of the coming of messiah are intense. There is one course of rescue –

teshuva.” (Schneersohn, ibid.) The return to the observation of the mitzvoth was seen as the way in which teshuva was expressed, and its intention was to lessen the punishment that God would impose on the Jews for their past sins. It seems that Rayatz was relying on the practical value of the mitzvoth to intercede against this punishment, rather than on any hope or expectation that performance of the mitzvoth would inculcate a higher level of belief or faith. We cannot coerce anyone to be more pious and observe the practical mitzvoth…The only thing we can do is warn people, and to plead in brotherly voice that they feel compassion: Fellow Jew! Have pity on yourselves, your families, on the whole House of Israel – do teshuva (Schneersohn, ibid) Members of Machane Israel therefore served, in the early years after its founding, as the foot- soldiers in Rayatz’ campaign to promote repentance among non-practicing Jews and awareness of the coming apocalypse when the Messiah would arrive and the Jews would suffer terrible punishment for their cumulative sins. The reward that Rayatz held out to those who accepted the task of outreach, and became members of Machane Israel, was that membership in the organization would serve to protect the adherents from the inevitable Divine punishment that would be meted out on the unrepentant Jews. This is discussed further in Section 3.2.

(החברה למשניות בעל פה) The Society for Mishnayot by Heart 2.3.1.1 Another task entrusted by Rayatz to Machane Israel related to his teaching that the saying aloud of the letters and words of Torah had a special metaphysical importance in the relationship between the lower world and the upper worlds. Rayatz argued that the air in this place and at this time (America 1941) was contaminated [by sin] and in need of purification. In order that the people can live in a healthy atmosphere [of Torah and mitzvoth] it was necessary to fill the air with the letters that constitute the words of Torah. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Sefer Hasichos, 5702, p. 116: Levin, Toldot, p 305). Rayatz’ mystical solution to the problem was to decree that his followers should repeat by heart the words of Torah – Chumash, Gemara, Mishnayot and Tanya. He created a new section in Machane Israel, whose task was to learn by heart the Mishnayot, and who were obligated to repeat aloud these words in every place that they found themselves, be it street, store or subway (Schneersohn,Y.Y., Sefer Hasichos, 5702, p. 197). Habad members who signed up for the new were allocated their first 2-3 "(החברה למשניות בעל פה) Society for Mishnayot by Heart“ Mishnayot (by lottery), which they were obliged to commit to memory and recite on every possible occasion during the coming week. In the following week they would to proceed to the next 2-3 Mishnayot, and so on. The allocation was made for the first time on Shavuot 5702 [1942], and the first full cycle of Mishnayot was completed by 15 Sivan the following year. In this way, the six tractates of Mishna were learnt by heart by all those who joined the new group. Rayatz himself

,]א'תשפט[ signed up for the memorizing of Mishnayot (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1789 17 Iyar 5702 [1942]), lending his personal prestige and involvement to the initiative. Rayatz did qualify to some extent the purely mystic aspect of purifying the air by explaining that there is great value [in reciting Mishnayot] to purify the soul from dust and ashes that become attached to it by speaking and hearing idle talk and gossip ,.which must immediately be cleansed away (Schneersohn, Y.Y ,[דברים בטלים] .([ ב'תשי] Igrot, Vol. 8, Letter 2, p. 710 Nonetheless, his statement that the air could be purified by the recitation of Mishnayot, and the creation of the Society for Mishnayot by Heart and its task, can be seen as an example of Rayatz’ implementation of the classic Hasidic and Habad belief in the Kabbala, and the power of the )בעשר ספירות וכ''ב אותיות נברא mystical world of letters derived ultimately from Sefer HaYetzira to impinge on the physical world. Moreover, Rayatz employed the concept that this העולם( mystical belief had the power to change the physical world in order to create within a select faction of followers, Machane Israel, a Habad-specific practice based on well-known traditional Jewish learning. The purpose was to empower the Mishna-learners and bind them with an even stronger sense of identification with Rayatz’s Habad movement. Rayatz also employed physical measures that served to create a sense of unity and belonging among the members of the Society for Mishnayot by Heart. Participants were issued membership cards accompanied by a personal letter signed by Rayatz. The membership card reinforced the agenda of the Society by virtue of the wording of its inscription, A healthy life comes only with pure air – purification of the air depends on us! Purification of the air is by the letters of the Torah. At home, in the street, busy at the office, shop or store, wherever it is legal, make the effort and say the letters of Torah.

All Jews are responsible for one another….In galut all are included by the merit of the Mishnayot. Israel is not redeemed except by teshuva

([שח] Le'altar le'teshuva, le’altar le'geula (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 308

The concluding line, and the salutation signed by Rayatz , served to connect the actions of the Mishnayot society to the Kol Koreh and its message of the imminent apocalyptic arrival of the Messiah. (This idea is explored further in Section 3.2.)

(חברת תהילים) The Psalms Society 2.3.1.2 In 1942, another activity was placed under the administration of Machane Israel, the establishment of Psalms Societies. As early as 1927 in Russia, and later in 1933 in Poland, Rayatz had institutionalized in Habad the daily recitation of the Psalms according to a monthly cycle that was detailed in his version of the Book of Psalms (Schneersohn, Ohel), but this custom had

apparently not taken root in the Habad communities in USA despite his instructions to Agudat Chasidei Chabad:: …Be determined in instituting in every Bet Knesset lessons in the study of Hasidut with oral repetition. Establish the rule about the recitation of Psalms every day after tefila and the rules (for reading the whole book of Psalms) on Shabbat Mevarchim before tefila (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 4, Letter 1105 .([Sivan 5699 [1939 18 ,[א'קה] Rayatz obtained the agreement of three of the most prominent and prestigious rabbis in Israel22 to head a World Society of Psalms (not discussed further in this thesis) and handed over to Machane Israel the task of coordinating the efforts of the existing Psalms Societies and the establishment of new such societies where none existed (Schneersohn,Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter This appears to be one of the few instances where Rayatz participated in active .([א'תשפו] 1786 cooperation with other Orthodox streams in a religious venture. Rayatz noted the reasons for the importance of the establishment of the Psalms Societies: to pray for all the congregation of Israel in the Holy Land and in galut to awaken the hearts of the Jews to repentance, to pray for the safety of Jewish soldiers involved in the war, to pray that God lessen the pains of the birth pangs of Messiah, and to pray for peace for all of Israel throughout the world that they may merit receiving the Messiah. The last two reasons repeat yet again Rayatz’ message that the world is undergoing the birth pangs of Messiah. Rayatz, and even more so, R Menahem Mendel after him, used military language and terminology extensively in promoting various ideas and programs: placing Machane Israel in charge of the Psalm Societies, as well as the Mishnayot Society can be compared to placing an elite unit in charge of organizing and training the troops for the coming campaign, viz., bringing about Messiah through repentance. These two tasks contributed to the generation of feelings of group identity in Habad, in general, and specifically in Machane Israel. From an organizational point-of-view, the subordination of the Psalms and Mishnayot Societies, wherever they were, to the coordinating control of Machane Israel reflected the growing manifestation in America of centralization in the management of Habad. This model of exercising control over the activities of the individual community units (such as the Psalm and Mishnayot Societies was, in fact the operational model for the "corporate organization", Habad, as described in Chapter 4.

2.3.1.3 Other Machane Israel Activities Later in the 1940s and particularly after the end of World War II in 1945, the passionately promoted apocalyptic messianism faded, to be replaced by a less “fire-and-brimstone” approach that gave way, in turn, after the ascension of Menahem Mendel Schneerson to the role of Admor,

22 Rabbis Hertzog, Uziel, and Dushinsky – respectively, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, Sephardi Chief Rabbi, and Head of the Edah Haredit in Jerusalem. (Although R Dushuinsky himself identified with the Edah Haredit, his descendeents were to move towards Hasidism, and R Dushinsky is regarded by them as the first Rebbe of the Dushinsky dynasty of Hasidim.) 37

to outreach with a more hospitable and inviting approach. These changes were marked in Machane Israel by less involvement in promoting repentance and its replacement with various works of Jewish social and communal importance.

2.3.1.3.1 Bikkur Cholim Societies Among these activities was the establishment (1944) of Bikkur Cholim Societies (“Visit the Sick Society of Machane Israel”), which institutionalized the age-old mitzvah (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 8, Letter 2448). Two sections were established, one made up of older adherents of Habad who would visit Anash and members of Agudat Chasidei Chabad, and the other made up of younger people with knowledge of English, who were assigned to visit sick and injured army servicemen. The latter group, in addition to carrying out the support tasks usually required by the sick and injured, such as books, magazines, toiletries, enabling contact with distant families, etc., was to provide reading matter supplied by the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch (Section 2.4), thus setting up another aspect of communal behavior in which Habad programs and ideas could be disseminated. Rayatz’ identification of the different language needs of the sick and injured, with the soldiers requiring attention in English while Anash would be dealt with by older Habad Hasidim (presumably in Yiddish), reflects the different levels of religious and Jewish knowledge between the various sections of the Jewish public that Rayatz addressed in his teshuva and educational outreach programs. The importance of language in Rayatz’ outreach program is discussed further in Chapter 4. The organizational structure of Habad’s Bikkur Cholim Societies warrants some comment. The policy was established that in each city or town a Bikkur Cholim Society would be set up for the purpose of supplying people who would visit the sick, but each such branch was under the supervision and management of the centralized mechanism of Machane Israel. In practice, this meant that Machane Israel established direct contact with the hospitals and received from them information about patients requiring visiting: the central secretariat then informed the local branch about the need to carry out the visit. It seems obvious that this strongly centralized management was installed to raise awareness in the general community about Habad and its existence, thus marking (and marketing) Habad as the representative organ of the Jewish community in the eyes of, for example, the hospital authorities. It also served to ensure, or at least facilitate, that the Habad religious line would be adhered to: there would be no visitors on behalf of the Bikkur Cholim society who had not been vetted by the Machane Israel secretariat. Like other Habad institutions in America, the Bikkur Cholim society and its branches operated under the terms of a constitution, which had to have had the prior approved of Rayatz thus ensuring that its members and ,([ב'תרחצ] Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 8, Letter 2698) operations were compliant with the overall policies and ambitions of Habad.

2.3.1.3.2 Cooperative Activities with Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch Machane Israel and Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch (Section 2.4), formally separate institutions within Habad and both headed by Menahem Mendel Schneerson, were thus sister organizations in the same corporate structure (resembling the relationship between subsidiary companies, both being owned and controlled by the same corporate entity). There was some overlap of activity in certain social areas between the different divisions of the Habad organization, but these were mostly resolved without competition. As discussed below, Machane Israel’s activities were directed at adults, whereas the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch dealt with children and youth. Inevitably this divide could not be maintained hermetically, and Machane Israel became involved in some “joint venture” activity with the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch, e.g., in maintaining contact with Jewish farmers and strengthening their Judaism by encouraging them to participate in the Mishna Society administered by Machane Israel. Another joint venture was in supplying the religious requirements of Jewish soldiers in the American armed forces during World War II. This took the form of correspondence with the soldiers, supply of talitot, tefillin, and siddurim with English Such interactions between .([ערד] translations and explanations (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 274 Habad and irreligious or non-religious Jews can indeed be seen as the “pilot study” (in corporate terms) for the “business model” of "moderation in outreach” that Habad would later follow.

2.4 Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch (“Melach”)

In 1941, Rayatz established a network, entitled Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch (“Melach”), headed by and R Menahem Mendel Schneerson as Chairman of the Executive ,)נשיא) himself as president Melach operated in parallel with the Yeshiva-oriented Mercaz Yeshivot .)יו''ר ועד הפועל( Committee and R Shmaryahu Gurary as Director )נשיא) Tomchei Temimim, headed by Rayatz as President ,”Mercaz Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim encompassed the network of Achei Temimim (“junior .)מנהל( or preparatory yeshivot), the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim themselves (“full” yeshivot) and the network of Chedrei Torah Temima (Chederim, Talmudei Torah). The Yeshiva-oriented institutions are discussed more fully below in Section 2.6. Both Mercazim were devoted to the education of children and youth, so inevitably there was some overlap in their activities. The dividing line between them was the nature of the studies involved: yeshiva and preparation for yeshiva studies fell in the purview of Tomchei Temimim, while all other forms of education were assigned to Melach. This division was flexible and could never be sealed hermetically; nor was there an intention the separation to be absolute. Shortly before establishing Melach, Rayatz had established Machane Israel (Section 3.3.1) and some months later came the foundation of Kehot (Section 2.5). All three organizations were and R Menahem Mendel as Chairman of the Executive Committee ,)נשיא) headed by Rayatz as 39

In the early days of the three organizations, all three entities appeared on the .)יו''ר ועד הפועל( same letter head and all correspondence was signed by R Menahem Mendel as Chairman of the Executive Committee (Schneerson, M.M., Igrot, Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 15-21). This, in fact, blurred whatever borders were initially intended to exist between the activities of the three units: as can be seen from the notices published by the organizations, which can be viewed as their “articles of establishment,” there was indeed an intention to differentiate the three units in terms of their areas of activity, while simultaneously serving the same greater purpose, viz., the strengthening of Habad. The jacket of the booklet Hayom Yom (Section 3.1, below) carried a description of the Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch, stating that its purpose was to strengthen the education of Jewish This goal was .( ברוח ישראל סבא) children in the conservative spirit of traditional Habad Hasidism among the parents regarding the (תעמולה) to be achieved, inter alia, by carrying out propaganda necessity to send their children to kosher schools run in accordance with the law and spirit of Habad, by establishing schools for girls, and by creating a framework of Mesibot Shabbat, where Jewish children could meet and spend time together under the supervision of religious madrichim and madrichot and imbibe Jewish values and knowledge from these activities. These activities were all under the supervision of the Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch, which also provided the educational content of these activities. In addition to activities directly involving Jewish children and youth, the Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch was also involved in creating courses for improving the pedagogic skills of the teachers, organizing “religious hour studies“ for Jewish children studying in public (non-Jewish, state-run) schools, and the production of study materials (handbooks and text-books for the various school Adar II, 1943 [5703]). In all of ,]א'תתקסב[ ,programs) (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 1,972 these activities there was some overlap with the activities of Hakeriah Vehakedusha, whose call for Repentance was obviously intertwined to some extent with the aim of the Mercaz to deepen Jewish education. In the same way, the Mercaz was involved in educational programs aimed at adults, which was nominally the purview of Machane Israel. Work with Jewish servicemen in the US Army, with Jewish farmers and small isolated Jewish communities, or with the supply of religious items (talitot, mezuzot, siddurim) to Jews who lacked them all overlapped to some extent with the activities of Machane Israel. Similarly the involvement of Melach in the production of Jewish study books, at some level also overlapped the activities of Kehot in the production of Habad books for the Habad Yeshiva study programs. The only way in which managerial control could be exercised over these intertwined activities of different groups was by centralizing responsibility for all of them in the Mercaz le- Inyanei Chinuch, and placing all specific activities under the ultimate responsibility of the Head of the Mercaz. This eventually led to the growth in importance of Melach as the central

administrative arm of Habad, to which reported all Habad functions and functionaries, except those specifically designated to be in the yeshiva network run by R Gurary.

2.4.1 Hayom Yom One of Rayatz’ innovations was the publication of a “diary,” which became an essential part on the daily practice of Habad believers. In a letter (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 1990 to R Menahem Mendel Schneerson [head of Mercaz Le’Inyanei ([1942] תש''ג Kislev 20 ,)א'תתצ( Chinuch (Section 2.4) and Kehot (Section 2.5)], Rayatz instructed R Menahem Mendel to prepare a diary entitled Hayom Yom, which was to start on the 19 Kislev 5703 [1942] and run till the 18 Kislev of the following year. The date, 19 Kislev, was chosen because it commemorated the release from prison in Russia of the founder and first Admor of Habad, R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi. The date is celebrated in Habad as the “New Year of Hasidut” and was therefore viewed as a date of significance on which to mark the start of the new venture. Rayatz instructed that the diary should serve as “a sort of law” for Hasidei Habad and ,(ב'כד( should also be a “truly Hasidic cultural work” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 2,024 :listing for each day of the year the following obligatory study tracts ,([1943] תש''ג Nisan 28 - Chumash – daily sections of the parasha of the week with commentary by Rashi - Psalms, as directed by Rayatz in his instructions concerning the recitation of Psalms according to the monthly cycle (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Ohel, 2006) - Tanya - sections of the Alter Rebbe’s canonical book, as divided into an annual cycle by Rayatz. In addition to the .(חומש, תהילים, תניא) חת''ת In Habad parlance, these sections were known as prescribed study texts, the diary would contain for each day of the year maxims or adages derived from Hasidic culture and tradition to serve as inspirational epigrams for the devotee. 23 The first edition of Hayom Yom appeared, as requested by Rayatz, in time for the following “New Year of Hasidut,” and has survived as a handbook of Habad daily practice ever since, essentially unchanged even to the extent that new editions continue to refer unchanged to the

23 In the sense that Hayom Yom prescribed the texts to be studied each day, with the Torah sections determined according to the weekly reading, it is possible that Rayatz was influenced by the concept that defines the book Sefer Hok LeYisrael. This work of Ha’ari, edited by R Haim Vital, and later edited and expanded by R Haim Yosef David Azulai, which prescribed passages of Tanach, Mishna, Gemara and Kabbala for study on each week day of the Hebrew year, constituted a traditional source work in Hasidic and other communities. In later versions of the book, several commentators were added, as well as sections on Halacha and Musar; see, for example, the Warsaw 1927 edition of Sefer Hok LeYisrael, which encompasses 10 volumes, each of about 800 pages. It is tempting to speculate that Rayatz sought to achieve the concept of prescribed daily study while limiting weight and space to the convenience of pocketbook size, while simultaneously relying on the authority of tradition to ensure acceptance of Hayom Yom. Notably, in have appeared: the former are מעין חק לישראל or חק לישראל recent years a number of pocket-size books, entitled generally limited to study passages for one week at a time, while the latter do not generally encompass all the genres present in Hok LeYisrael. 41

years 5703-5704. In addition to the obligatory study passages, the diary contains the genealogies of the Habad Admorim, including their immediate families and listings of their writings. The overt purpose of the diary was apparently to provide a unifying cycle of daily, weekly, monthly and annual rituals to be followed by Habad members wherever they might be, thus creating a familial sense of belonging among the members of the movement. To strengthen the feeling of identification with the movement engendered by the mutual study assignments, the presentation of the genealogy of the Habad leaders, starting with even earlier forbears such as the legendary Maharal of Prague, was intended to engender a sense of pride and possibly superiority compared to other Hasidic factions, in the Habad member by virtue of his association with a glorious history. Hayom Yom was also used to disseminate awareness of the unfolding Jewish tragedy in Europe and the teachings of Rayatz that these events were “the birth pangs of Messiah." At the time of initiation of Hayom Yom the full extent of the Holocaust was not known, but Rayatz’s personal experiences in fleeing Europe, coupled with such information that was reaching the West about the perilous state of the Jewish communities in Europe, informed Rayatz’ messianic fervor that the Jewish world was experiencing the “birth pangs of Messiah” and that the correct response of the Jews was to be repentance. This issue is treated in more detail in Section 3.2 but three examples will serve to illustrate the point. The first aphorism appears just before the beginning of Hayom Yom’s calendar, quoting from a Yiddish letter of the Rebbe Rayatz that spiritually characterizes the terrible era: At the present time, when the world trembles, when all the world shudders with the birth-pangs of Messiah, for God has set fire to the walls of the Exile… it is the duty of every Jew, man and woman, old and young, to ask themselves: WHAT HAVE I DONE AND WHAT AM I DOING TO ALLEVIATE THE BIRTH-PANGS OF MESSIAH, AND TO MERIT THE TOTAL REDEMPTION WHICH WILL COME THROUGH OUR RIGHTEOUS MESSIAH? (emphasis in the original) (Schneersohn, .([Tamuz, 5702 [1942 11 ,[א'תתי] ,Y.Y., Igrot, Vol 6, Letter 1,810

The aphorism chosen for 15 Tevet states explicitly that “the sufferings befalling us are the birth 12 ,)א'תשפה( pangs of Messiah” (citing, for example, Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6 , Letter 1785 Iyar 5702), while for 8 Shevat, the saying was in the form of a decree,” it is a mitzvah and the duty of every rabbi in the Jewish community to inform his congregation that the current troubles and sufferings are the “birth pangs of Messiah.” Hayom Yom was not only intended as a tool for creating common Habad identification by the “universal” use of a handbook that defined and unified the daily rituals of the Habad adherent, it was also part of Rayatz’ overall campaign to use all the “media” available to him to re-establish and invigorate the Habad movement. Thus, in addition to the use of Hayom Yom to assist in spreading Rayatz’ messianic theology, it also provided links to other aspects of Habad activity. The inside cover of the Hayom Yom pocketbook invited the member to join the more 42

elitist Habad unit, Machane Israel, by listing the aims and ideals of that group. Similarly, the back cover of the handbook contained an introduction to the work of Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch and its office-bearers. The specific aims of these two organizations and their links to Hayom Yom are discussed more fully in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.4, respectively.

2.4.2 Mesibot Shabbat One of the methods by which Rayatz sought to bring knowledge of Judaism to children who may not have had any exposure to Jewish studies was by instituting regular Mesibot Shabbat, separately for boys and girls, and divided into different age groups. The children/young people would meet every Shabbat with madrichim, generally from the Tomchei Temimim system, or with madrichot drawn from among the teachers or older girls of Bet Sarah or Beit Rivka schools (Section 2.4.3).The program included Bible stories, explanations on parashat hashavua that the children would be asked to prepare themselves, and discussions on religious subjects such as the Anusim in Spain and other stories of dedication and self-sacrifice for the sake of maintaining the Adar II 5703 8 , א'תתקסב[ practical mitzvoth (Schneersohn, Y. Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 1,972 [1943]). Mesibot Shabbat played a significant role in bringing numbers of children within the reaches of Habad, while creating an informal atmosphere for transferring the message of Habad Judaism. The Mesibot Shabbat in fact resemble, more than anything, the regular meetings of the Jewish youth movements, from which a twofold result could be expected based on the outcome of similar activities in other youth movements. The first result was the attraction of the young participants to the “ideology” being presented by the movement, while no less important was the growing sense of belonging and identification engendered among the cadre of madrichim: those most involved in the educational process would become more strongly bound and committed to Habad.

2. 4.3 Bet Sarah/Bet Rivka Rayatz’ concern for education of girls was expressed less intensively than his concerns for the duration education of boys, but he was not immune to an understanding of the necessity to provide girls with a strong Jewish education. This was expressed at various levels, ranging from the need to teach girls the basic dinim for keeping a Jewish household (Shabbat, kashrut, family purity) through a knowledge of the Siddur and Chumash, and eventually including training in “feminine skills” such a cooking, knitting and sewing, up to the need to qualify women teachers for the Habad schooling system. Rayatz’ views on the education required for girls was reflected in his call (some five years after the establishment of the first Bet Sarah/ Bet Rivka schools) for girls who could not attend an existing school to join classes being offered by the Mercaz LeInyanei as well )לימודי קדש( will be able to study religious sujects )נערות( Chinuch: “Girls and young women 43

as subjects that will be required for running a household, such as cooking, sewing and the like” Heshvan 5710 [1949]). Less overtly 12 ,[ג'תרג] Schneerson, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 10, Letter 3,603) stated, but implied by the inclusion of family purity in the curriculum for senior girls, was the awareness of the need to prepare a cadre of suitably knowledgeable girls who would be available for shidduchim with the graduates of the Habad yeshiva system. In 1937, Rayatz had established in Riga an organization for girls’ education called Achot Temimim, nominally the female equivalent of Achei Temimim described in Chapter 1, and had encouraged the formation of similar groups elsewhere. In 1938 a group of New York girls wrote to Rayatz and received his blessing to establish an Achot Temimim organization in New York. Rayatz appointed three teachers “as an accompanying committee” and dictated to them the program of studies, which included once a week study of kuntressim, sections of Tanya and other texts with requirements for home work that would be reviewed by the teachers. Rayatz evidently anticipated positive results from the Achei and Achot Temimim, as he wrote in 1938 to Rabbi Av 5698 [1938]): “as we 18 ,[א'נה] Yisrael Jacobson (Schneerson, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 4., Letter 1,045 arranged the studies of Achei and Achot Temimim, you will surely inform me of the great pleasure you have in those hours that you teach Habad Hasidism to the Achei Temimim and Achot Temimim.” As was his habit, Rayatz demanded that lists of attendees, minutes about hitva’aduyot and subject matter discussed, should be sent to him (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1,686

Heshvan 5702 [1942]). It seems unlikely that this request was fulfilled more efficiently 3 , ]א'תקפו[ than any of Rayatz’ other requests for information about shuls, congregations and regular study hours: this was one of his central complaints about Agudat Chasidei Chabad, upon his arrival in America. The actual success or otherwise of this venture is not documented, but since lessons took place once a week at the house of one of the teachers, it is clear that the participation was not large scale. The Achot Temimim organization was disbanded in 1942, partly because of the lack of success, and partly because of the existence of several small competing girls’ schools run by other haredi groups. There appears to have been a de facto policy that Habad would open a girls’ school only if there was no other local haredi group that was interested in maintaining such a school. In 1943, Rayatz changed this policy and decided to participate more actively in girls’ education, and a new network of Beit Sarah and Beit Rivka Habad schools for girls was established in 1943 and placed under the administration of Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. Although there is little documentation regarding the early years of the establishment .([קמו] 146 of Bet Rivka and Bet Sarah schools (named for Rayatz’ grandmother and mother, respectively) (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 284), it appears that the establishment of actually functioning schools proceeded sporadically with some schools opening and closing a short while after for lack of students or finance (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 284-286). Despite this, the Av 5705 issue of Hapardes (1945) reported that the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch had established 25 Bet Rivka educational

institutions for girls (cited in Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 288). The great advance that was made in some of these new girls ‘schools, was that instead of serving as afternoon schools for limudei kodesh after public school in the morning, the new schools (initially, only at primary school level) were day schools in which both secular and religious subjects were taught. However, tuition at the first Bet Rivka high school was limited to limudei kodesh (at least initially) "בית רבקה האי סקול- לעת עתה רק לימודי קודש. בנוגע לעתיד הבא אין עוד החלטה" ([Tamuz, 5704 [1944 1 , ]קס[ ,Schneerson, M.M., Igrot, Vol. 1, Letter 160) It appears that R Menahem Mendel was not willing to take upon himself the onus of a decision (nominally in his field of responsibility) in the sensitive area of the status of secular studies (another indication oif the central authoritarian system operated by Rayatz), and deferred the decsiosn to his father-in-law. It is not clear when a further decision was made, but some Bet Rivka schools fell under the authority of regional (state) educational authorities, which obligated a minimum of secular subjects in their curricula. Rayatz’ view of what was desirable for girls education was expressed in his letter of congratulation on the occasion of the seventh annual celebration of the Bet Rivka organization: Irgun Bet Rivka is already well-known for its good and desirable education, in which hundreds of students have been educated under the influence of the fear of heaven, and knowing well their obligations in regard to the keeping of the mitzvoth…they will be a strong and faithful foundation in the building of Jewish households on the basis of Torah and mitzvoth. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., .([Nisan 5709 [1949 11 ,]ג'תסב[ Igrot, Vol. 10, Letter 3, p. 462

2.5 Kehot

As discussed in Chapter 1, Rayatz found upon his arrival in USA, a weak and disorganized Habad. His letter of 25 Adar 5701 (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 13, Letter 4813), approximately one year after his arrival, laid out his some of his criticisms of the existing organization and his plans for reorganization of the movement. After detailing his displeasure with the state of current activities (or more precisely, lack of action by the Aguda) among them the non-functioning of the Habad Kollel and the absence of lists of members of Habad), he removed the director and installed a new management of his own choice. Significantly, one of the first specific programs that he outlined in the same letter was the need to open, as part of the reorganized Agudat Hasidei Chabad, an editorial board for the printing of books and Hasidic writings (Divrei Elohim Haim): its first task of the Siddur Tehilat )נוסח( using the precise nusach (סידורים) would be to print prayer books Hashem, which was printed by Rashab in 1918 during the time that Rashab and his court resided in the city of Rostov-on-Don. This decision was the basis for the establishment of Habad’s own publication complex. Accordingly, in 1942, Kehot (Karnei Hod Torah) was established as a publishing house devoted to the publication of works written by a Jewish author and constituting suitable reading 45

matter for Hasidei Habad on subjects of the nigleh and nistar (respectively, the “open,” Talmudic, and the “hidden” or “secret” meanings of Torah, i.e. Habad , נגלה - study of the meaning of Torah .The name, Karnei Hod Torah, was chosen, according to Wolff (Kehot, 2013, p .(נסתר - Hasidism are the same as the letters of )קה''ת(by Rayatz himself for two symbolic reasons: the letters (60 and the name itself provides a clear ,([1745] -5505)תק''ה)) the year of the birth of the Alter Rebbe indication of the content of the books that would be published under this name. Shortly afterwards in 1943, a “separate” organization (Sifri - Otzar HaHasidim) was established (or split off from Kehot) to publish and disseminate the writings of the Admorim and their students in both Yiddish and Hebrew. In a later development, the Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch (Section 2.4, above) also published books (Section 2.4)24. The common denominator in these three supposedly separate organizations lay in the fact that Rayatz appointed his son-in-law R Menachem Mendel Schneerson as editor-in-chief of all three of the publishing ventures and could thus ensure that a common ideological line was followed. The history of Habad’s publications arm was been reviewed by Zusha Wolff (Kehot, 2013). While this book is in large part a paean of praise and glorification for R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson whose “brilliance,” “diligence” and “far-seeing editorial perspicacity” is trumpeted in every section, the book is nonetheless a source of information about Rayatz’s involvement during the period of interest of this thesis, albeit information that must be used with caution. Rayatz presented the necessity of establishing a publishing facility as the continuation of a long Habad tradition in terms of which each Admor had concerned himself with the wider dissemination of some of the writings of his predecessors that had not been printed during the lifetime of the relevant Rebbe. In the lifetime of R Shneur Zalman of Liadi, he managed to publish some of his own writings, including the Tanya, but many were printed by the Mittler Rebbe, his son, and some by the Tzemach Tzedek (his grandson). However, many remained unpublished until modern times. Similarly, the Mittler Rebbe endeavored to have his own major works, including the seminal Derech Hayim, printed during his own lifetime, but many more, including most of his drashot, were not printed until modern times. In like vein, relatively little of the original writings of the Tzemach Tzedek (3rd Admor), Maharash (4th Admor) or Rashab (5th Admor) were printed in their lifetimes, although each endeavored to publish at least some of works of their predecessors. Despite Rayatz’ stated wishes to print Rashab’s works after the latter’s death in 1920, this was not feasible for economic reasons while Rayatz stayed in Russia. Once Rayatz had established himself in Poland after 1928, there was a significant increase in the publication of Habad works, including some of Rayatz himself, due both to the improved economic conditions

24 The intertwined relationship between the organizations within Habad that are involved in publication is illustrated by the confusion presented in the frontispiece of Wolff’s own book chronicling the history of Kehot. The following of Otzar Hahasidim”, “Published by Kehot Book (מערכת) statements are made “Published by the editorial staff Publishers”, while also noting that “The Kehot logo is a trademark of Merkos L’Inyanei Chinuch”. 46

there and also to the absence of governmental anti-religious policies in Poland. Thus, for the first time, an Admor’s ma’amarim and sichot appeared in print soon after their composition (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, pp. 39-43). Rayatz’ drive to publish upon his arrival in America served his ideological purpose as a means to put before his public the materials that would enable the spread of Habad It also addressed his aim of enhancing the image of Habad as a .(ויפוצו מעיינותיך חוצה) doctrine movement with a long tradition of intellectual activity. In the earliest period of Kehot, R Yosef Yitzchak directed that some of Rashab’s central Hasidic writing (Kuntras Uma’ayan, Kuntras Ha’avoda, Kuntras Etz Haim, Kuntras Hechaltzu, Kuntras Hatefila, Chinuch Lana’ar) be published. In addition, he laid out plans for the publication of Rashab’s complete works from his first year as Admor onwards (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 39). The first three of the kuntressim mentioned above were the first to be published and showed the importance Rayatz attached to disseminating his father’s Hasidic teachings concerning the interpretation of Biblical passages in such a way as to provide insight into nature of man, the source of soul, and the question of good and evil. For example, Kuntras Uma’ayan opens and ,(Joel, 4:18) ומעין מבית ה' יצא והשקה את נחל השטים deals with Rashab’s interpretation of the verse in which he teaches about the duty of every Jewish soul to fight the yetzer hara that can be triggered by “the adversary” who resides in the soul. A more widely ranging summary of the kuntressim is beyond the scope of this thesis. In 1943, Rayatz separated the writings of the Admorim and their students from Kehot’s initial mandate, and these works were published thenceforth by the newly formed unit, Sifri - Otzar HaHasidim. A later development was the addition to Otzar HaHasidim of the scholarly functions of editing and writing books and of archiving information about the development of Hasidism in general and Habad Hasidism in particular. Many of the titles published by Sifri were based on texts of original hand-written manuscripts requiring scholarly reading in their preparation. In later years, particularly after R Menahem Mendel became Rebbe, these books were prepared in prestigious editions using high quality paper and embellished covers. It should be noted that Kehot (and Mercaz LeInyanei Chinuch) fulfilled another essential role in Rayatz’ teshuva and educational outreach programs. The Jewishly uneducated segments of the community that Rayatz wished to reach were not competent to study Hasidic texts in their original languages of Yiddish or Hebrew. This part of the community, especially the younger American-born second- or even third-generation descendants of the Yiddish speaking immigrants, had become progressively more acculturated, acquiring English as their first language, while progressively losing competence in their forebears’ Yiddish as well as Hebrew. In order to engage with these Jews, it was necessary to provide texts in English, or with English translation, for various age groups and intellectual abilities. Thus, publication of Habad material in English, and subsequently in French and later other languages, became an important aspect of Kehot’s

activities. After R Menahem Mendel Schneerson became Rebbe, the worldwide outreach aspect of Kehot’s activities became progressively more important. By 2003, Kehot was able to claim that it had published more than 100,000 titles, many of them in English, Russian, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, German, Persian and Arabic, in addition to Hebrew and Yiddish (Fishkoff, Rebbe, 2003, p. 299). Although the publishing concerns of Habad would eventually become an important source of revenue for Habad, their early days were modest, and the enterprises struggled to meet the demands of Rayatz, both for more and more books and for bringing the material (much of which was still in hand-written manuscript) to publishable form, while at the same time facing budgetary limitations. R Menahem Mendel Schneerson described the situation in one of his letters as follows: We are now greatly embarrassed: The printer wants money. The public wants books and [the Rebbe] complains that we are not publishing enough and that we should work harder in this department (and also the others) and with greater intensity… (Schneerson, M.M., Igrot, Vol. 3, Letter 184, 17 Iyar 5709 [1949]). Several of R Menahem Mendel’s letters from this period reflect the limited resources that Habad was able to direct to publication, while emphasizing Rayatz’ demands to produce and distribute more Habad literature. Sales and pricing was a delicate issue, as was ensuring actual payment for books that had been delivered. These issues seem to have been left to R Menahem Mendel, whom Wolff described as being involved in the enormous task of editing books, proof-reading them, bringing them to press and distributing them, as well as serving as financial manager, as accountant and bookkeeper, recording accounts and payments, chasing after distributors for payments and writing receipts. (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 87) In the context of a dispute with a customer over price and delivery costs, R Menahem Mendel disclosed that “…the lack of [financial] resources prevents Kehot from carrying out many, many projects” (Schneerson, M.M., Igrot, Vol. 2, Letter, 191 21 Av 5705 [1945]). Rayatz took upon himself the task of raising some of the financing needed to sustain Kehot (Wolff, 2013, p. 54). Unfortunately, there appears to be no publicly available data on the finances of Kehot (as indeed is the case for Habad as a whole), so that any figures quoted must be treated with caution. One of the means adopted to raise funds was to seek out generous donors and offer them the privilege of having a book dedicated to someone whose memory they wished to honor in return for the financing of the book. In later years this approach became common for the production of prestigious editions. Viewed cynically, this was perhaps simply a new version of “shnorr,” which has been – and remains – part of communal practice among all Jewish congregations for generations. One early example of the method of benefactor funding can be seen in Rayatz’ correspondence thanking the donor for his cheque for $1500 (worth about $21,000 in 2018

terms) that was designated for the publication of Tzemach Tzedek’s Book of Mishnayot. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 8, Vol. 2, Letters 240; 246, Tevet 5704 [1944]). Wolff (Kehot, 2013,p. 97) provided an example of the financial difficulties involved in printing and publishing during the 1940s: R Menahem Mendel states that the cost of producing a limited edition of the Sichot of Rashab by photographic reproduction is approximately $1900 (in 1946). Sales of the book were anticipated to bring in $900. Therefore to fulfil R Yosef Yitzchak’s demand to print the book required another $1000. Initially two donors of $500 each had been found, but one withdrew, leaving the financing of this volume in doubt until another donor could be found. The movement found partial solutions to the high cost of publishing at particular times and for limited periods by “outsourcing” to two alternative publishers, one in Shanghai, China, and other one in the displaced persons (D.P.) camps of Europe (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, pp. 100, 130). In 1941, a group of refugees from Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim from Lithuania managed to find their way to Shanghai, then under Japanese occupation. They were a small group among a larger number of students from the Mir, Kaminetz, Pinsk, Lublin and Kletsk Yeshivot. The Rabbi of Shanghai, R. Meir Ashkenazi, originally a Lubavitcher, established a Yeshiva for these young men, Yeshivas Mizrach Harachok, and also founded a printing and publishing facility where the students were ”employed” in the production of religious books. Wolff (Kehot, 2013, p. 130) claimed the yeshiva for Habad, terming it a branch of Tomchei Temimim, and attributed the whole printing enterprise to a committee of Tomchei Temimim students (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 130). Other general histories of the Jews in Shanghai during the Japanese occupation take a less partisan view and give the credit to Rabbi Ashkenazi’s community initiatives in difficult times, which were not limited to the Habad students from Lithuania. Nonetheless, whatever the true story of the Shanghai printing works, it appears to be correct that Shanghai served as a cheaper publishing source for some Habad Hasidic books chosen by local initiative during the war, and after the war for specifically ordered books when postal contact could be re-established with the Lubavitcher students (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 130). This publishing enterprise dwindled as the Shanghai Jewish community emigrated after the end of the war, with the Tomchei Temimim students being brought to the USA with the assistance of R Yosef Yitzchak. After the war ended in Europe, massive numbers of refugee Jews were housed in D.P. camps until suitable destinations and housing solutions could be found for them. In one such camp at Pocking in the Passau district of Germany, a printing enterprise was organized and, with the blessing of Rayatz (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 9, Letters 3,083-4), many Habad books were printed “in thousands of copies” during the period 1946-1950 until the camp was finally wound up. These books included Siddurim, Psalms, the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, and the Tanya as well as books of sichot that had been published in pre-war Warsaw but which were no longer

available because of the destruction of Jewish institutions by the Nazis (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 137). Despite the financial difficulties experienced by Kehot, by 5709 [1949] it was possible to distribute a catalogue that claimed 200 Kehot publications - books, pamphlets and educational handbooks - that reflected the output of the first seven years of existence of the publishing unit. According to the Introduction to the catalogue cited by Wolff, these books were of the following types (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 54): - educational books, published under the imprint of Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch: teaching materials in Judaism and Habad Hasidism; - Sifrei Otzar HaHasidim on Habad Hasidism, morality, ethics, halacha, etc., from the beginnings of Habad and including some of the writings of Rayatz; - various other books on Jewish topics. The collection served Rayatz’ purposes in terms of movement building in that Habad’s history of approximately 200 years was now supported by books reaching back to the earliest of the Habad leaders. It provided in printed form together with Hakeriah Vehakedusha, which ceased publication in 1945 (Section 2. 2, above), the religious ideology that the movement needed, and most importantly, it provided tools in the form of books and pamphlets of educational content with which Rayatz and Habad were able to conduct their outreach campaign and disseminate the “propaganda” of the movement.

2.6 Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim

In Chapter 1, the attempts of R Yosef Yitzchak to bring about the establishment in America of a Yeshiva along the lines of the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim in Eastern Europe were reviewed. Until Rayatz’ American visit in 1929-30, these efforts to influence American Habad had been conducted at long distance by means of postal correspondence and occasional visits of shadarim. During Rayatz’ stay in the USA, he had continued to attempt to create the conditions for the establishment of an American Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim but ultimately was disillusioned about the possibility, because of the low levels of religious knowledge and involvement of the Jews in America, including those of Habad stock, and because of their inability to create and maintain the organizations needed by a movement. Rayatz believed strongly in the superiority of Habad’s religious philosophy. While true believers of any religious stream in Judaism presumably hold their own version to be the truest form, in Habad this belief is reinforced by the urge and obligation to spread the idea of Habad יפוצו ,Judaism in the Jewish world according to the classic Habad teaching expressed by the slogan Rayatz thus aimed for expansion of the Habad camp. Since religious education was .מעונתיך חוצה so central to the Habad philosophy, it was inevitable that heart of Rayatz’ efforts should be 50

expressed in terms of expanding and deepening Jewish religious education along the lines of Habad belief. Many of the other activities that Rayatz initiated and that are discussed in this chapter were aimed at education of various groups according to Habad beliefs, but it was only to be expected that the flagship of Rayatz’ efforts would perforce be aimed at the establishment of the highest level of Habad study, viz., the yeshiva. Upon his arrival in the USA in Adar Bet 1940, one of Rayatz’ first actions was to study with a small group and then to hold a meeting where he declared that as of that day he had established Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim in America. This dramatic and symbolic gesture was not really supported in reality, because it was only two years later that it would be possible to speak of fixed study programs and fixed classes (which even then were small groups). According to the booklet published by Habad to mark the dedication of the building of Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim on 11-18 Iyar 5706 [1946], “the central Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim Lubavitch in USA was founded on 16 Adar 5700 [1940] as a continuation of the Lubavitch Yeshiva that was founded in Russia in 5657 [1897].” The first intake consisted of students who had studied Hasidut with R Yisrael Jacobson: some had just returned from a short-lived attempt to join the Otvotsk Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva but had managed to return to the USA before the outbreak of war trapped them. Others joined from “day to day” (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 179). This “success” must be seen in perspective: There were 15-20 students, all of them products of Achei Temimim Yeshivot, students of R Yisrael Jacobson, Director of Agudat Chasidei Chabad and also a community rabbi, who had initiated these Yeshivot. The Achei Temimim Yeshivot were not considered able to train their students to the level required for entry into a “full” Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva. The name Achei Temimim had originally been used in the 1920s and early 1930s by the Habad activists who had attempted to set up a Habad Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva in the USA with the guidance of Rayatz (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 140-146). However, the project had been abandoned when Rayatz became disillusioned at the lack of commitment of the American Habad leaders and the lack of interest on the part of Tevet 5690 ,[ג'תתכה] the Jewish community (Schneersohn, Y.Y.S., Igrot, Vol. 11, Letter 3825 [1930]). Initially the yeshiva established by Rayatz in 1940-42 bore the name Yeshivot Achei Temimim to reflect this fact. The full Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim was not established with this core of students because they were felt to be unable to cope with the level of studies demanded. In addition, they were too few in number compared to the desired core of 70-80 studies to enable the Yeshiva to function in what Rayatz called the spirit of the “real” Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim. The orthodox journal, Hapardes, of Tamuz 5790 (1940) is quoted by Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 180) as specifically noting the number of students (20) as well as the fact that the Yeshiva Gedola (i.e., the “full” Tomchei Temimim) would only be opened when the famous teachers from Warsaw and Otvotsk arrived. In fact, they never did: they were trapped in Riga and Vilna and died there.

Efforts were made to recruit more students so as to meet the quantitative and qualitative targets, but the Yeshiva was substantially strengthened only after the end of the war by the arrival in New York of the group of Tomchei Temimim students from Riga and Vilna, who had made their way to Shanghai and found refuge there. There they were taken under the wing of the Rabbi of Shanghai, himself a follower of Lubavitch Habad, and had continued studying there under his auspices, in a framework that Levin claims was a Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 182), but which appears to have been home to a large group of students from various ultra-orthodox streams (See Kehot, Section 2.5 above). As usual, monetary problems were involved in the addition of this contingent to the student body, and the announcement of their arrival was accompanied by a call for contributions, because the task of “bringing the students to

America is very costly” (ibid.). Rayatz’ involvement in the activities of the Yeshiva was not limited to larger management and financial issues: despite the fact that his son-in-law headed the Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim division, Rayatz delved into many aspects of the day-to-day life of students and staff. He strove to micro-manage the lives of the students and teachers, as reflected in the following three letters: 1. to the management of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim (Schneerson, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1,569, 29 Tishrei 5702 [1942]), in which Rayatz demanded the following information: - the numbers of students and their names (this request was repeated periodically and certainly at the start of each year) - their daily schedule - their schedule for studying Hasidut and their teachers - whether they all pray at the Yeshiva - who supervises tefilla; 2. to Rav Shmaryahu Gurary, Principal of the yeshiva and Rayatz’ son-in-law (Schneerson, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1,813, 29 Sivan 5702 [1942]): - Does the teacher, Shneur Zalman Gurary (apparently a nephew of R Shmaryahu) know what the students do on Shabbatot, what parties and activities they attend, what shuls they pray in, whether they go to the same shul for every tefila, whether they pray from the siddur, do they answer ‘amen, yehei shma raba', whether they concentrate on the tefila? - Does he [the teacher] inquire about these issues from other people? - The necessity to remind them about respect for parents and behavior according to derech eretz 3. to the management of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim (Schneerson, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 1,875, 28 Tishrei 5703 [1943]): 52

- The time of arrival of every student must be recorded every morning to ensure that the students keep to the schedule. After two weeks of this, let me have the list of late-arrivers (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 183). As is exemplified by the above letters and others cited in this thesis (e.g.pp 13; 48) Rayatz was a “detail freak” in his management behavior. This was apparently not only a control issue in regard to allocation of funds for specific projects (as discussed elsewhere), but it was also because of his deep commitment to the subject and his concern for the people whom he was trying to influence and recruit to deeper involvement in the life of Habad. By 1942, the Yeshiva had apparently reached the standards of size and quality that Rayatz 14 ,[תש'‘ס'א] had awaited, and he was able to write (Schneerson, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1,770 Nisan 5702 [1942]) of the pleasing development and success of the students in piety. The Yeshiva has become a center of growth, attracting increasing numbers of students (although actual figures were not disclosed). It therefore became necessary to seek increased funding, and a new donor drive was instituted. In addition, it was necessary to find a suitable home for the Yeshiva, which had outgrown the space available for its accommodation in 770 Eastern Parkway, as Rayatz had maintained would happen (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 186). It was in the fund-raising campaign that Rayatz displayed his ability to use emotional blackmail. Although he dispatched R Shmaryahu Gurary on a fund-raising trip through the outlying Tamuz 5905 12 ,]ב'פט] cities and states of America (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 2089 [1945]), he continued his own efforts to play on the sensitivities and residual loyalties to Habad and to himself. He appealed “to those who want him [i.e.Rayatz] to live…it is in their hands to find a solution to the continued existence of the Yeshiva”, “החפץ בחיי –...דער וואד וויל איך זאל לעבן ...בידו הוא ]על ידי מציאת פתרונות למשך הקיום של הישיבה[” (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 190 ; ]ב'תקנט[ Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 2,159) Although no target figure was set for the building fund, and the numbers of present and planned students were not announced, the fund-raising campaign failed to reach the required sums. Rayatz now utilized another expression of emotional blackmail. He established a G’mach (Gemilut Hasadim – a fund of loving kindness) for the benefit of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim, in which he personally guaranteed the repayment of loans made to the fund. Repayments were to be made in stages after two years. Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 191) lauds this action as representing the Rebbe’s willingness to risk his own personal capital for the sake of the yeshiva, but it would not be surprising if the (non-Habad) outsider saw this as a case of manipulative exploitation by the Rebbe of the dependence of his adherents on him. In the given situation that loyal Habad members viewed the Rebbe as the Tzaddik and many of his followers relied on the Habad institutions for

their jobs, it is virtually inconceivable that the Habad adherents would ever feel themselves able to demand repayment from their own Admor of any loans they made to the G’mach. In this way, significant sums were raised, and a report carried in Hapardes of Kislev 1944, cited by Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 191), was able to announce together with the decision to purchase a building and refurbish it for the purposes of the Yeshiva, that “the rescue of R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn from the valley of tears in Europe and his settling in USA has added a new chapter to orthodox life here, yeshivot have been established in [several cities] as well as in Brooklyn, and over 1000 students (my italics) are studying Torah.“ In view of the low numbers that have been reported for the Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim itself, it is evident that the report in the 1000 students includes all the chederim ( where studies started from the most basic levels) and the Yeshivot Achei Temimim (where the level of study was severely criticized by Rayatz as noted above). There is no independent confirmation of the figure of 1000 students, which in the way of communal Jewish newspapers the world over, was probably released to Hapardes by Habad itself. Similarly, there are no reports of the costs of the Yeshiva and certainly none on its financial situation. The building itself was completed and dedicated in 1946. The establishment of yeshivot in other centers in the USA and Canada was also the subject of much of Rayatz’ organizational, fund-raising and educational effort. However, it was the establishment of the Central Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva in New York in relatively close proximity to the heart of the Habad spiritual and organizational center at 770 Eastern Parkway that would provide Habad with the image of a large organized religious movement with a strong spiritual and educational message. It is important to note that the existence of the Yeshiva, per se, contributed not only “learning” to Rayatz’ ideological drives: It also provided both the organizational framework for the expansion of Habad-educated young men and the socializing framework that would bind these young men together with bonds stronger than any alumni association could provide by virtue of the intensity of their shared experience. Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim was run and managed along guidelines that emphasized and idealized their belonging to Habad Hasidism. In fact, at various times Rayatz rejected suggestions that Hasidei Habad expedite its gaining access to a yeshiva by managing or entering into partnership with other existing yeshivot (generally with a background of failing finances): dual management would not have allowed Rayatz to impose on these yeshivot the style of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 143-4).

2. 6.1 Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim as a Habad-Identity Enhancer Rayatz found justification for the creation of a separate Habad identity in his interpretation of Exodus 33:1625 (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Sefer Hasichos, pp. 142-143). He taught that in Habad Hasidism the guiding principle of all avodah is veniflinu – we should be distinguishable. The Kabbalistic exegesis that he presented is that Moshe Rabeinu’s request – to be distinguished from the other nations – was expressed in terms of the lights (orot) of spiritual energy that are bestowed downwards from Above. Habad Hasidism teaches that people in the material world are seeking to work their way upwards, to become keilim - fit vessels to receive the spiritual light -and that only people who follow Habad Hasidism have the ability to be directly linked to the source of this spiritual energy. This obliges Hasidei Habad to be distinguishable in all that they do, in their avodah (in the Hasidic sense) regardless of whether they are Torah scholars or businessmen, in their middot (personal characteristics), in the way they study, and even in the ways they pray, sleep and eat. Although this message appears to be cast solely in spiritual terms with the intention of increasing the godliness of the Hasid’s life, it should be seen against the reality of Rayatz’ decisions that created a physical conformity in the way Hasidim appeared. The dress code for Tomchei Temimim, from the first Yeshiva in Lubavitch (Biale et al. 2018, p. 550), established by Rashab and administered by Rayatz, provided the model that Rayatz wished to re-create in New York. Tomchei Temimim in Lubavitch resembled a Christian religious order (!) that fashioned a distinctive group identity for its students by isolating them from the outside world. The Yeshiva ensured that meals were taken together in the communal dining room, and uniform dress was required - long black coats, woolen tallit katan worn over the shirt, unshorn long beards. Complete obedience to tutors and the Tzaddik were required and offenders risked expulsion. Students were forbidden to return to their homes for the holidays until they had completed at least three years stay at the yeshiva. By harsh practices such as these, Rashab sought to turn the yeshiva into a substitute home for the pupils and to dictate their spiritual identity (ibid., 551). Although these extreme quasi-military measures could not be transferred from the isolated small town of Lubavitch of the late 1890s to the metropolis of New York in the 1940s, Rayatz sought to establish a distinctive Habad identity in America based on the cadre of students emerging from the Tomchei Temimim Yeshivot in New York. He created a distinctive dress-behavior for the students, and involved them, by persuasion or by emotional calls to their conscience and sense of duty, in the activities of the movement. Rayatz sought to create a group identity not only on the

25 For wherein now shall it be known that I have found grace in Thy sight, I and Thy people? is it not in that Thou goest with us, so that we are distinguished, I and Thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth? ּובַמֶׁ ה עיִּוָדַ אֵ פֹוא, כִ י-מָצָאתִ יחֵ ןבְּ עֵינֶׁיָךאֲנִי וְּעַמֶׁ ָך--הֲלֹוא, בְּ לֶׁכְּתְּ ָך עִמָ נּו; וְּנִפְּ לִינּו, אֲנִי וְּ עַמְּ ָך, מִ כָל-הָ עָם, אֲשֶׁ ר עַל-פְּ נֵי הָאֲדָמָ ה 55

emotional and spiritual levels but also a sense of identity, born of uniformity in modes of action, appearance and dress. Thus, students were obliged to participate in the promotional activities (“propaganda”) that he launched in favor of fund-raising drives, Kehot book-selling campaigns, public recitation of Psalms and Mishnayot, organizing and conducting Mesibot Shabbat and summer camps for younger children, and ultimately in establishing new congregations in areas where there was no Jewish life, or taking over failing congregations in areas where Jewish life had declined. A poignant example of the way in which a sense of identification with Habad as a movement was created can be seen in the reminiscences recorded by R. Zvi Fogelman26, then in his late teens or early twenties, about the early days in the yeshiva established by R Yosef Yitzchak shortly after his arrival in New York Fogelman recounts that In 1942, the emphasis in Lubavitch was on the organizing of Mesibot Shabbat which were held in a number of places in the city. Each madrich had to submit a report, and each of us got $3.15 (worth about $50 in 2018) from the Rebbe for the purpose [Section 2.4.2 above]. Apart from that Lubavitch was, as far as we could see, sach hakol, one small yeshivah with a handful of Hasidim….The atmosphere in America was not so friendly: the leftists and secularists sic!) from the - מתנגדים) on one side and the opponents )השמאלנים וחילונים( religious camp on the other, looked at us very strangely. …In his special hitva’aduyot the Admor gave is the feeling that Lubavitch was not a small movement: it was a movement that would conquer the world. (Schneersohn, M.M., Teshura, 18 Sivan, p. 13). He [Rayatz] used to say:

דער רבי האט אנגעהויבן מיט "מסיבות שבת" און פון די מסיבות שבת וועט מען איינעמען די גאנצע וועלט (The Rebbe has started with Mesibos Shabbas, and from the Mesibos Shabbos one will take over the whole world) Such expressions made a great impression on us at that time and implanted in us the awareness that Lubavitch would indeed spread all over the world (ibid.) These recollections, many years after the event, cannot be treated as scientific evidence, but they do reflect two important aspects of Habad activity at that time – the creation of a sense of Habad identity and the minuscule size of the organization in 1942.

2. 6.2 Chederim Already in the 1920s, and in particular during his visit to the USA in 1929-1930, Rayatz urged the establishment of local chederim for the teaching of basic Judaism (tefillin, tefila, kashrut, Shabbat, and basic texts from the Tanach) to Jewish boys and youth in frameworks attached to local nusach ha'ari synagogues, particularly for Jewish children who attended non-Jewish, state-run schools. The aim of establishing and supporting such chederim was adopted and endorsed by Agudat

26 R. Zvi (Herschel) Fogelman (1922-2013): A student in the late 1930s of R. Yisrael Jacobson, and later one of the first students in the newly established Central Lubavitcher Yeshiva (Tomchei Temimim) in New York. Subsequently a prominent community rabbi in Habad congregations in Massachusetts. 56

Chasidei Chabad, during the 1930s, but its success was limited. (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 22, p. 137 ff). With the actual establishment of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim, and its “junior” counterpart, Yeshivat Achei Temimim, which served as a sort of “Mechina” (preparatory school for the full yeshiva), Rayatz returned to the subject of Jewish education for children and youth not involved nor likely to be involved in either the Achei Temimim or Tomchei Temimim (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 198), and set about reinforcing existing chederim or establishing new chederim for children who attended public schools. This involved the opening of Chedrei Torah in a few neighborhoods in New York in addition to those where chederim already operated. For this purpose, a committee was created consisting of students of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim who gave an hour of their time, daily, to spread the word of the Chedrei Torah. This activity was institutionalized and highly praised by Rayatz, so that its description as “voluntary.” (Schneerson, .appears somewhat artificial (5703 ,[ ב'עו[ Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 2,076 After a trial period, Rayatz announced the establishment of Histadrut Chedrei Torah Temimim Lubavitch and a placed a special fund, and administrative committee, under the management of R Shmaryahu Gurary, in addition to his function as director of the Tomchei Temimim Yeshivot Tamuz 5703). This announcement was ,[ ב'פז ] Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 7, Letter 2,087) attached to an appeal to "lovers of Torah" to assist and support the new initiative materially and spiritually. Initially, the program did not progress well. Within a few months, seven classes were registered, with a capacity of 40 children each, but “in the summer the number of children was sorrowful.” The classes did not have a fixed curriculum, and ”financial income was essentially nothing” (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 201). Apparently the purpose of the Chedrei Torah was not solely the provision of some Jewish education for children who were not in the Tomchei Temimim system: It was also intended, despite the low level of studies compared to the Yeshivot, to identify suitable children and youth as a source of new students for the Yeshivot sub-system, while generating an income stream for the yeshivot. In the reality of those days, these aims were not met, and the reports from this period speak of a need to collect more students by asking the students to bring their friends, and by teachers making house calls. There was a need for an organizational infrastructure to ensure the keeping of records, such as attendance and tuition payments, and also to serve as a reporting system to the central organization headed by R Gurary. For a time, teachers, who were mainly students of the Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva, were limited to one per cheder, and each cheder was made responsible for covering its expenses from the tuition fees it charged. In this way, the network of chederim grew slowly, but by the end of 1944, it was possible to report on the existence of 13 chederim (by name), each with 20-50 students, making a total of about 500 students (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 202).

2.6.3 Not only New York and its Periphery A full treatment of Rayatz’s educational campaign in North America would require discussion of the achievements in the other large cities where Habad under Rayatz made some inroads. Implicit in the descriptions of Rayatz’ activities in the preceding sections is the understanding that these were concentrated in the greater New York/ New Jersey area, unless otherwise stated for specific cases. This is fact is an oversimplification: Habad under Rayatz made extensive efforts to spread its activities to more distant major cities, which included Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St Louis, and Chicago, and to numerous smaller cities. To generalize, these efforts were based on using well-established local Jews of Habad stock in these cities as a starting point to establish contacts with other influential community members. The initial contacts started by Rayatz by correspondence would be followed by sending emissaries to “assist” in creating activities centered on Jewish education of some form, followed by publicity campaigns (propaganda to increase the number of participants. In overall terms, these activities included (תעמולה- campaigns to set up adult study groups for study of Torah and Hasidut, attempts to establish a yeshiva on the lines of Achei Temimim, followed by Chedrei Torah (or vice versa), and in some cases (Chicago) even the possibility of establishing higher level Yeshivot along the model of Tomchei Temimim. During the period 1942-1945, Habad claimed the establishment of Yeshivot Achei Temimim in 13 different cities (Levin, Toldot, 1988, Chapters 33-46). An exceptional case was the development of Habad institutions in Montreal, which was facilitated by the arrival, in somewhat ironic circumstances, in Canada of a group of more than twenty Eastern European Tomchei Temimim students who had found their way to England, had been interned there as enemy alien subjects, and had then been deported for the duration of the war to detention camps in Canada: this was their personal salvation. These students were allowed to study and to join up with the Habad community in Montreal, enormously strengthening it. Montreal eventually boasted a full Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva and a Mercaz le-Inyanei Chinuch, both of which were brought under the umbrella of the New York headquarters headed by R Shmaryahu Gurary and R Menahem Mendel Schneerson, respectively. The development of Canadian Habad is discussed extensively by Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 201-222) and will not be analyzed further here.

2.7 Strengthening Habad Identity: Using USA Jewry as a ‘Whipping Boy’

In many of his speeches and written works, Rayatz sought to portray American Jewry, American rabbis (orthodox and non-orthodox), Zionism and American Jewish supporters of Zionism as the

devil incarnate, and by direct comparison and implication, to portray Habad Hasidismas the force that would prevent the spread of the evils represented by American Jewish society of his time. On Purim 5701 [1941], approximately a year after his arrival in the USA, when the disastrous situation of European Jewry had become clear, even though the full extent of the Shoah was not yet known, he sought to bring words of comfort to his listeners, all of whom had roots and relatives in Eastern Europe, while at the same time making a virulent attack on American Jewry, its rabbis and institutions. In an address to Agudat Chasidei Chabad in 1941 (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Address, 1941, p. 5), he cited the Besht’s words of “comfort and encouragement [that he brought] to his people at a time of galut-persecution.“ In the same lecture, Rayatz castigated American Jewish educators and education for their lack of religious observance: I take this opportunity to appeal to you, Jewish parents in this land: Fellow Jews! Brothers and Sisters! Have mercy on your own children. Do not throw them out onto the dunghills. By this term I refer to those Talmud Torahs, where the principals and the teachers are heretics, do not observe the Sabbath, do not put on tefillin, do not wear tzitzit, eat and drink without saying grace. It is shuddering to think of this murderous spiritual rape perpetrated by irresponsible men and women who are allowed to teach in the Talmud Torahs, and in whose murderous hands the fate of Jewish children is entrusted. This is the sort of education which leads many Jewish children to the missionaries, to be converted into the worst enemies of their own people. Send your children to be brought up only in such Talmud Torahs where the principals and teachers are religious honest and responsible Jews, observing the Torah and divine commandments. Then both you and your children will be happy spiritually and materially (ibid., 9).

At the same convention in his concluding speech, Rayatz continued his excoriation of American Jewry and its rabbis: What the Torah forbids us to do we may not do anywhere, even in America, and the precepts which we are commanded to practice we must practice everywhere, even in America. American Jews suffer from the “permissible” germ: It is permissible to break the Sabbath, permissible to eat treife, permissible to do without a mikveh, permissible to shave with a razor, to go without tzitzit, to be insolent to the Rabbi, for men and women to worship together, in short everything that is not permissible to the Jew in the rest of the world, is permissible here. But it is not permissible for the Rabbi – the spiritual leader of the community - to state his views on vital matters of religion, to preach and demand observance of Shabbat, dietary laws family purity etc. It is time to end the enslavement of Rabbis and clergy so that they can tell their congregants the real truth: return to a life of Torah and precepts if they wish to escape, or at least soften, the divine punishment of the throes of Messiah (ibid., 24). The last phrase refers to Rayatz’ teachings that repentance will lessen the punishments of sinners: this issue will be discussed separately in Chapter 3.

Rayatz’ attitude towards America and American Jews did not change during his 10-year stay in the USA. In his last discourse, Bati leGani, written shortly before his death in 1950, Rayatz repeated his oft-used description of America as a cold place for Jews: A Hasid is a warm Jew, and coldness is a deadly poison. In the past it was well known that coldness towards Torah is klipah of Amalek. Today it is considered ‘politeness’. Coldness and other forms of politeness are held to be part of ’general etiquette.’ The accepted standard in this country (America) is ’we need to make a living‘ and ’a living is money,’ which is anathema to the true Hasidic attitude to Yiddishkeit.” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Bati, p. 221)27

Rayatz’ strong antipathy towards American Jewry was reinforced by the fact that American Jews, in general, had a positive attitude towards Zionism. Rayatz’ strongly expressed anti-Zionism, originally based on the view that human intervention in bringing about the coming of the Messiah was forbidden and that Jews were obliged to endure the galut passively until such time as God willed the end of days, was supplemented, in the mid-1940s, by his virulent rejection of the actions of the Zionists in the Land of Israel. In his closing address at the fifth annual celebration of the founding of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim in March 1945, he unleashed a torrent of invective on the Zionist endeavor in Palestine In Eretz Yisrael Jewish children are being malevolently thrown out of the faith. i.e. baptized) A number of anti-religious individuals are ,שמד :Hebrew original) among the group of leaders whose task it is to settle orphaned refugee children in Eretz Yisrael, have set up an “apostasy corner” for the children. …Hitler set up lime-kilns to torture and cremate Jewish bodies: in Eretz Yisrael a certain group has set up houses of apostasy to torture and cremate Jewish souls… “Thanks to devoted anti-religious Hamans, the “apostasy corner” …is training the orphaned Jewish refugee children in the way followed by…the Yevsektsia. These people are teaching the children to desecrate the Shabbos, to eat treife food, to eat on Yom Kippur, to eat chametz on Pesach. They do not even allow them to say Kaddish for their parents… Orphans brought up in this way will tear up Torah scrolls, burn down synagogues, and desecrate Jewish cemeteries… … This work is being carried out with your power, the power of American Jewry…that is unwittingly providing the money that is collected in the shuls and batei midrash…- with this money these orphaned Jewish children are being thrust out of the faith. (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Sefer Hasichos 5705, 2014 p. 158) Public events concerning Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim in New York appear to have been a convenient platform for Rayatz to attack American Jewry. In the same speech at the 5-year celebration of the establishment of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim cited above, Rayatz dramatically linked his accusations of the forced apostization of refugee Jewish children in Palestine to

27 The provenance of this discourse is somewhat unclear. The original Bati Legani was written by Rashab. In 1923, R Yosef Yitchak wrote a discourse based upon Rashab’s original, but with additions and changes. In 1949, a new version, also based on the earlier versions but with some changes, was ostensibly prepared by Rayatz, for delivery by him on Shvat 10, 5710 in honor of his grandmother’s yahrzeit, but his death precluded this. Rayatz’ 1949 version was edited and printed under the supervision of R Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, who later instituted a discourse every year on the same date, all of which were to be entitled Bati Legani. This version printed in 2007 purports to be Rayatz’ but it could possibly have undergone some changes. The criticism of American Jewry is unlikely to have been altered, however, as it is consistent with Rayatz’ many writings on the subject. 60

American Jewish "complicity" in this by their support of the orphan rescue missions. He went on to place responsibility on American Jews for the failure to rescue European Jews from the Holocaust in time: Jewish men and women: You are all responsible for the apostasy of orphaned refugee children that is being carried out in Eretz Yisrael… Jewish men and women: The man or woman who supports the “apostasy corner” bears upon himself the blot of apostasy… Fellow Jews, the Jewish press, Jewish communal workers and spokesmen! You missed the opportunity of rescuing the overseas Jews in time: rescue the orphans from apostasy in time… and the loving God will prosper you, so that your own children will have parents who are healthy both materially and spiritually (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Sefer Hasichos 5705, 2014, 160-161). In accusing American Jewry of causing the apostasy of the refugee children from Europe and of responsibility for failing to prevent the Holocaust, Rayatz cast American Jewry and its leaders, both rabbinical and secular, as the enemy, as an ominous, hostile “them.” It appears as if Rayatz was willing to castigate American Jewry as the enemy “other” for the sake of shoring up the Habad identity as the unique force for good in a Jewish world contaminated by the “isms” that prevailed. Among these, Rayatz would have been able to list the “non-religionisms” (in his terms) – whether they were in fact Reform, Conservative or modern Orthodox – as well as Zionism, liberalism, and any aspect of modernity. All hese represented the”deviant” forces of Zionism, Reform and Haskalah that his father before him and Rayatz himself had sternly set face against and fought to the ultimate of their ability.

Chapter 3: The Religious Message of Rayatz

Chapters 1 and 2 dealt with the “organization” and “propaganda” pillars of Rayatz’s revitalization program for Habad. However, without the ideological pillar of Habad’s religious message, the‎ movement would‎ have been incomplete. This chapter addresses Rayatz’ religious thinking and philosophy. Rayatz’ religious philosophy can be seen to have been made up of several elements, which evolved from his interpretations of the earlier teachings of Habad. Rayatz’ theology contained the approaches of “classic “Habad Hasidism” based on the Tanya and Kabbalistic interpretations of the traditional Jewish texts to provide explanations for the nature of God, the dialectic nature of the world, the nature of man’s relationship with God, and man's role in the physical world. However, he presented an aggressive approach to modern 20th century life. His rejection of Zionism as heretical human intervention in matters pertaining to divine planning, and of Haskalah and modernism because of the threat they constituted to traditional Hasidic beliefs and life patterns, also have their roots in the teachings of the earlier Admorim, especially his father, Rashab, who identified the footsteps of messiah in the tumultuous and disastrous catastrophes that befell the Jews in the first two decades of the 20th century. However, Rayatz’ own development of this direction led to his extreme position of the anticipation of an apocalyptic change of the world order. The chapter presents a discussion of these two aspects of Rayatz’ theology and their influence on his activities with regard to Habad in America. Section 3.1 summarizes classic Habad belief (Divrei Elohim Haim) and Rayatz’ interpretations thereof, while Section 3.2 addresses the evolution of the apocalyptic messianism that defined his attitudes from his arrival in America in 1940 until the end of World War II, and its muted disappearance after the end of the War. Rayatz’ ambition was to rebuild in America the Habad that he had lost in Eastern Europe. The intellectual underpinnings of this aim lay in the combination of “classical” Habad theology (Divrei Elohim Haim) and the messianism that informed Rayatz' teshuva and education programs. This “ideological pillar” was implemented by use of strategies designed to get the message across to the various sections of Rayatz’ target communities, as is discussed in the section below.

3.1 Defining Rayatz’ Target Audiences

From the discussion in the previous chapter it is possible to see that Rayatz addressed himself to three different “audiences,” which can be categorized as follows: a. Those with no knowledge of Judaism, or at most, a minimal understanding of Jewish practices, including children from non-practicing Jewish homes;

b. Jews with an attachment to Orthodoxy, and perhaps even to Hasidism, but whose level of involvement had declined. Following Catholic parlance, we may call the adults among them, “partially lapsed orthodox Jews,” although many would still have been regular “shul-goers”; c. Hard-core adherents of the Rebbe and Habad Hasidism, who lived a full Haredi Hasidic life style, having yeshiva backgrounds and participating in on‎ -going ‎advanced study at varying frequencies. While Rayatz’ declared aim was to reconstruct Habad in the USA as it had been in Eastern Europe, he was certainly aware of the necessity to operate in a milieu of audiences with different levels of understanding, while not forgoing any of his commitment to realizing his ideal of families and communities living according to halacha under Habad tradition. Although a fixed definition of levels such as that used below would certainly not be officially accepted by Rayatz or the Habad officialdom, de facto, teaching reality would dictate that there be an understanding of such divisions, which would require the Habad message to be pitched at different appropriate levels, as follows, allowing for age differences: a. Education towards the practice of basic practical Jewish ritual (Shabbat, kashrut, tefillin, taharat hamishpacha, etc.), supported by familiarization studies of basic Jewish texts. This level was largely, but not exclusively, concerned with children of school-going age and encompassed the Chederim, the religious classes for children attending public schools, the Mesibot Shabbat, the work with farmers and isolated communities, and probably the intake levels of the Yeshivot Achei Temimim and Bet Rivka and Bet Sarah systems. With the probable exception of the practice of using siddurim of nusach Ha’ari, there would be very little, in regard to content, in this section that would distinguish Habad from whatever educational activities existed in other orthodox communities that sought to expand their memberships by attracting children, youth or the unaffiliated Jew. The major difference would be in the level of enthusiasm that Rayatz, reportedly a very charismatic leader, could evoke in the educators for their task. b. At a somewhat higher level, aimed at the senior classes of the Achei Temimim and the Tomchei Temimim students as well as the adults in this group, such as the Eshel28 attendees, education would be focused on Divrei Elohim Haim, the teachings of Habad Hasidism, Chumash, Tehillim, Tanya), Kabbala, and the mystic philosophies) חת''ת including shiurim in of the Habad Admorim. c. Rayatz’ religious thinking, particularly as expressed in his writings in Hakeriah Vehakedusha in the early 1940s, was strongly informed by his apocalyptic messianism, discussed in more detail below. His interpretations of Habad mysticism were strongly, but not exclusively,

An association of adult study groups established by Rayatz and administered by Machane .אגודת שיעורי לימוד - Eshel 28 Israel 63

influenced by his identification of the era as the time immediately preceding the advent of the Messiah. In his view, the sufferings of the Jews in Europe were expressions of the birth pains of Messiah, which would be followed by complete redemption. The core group of Rayatz’ firmest followers were exposed this messianic teachings, via Hakeriah Vehakedusha and Hayom Yom, and also served as his messengers in disseminating the Teshuva program. A contributory factor to the segmentation of the target audiences was language. While the elite of Rayatz’ supporters (largely group c, above) were competent in both Yiddish and Hebrew, those in the first two groups (children and adults with minimal Jewish education) were largely American born, or at least, products of the American schooling system, or those whose religious knowledge had fallen into disuse, and were hence predominantly English speaking. It was therefore necessary to find suitable teachers, instructors and madrichim who were competent to conduct Rayatz’ programs of teshuva and Jewish education in English. In addition, it was necessary to provide English-language source books for both teachers and students, appropriate to the age groups and level of Jewish background knowledge. The need for English-language teaching material was largely addressed by the Mercaz LeInyanyei Chinuch, which during the first 18 months of its existence is reported to have produced about 6000 booklets in English (and Yiddish), being mainly directed at children and youth (Schneersohn,Y.Y., Igrot, Vol 7, Letter 1,972 Adar II, 5703 [1943]). Similarly, booklets of Birkat Hamazon with English translation ,[א'תתקסב] and pocket books of “Tishrei” (a booklet explaining the Festivals of the month) were prepared in 15,000 copies (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 274). These and other materials produced by Mercaz LeInyanei Chinuch and later by Kehot, enabled Habad to engage with the young and the Jewishly uneducated, while for those with more advanced levels of knowledge of Judaism and Hasidism (largely Rayatz’ inner circles and more elderly veteran immigrants) the programs were conducted in Hebrew and Yiddish, with the written material being produced by Kehot, or published in Hakeriah Vehakedusha. In summary, it could be stated that the more that Habad’s programs were aimed at American-born or -educated audiences, so was Habad more and more obliged to make use of texts either carrying English translations or written entirely in English. For teaching personnel, the American-born or -educated graduates of the Achei Temimim and Tomchei Temimim systems were utilized. It should be noted that although Rayatz’ own writings and teachings continued to be presented in Yiddish and Hebrew, he had been eminently aware of the necessity to engage the Jewishly uneducated American public in English. One example, of many, that reflects this awareness is his letter addressed to an activist struggling to set up adult study groups (Eshel). Rayatz advises him to “visit the householders in their homes, explain to them, write letters to them in English and Yiddish…” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 8, Letter 2,691, Iyar 15, 5705 [1945]).

For each of the three audiences, directed campaigns of "outreach,” pitched at suitable levels, were conducted to expand the influence of Habad and attract new adherents. The central theological element that informed the entire campaign was the call to repentance, which, of course, necessitated addressing the desired adherence of the community to Habad’s ultra-orthodox norms. The major tool that was used in the repentance campaigns was based on Rayatz’ proclamation that the disastrous events in Europe portended the coming of the Messiah and that it was incumbent on everyone to prepare himself for the coming of the Messiah by repentance. The slogan “le'altar le’teshuva, le'altar le’geula” could thus resonate at all the levels of Jewish knowledge and involvement to which Habad addressed itself, as described above. For the non- observant Jew, repentance could be expressed in a greater level of observation of the practical mitzvoth. At all levels of knowledge of Judaism, repentance could be expressed in intensified levels of study and in prayer of the form taught by Habad. All these goals could be attained by the agency of Habad’s outreach campaign, so that all the organizations, societies and educational institutions created by Rayatz (Chapter 2) could identify themselves with the teshuva program and its aims.

3.2 Divrei Elohim Haim

Before proceeding to a more detailed discussion of Rayatz’ teshuva campaign, it is necessary to understand how the theology of Rayatz’ apocalyptic messianism grew out of pre-existing Hasidic thought and attitudes towards messianism. Much of this evolving process is contained in the texts that Rayatz instructed his followers to study, viz., Divrei Elohim Haim.The scope of this thesis does not permit justice to be done the vast literature of Habad mysticism and teachings, but some introduction is necessary in order for the messianic aspect that follows to be seen in context. The following summary is culled from Elior (1987, 1993, 2006), Mindel (1961), Drob (2006), Biale et al. (2018), and various works of Rayatz cited below. Some examples are given of specific teachings that were delivered by Rayatz, and which can serve to illustrate the type of material that that Rayatz expected Habad communities to study. It should be noted that the examples cited below are taken from sichot and ma’amarim, which were intended not only to be heard as sermons or other oral presentations, but also memorized, committed to writing and then studied. According to Elior (1987, pp. 157ff), four main themes pervade Habad literature: ii) A doctrine of the soul, its “structure” and) ;(תורת האלוהות) i) A mystical theology-theosophy) iii) Guidelines for) ;(תורת הנפש) the influences upon it and by it on the upper and lower worlds and ;(עבודת השם) mystical, spiritual worship taking into account obligatory halachic requirements (iv) Interpretation of the supra-rational and reconciliation of religious problems arising from contradictions of mystical maxims between themselves and between perceptions of reality. 65

Early Habad thinkers perceived the relationship between God, man, and prayer in terms of This idea was expanded to .(אין) and nothingness (יש ;the dialectical opposites of existence (being encompass the whole of human experience (as it were, the whole of reality) as reflecting the “divine unity of opposites.” This dialectic was formulated in many expressions: finite revelation versus infinite essence (of the divine); manifestation (of God’s power, of His management of the universe) versus concealment; and the finite, tangible (“being”) versus the infinite, vitalizing presence (known as “nothingness”). Habad came to consider the relation between finite and infinite as the key to understanding divine and human reality, and the unique role of the Tsaddik was essential for this purpose. The Tzaddik was able to transform himself into nothingness and nothingness into being, thus “embodying in his own existence the dialectic opposite of being and nothingness” (Elior 2006, pp. 106-107). In the almost acosmic concept that “every entity simultaneously embodies a set of oppositions”, reality is more aptly described as the “appearance of reality” in dialectic tension with the infinite essence (of Godliness). Within the divine, too, there is a dialectic process in which the concepts of “ebb and flow,” “expansion and contraction,” concealment and revelation,” and“ ,(התלבשות - hidden vitality and external form (enclothement“ “being and nothingness” are conflicts of opposites. The familiar Lurian “contraction and is seen as two conflicting but interdependent dialectic (צמצום והתפשטות) ”expansion manifestations of the divine (ibid.). The blending of Kabbalistic symbolism from the world of the Sephirot not only expands the presence of dialectic opposites in the celestial upper worlds, particularly in regard to acts of emanation and creation, but is also interpreted in Habad in terms of the mundane, human realm. As such Habad applies the dialectic approach to every aspect of religious activity. Issues such as the understanding of God and prayer, and the role of Torah and mitzvoth in daily life are interpreted from this perspective. All “things” embody a simultaneous coincidence of opposites: Every thought, action, reality or image embodies its opposite, because beyond every being there is nothingness, beyond every manifestation of reality there is infinite nothingness. No entity is solely physical and no entity is simply divine” (ibid.). The role of the Habad Hasid is “to deconstruct physical reality and discover its divine source.” This acosmic approach that denies the evidence of or annulment of the (הפשטת הגשמיות) the senses is known in Habad as divestment of the bodily —This is also expressed in the attitudes towards prayer that Habad preaches .(ביטול היש) being ibid., 110). Drob (2006) has termed the Habad) (דבקות) or devotion (התבוננות) contemplation dialectic of opposites a specific example of Rational Mysticism that “articulates mystical doctrines in rational terms and uses reason to arrive at insights and conclusions that could otherwise be arrived at meditatively.” In essence this implies that, based on assumptions that are not supported by rational thought, a pyramid of conclusions is reached by applying methods that employ the techniques of reason. A simplistic example would be the following: Lurian Kabbalah

postulates a celestial world based on the Sephirot: there are different levels of worlds in the celestial level; therefore each of the upper worlds must also be characterized by the presence of Sephirot, each present in each of the upper worlds in accordance with the major characteristic of .(אצילות, בריאה, יצירה) each of the upper worlds The principle of unified dichotomy is exemplified in Habad teaching concerning the soul. and the animal soul (נפש אלוהית) The human soul is viewed as being comprised of the divine soul The divine soul (eye of the mind) seeks to elevate everything to the spiritual level .(נפש בהימית) and strip away the material in order to reveal the divine that underlies the manifestation of reality, whereas the animal soul (eye of the flesh) seeks descent into the material world and conversion of the spiritual into the physical. Rayatz’ discourse Bati Legani, written by him but delivered by R Menahem Mendel after Rayatz’ death, makes use of the soul motifs in order to expound on the nature of unacceptable attitudes to Torah: There are people who are … devoid of Torah wisdom and honest character …Their actions are like those of animals. They have “nefesh ha-beheimi”. Some are so like animals that they scoff at Torah and the mitzvoth, and choose for themselves various paths, which mitzvoth they observe and which they don’t. All of this comes from the impudence and coldness of an animal soul. (Schneersohn, Y. Y., Bati Legani, 1950, p. 58) In another discourse based on the Talmudic saying, “God does not deal imperiously with his expounds on the structure of the soul and the 29(אין הקב''ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו) ”creatures influence of the Sephirot on it and then reverts to the same lesson above regarding those who scoff at Torah. Intellect and emotion of holiness are the two levels of Godly soul called nefesh elohit and yetzer tov. Nefesh elohit refers to the intellect made up of Hochma, Bina and Da’at. Yetzer hatov means acts of goodness directed to one’s fellow man and the actual performance of mitzvoth. Torah was given to the Jews because … [they show] self-abnegation and mesirut nefesh [which] is found only among the Jews and not among other nations. This is the spirit of na’aseh venishma. The God-fearing and observant person is uncomfortable, pierced with iron spears by those who laugh at him… The scoffers are lowly unruly people who lack all comprehension and have never tried to better themselves intellectually or emotionally. Their life is centered on physical self-gratification, indulging in gluttony, drink physical and corporeal desires [They are] people who want to be free of any yoke – coarse as animals and beasts (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Chasidic Discourse, 1986, 1-9). Like many, if not most, of Rayatz’ ma’amarim, the text carries a moral message aimed at In this ma’amar, emotional expression is emphasized .(שיפור המידות) improving oneself repeatedly as being necessary for true avodah, and it is combined with its apparent opposite, intellect, as virtues that the Hasid must develop. However, Rayatz is at pains to clearly delineate the nature of acceptable intellect:

29 Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zara, 3a 67

…pleasure-seekers devoted only to fulfilling their physical desires…Their intellect does not refine their emotional powers. They act with haughtiness and pride due to their knowledge and wealth. But the more their knowledge and wealth, the more their humbleness and modesty should be.(ibid.) As noted above, the vast extent of Habad Hasidic literature does not permit a full discussion here, but one more example will serve to illustrate the nature of the subjects that Rayatz presented orally and in written form, and that he expected his followers to study under the heading of Divrei Elohim Haim. In his “Dibbur” for Shemini Atzeret, 5694 (Schneersohn, Y.Y., and its opposite ”מקיף -Likkutei, pp. 73-74) Rayatz deals with the Habad concepts of “external :(כלים) The definitions derive from the Lurianic view of the Sephirot as vessels .”פנימי-internal“ the outer shell of the vessel provides the vessel with its structure but it is the volume formed by the structure that is able to fulfil the vessel's role of containing and transferring the divine abundance through the sequence of the Sephirot. Thus, the divine intention cannot be fulfilled that surrounds and defines (מקיף) as well as an exterior )פנימי) unless the vessel has an interior its space. Rayatz describes a person who is mekif as one who exists in, or swings between, two The mekif is characterized by .(עומק רום ועומק תחת) extremes—very high level or very low level light and power that is stronger than the pnimi. Alternate Hasidic terms for these two concepts for pnimi (ממלא) The latter term .” ממלא - whereas pnimi “fills ,”סובב - are: mekif - “goes around is in turn equivalent to the “light” that fills the vessel: when the vessel and the light are united, the vessel becomes purer until it reaches such a level that the vessel itself becomes the light. The light and power of the mekif are stronger than those of the pnimi, but the mekif's light and power cannot be contained in the vessel: they can only serve to display the light of the pnimi. But when the light of the mekif and the light of the pnimi are united, the light of the pnimi is strengthened. is compared (שכל) A lesson on improving one’s characteristics then follows: the intellect to the pnimi, and the forces of will and pleasure are compared to the mekif. The intellect limits itself to the vessel of the brain, whereas the desire and pleasure cannot exist confined in a vessel. Desire, pleasure and willpower are the externals that illuminate the intellect and the .and also illuminate the individual’s actual actions and deeds ,(מידות) individual’s characteristics But wherever it is, the mekif enlivens the inner light and mind enabling the pnimi to grow stronger than it was by itself. Rayatz applies this lesson to people who are able to improve both ,a person who lives only by eternal considerations – חיצון) their mekif and their pnimi. A chitzon seeking pleasure and fulfillment of his material desires, i.e., closely resembling mekif) can study deeply by use of his intellect alone, but if he does not allow the study material to penetrate his and destroys the faculties which are internal. A pnimi will (שכל, רצון) pnimiut, it remains external

absorb whatever external light comes to him, and he will be strengthened in his pnimiut by the effects of external light. Rayatz expresses a certain optimism regarding the ability to return Jews to the observant fold. He quotes two “axiomatic principles”: a. A Jew recognizes Godliness, is aware of what is above nature, and does not need any proof of it. b. A Jew neither wants nor is able to be cut off from Godliness. That point of Jewishness – dos pintele Yid – is deep within every Jewish son and daughter regardless of his religious or academic (scientific; orig. wissenschaftliche) status (Schneersohn, ,.Tamuz 5698 [1938]; and repeated in Schneersohn, Y.Y 25 ,[א'מד} Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 4, Letter 1,044 Bati Legani, 2007, 198). Since Jewishness could neither be discarded nor eliminated by attrition, there was always the hope of returning the non-believer to the fold by teshuva. Many of the lessons of Divrei Elohim Haim are taught by way of stories or parables, often involving the earlier Admorim, who were held up as paragons of wisdom, tolerance and innate goodness. This approach has the pedagogic effect of making the moral material easily accessible and understandable to audiences of all levels of Jewish knowledge. Rayatz’ discourse on the performance of simple good deeds for the benefit of others presents the moral lesson by recourse to traditions and folk stories told in Hassidic circles. The first“lesson” extracts a moral message from the following words attributed to the Besht: The Holy One, blessed be He, sends a soul down into this world for a lifetime of 70 or 80 years ,…[for the purpose of doing]…a favor to a fellow Jew in some material matter, and how much more so in a spiritual matter (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Likkutei, Vol. 5, pp. 319-320). This practice of Ahavat Yisrael has yielded untold fruits …hospitality, helping a pauper in a way that preserves his self-respect...sympathy shown to a widow or orphan, expressed in consolation for their pain and practical support for their needs. The second story involves a group of elderly Hasidim studying the writings of the Maggid of Mezerich, the successor of the Besht as leader of the Hasidim. Among the students was the Altar Rebbe, R Shneur Zalman of Liadi. At a certain point one of the Hasidim of the Maggid bursts in screaming that his son was critically ill and the doctors had despaired of his recovery. The Alter Rebbe then stood and said that the Maggid had relayed a teaching of the Besht that a blessing offered by good friends is rated more highly in Heaven than a recommendation for mercy from the Angel Michael. Hearing this, the group of students rose as one and blessed the ill child, who underwent a complete recovery. Divrei Elohim Haim thus contains concepts that are complex and can be understood on different intellectual planes, along with stories and legends that sound miraculous and naïve. Both types are necessary so as to engage listeners of different intellectual levels. As noted those

examples cited above constitute a small sampling of the vast literature that is encompassed in the description “Divrei Elohim Haim.” There appears to have been little academic study of the Hasidic writings of Rayatz, except for the ideas that are most commonly associated with him, viz., his apocalyptic messianism and his teshuva movement of the1940s, which will be discussed below.

3.3 Teshuva and Messiah

The issue of Messianism has always been present to some extent in the writings of the Habad leaders (Biale et al. 2018, pp. 303-304). All four of the first Habad Admorim indulged in some messianic deliberation, but there was a sense of restraint in their treatment of the subject, because of the backlash against messianism after the impact the disastrous results of the Shabtai Zvi saga and Shneur Zalman of Liadi has been described as neutralizing messianism in Hasidism (Scholem, Major Trends, 1962, p. 329; idem. Neutralization, 1969, pp20-55; Loewenthal, Neutralisation, 1996, 59-73). The Mittler Rebbe (Dov Ber Schneerson) wrote Shoresh Inyan Hevlei Mashiah, in which he described the spiritual and experiential aspects of messianic revelation. Temach Tzedek (3rd Admor) adopted the Rambam’s philosophical approach to show that the world to come is synonymous with eternity of the soul. Despite these writings, for the first four leaders, messianism was no more important than any other theological or religious issue. They tended to link messianism with other Kabbalistic speculations, such as which of the Sephirot was the root of the Messiah’s soul, with this linkage being upgraded to the higher Sephirot as time passed. This stance changed with the advent of Rashab, who shifted the messianic discourse from the theological to the historical plane, interpreting the current events of his day in terms of redemption. The forces of evil that he fought against were represented by the enemies he opposed: Zionism, Haskalah, Mizrachi (religious Zionism) and the Lithuanian yeshivot. Habad was the force of good (Biale et al. 2018, pp. 303-304). From Rashab’s perspective, Zionism and Jewish nationalism expressed themselves in messianic terms. In his view, the Zionists believed that return to Eretz Yisrael was the first stage of redemption, after which the Messiah would come: this was fundamental conflict with Rashab’s outlook that only the Messiah could bring about the ingathering on the exiles, and any human attempt to intervene in the divine process was blasphemous. Rashab set forth a fundamentalist doctrine based on Torah study and the performance of the mitzvoth (all according to Habad interpretation and formulation) as the necessary actions to bring about the coming of the Messiah. ”Out of the confrontation with secular Zionism, Rashab escalated messianic expectations and created the impetus for R Yosef Yitzchak to make messianism central to Habad’s teachings” (Biale et al. 2018, p. 542).

Having studied and worked closely with his father before becoming Admor, it is perhaps not surprising that Rayatz absorbed and intensified Rashab’s extreme anti-Zionism, some of which was discussed in Section 2.7 in the context of Rayatz’s attitudes towards America and American Jewry. However, his anti-Zionism had been formulated long before his arrival in the USA and was strengthened after his visit to Palestine in 1929. On leaving Eretz Yisrael after his visit to the Habad community there, he called for positive action against secular Zionists as well as against religious Zionists (the Mizrachi), as follows: Do not be like those who sit on the fence and defer to evildoers, who will not achieve true paths of life. Rather strengthen and embolden yourselves with zeal for the Lord to do as follows: stand up to those who are rebellious in the nation, the secularists and hypocrites, and serve as watchmen to protect the religion of our holy Torah, the sacred faith. Do not budge one iota from the tradition of the fathers in all its specifics and fine details. Then all will go well for you and for your children and there will be no breach and outcry in your streets (Biale et al. 2018, p. 650). Rayatz said further that the Holy Land had turned into one of the gates of hell, a stronghold of atheism where the forces of contamination prevailed. More than at any other time, it was necessary to strengthen oneself against these forces. He also created a connection between messianism and his opposition to Zionism. “The battle against secular [Zionism] posed a trial more arduous than any other, yet one that presaged the coning of the Messiah” (ibid.) In Rayatz’ ma’amar discussed above (Section 3.1) he linked the experience of galut to his definition of the present generation as experiencing the onset of the coming of Messiah. In later writings, Rayatz related the generation of the Messiah to the catastrophic experiences being endured by the Jewish people in those times: in this discourse he related the coming of the Messiah to the disappearance of godliness on earth because of galut: “As exile continues it becomes progressively harder to do Torah and mitzvoth, and even more so the spiritual aspects of service of Torah which requires comprehension and arousal of emotions. With the advent of exile Godliness became hidden and concealed, especially in these generations, which are called ikvot mishicha” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Chasidic Discourse, 1986, 1-9). Even though Rayatz spoke of the generations of his period as generations of Messiah and repeatedly described the time as being characterized by the footsteps of Messiah, there is a significant difference between his writings of the 1930s and those of the first half of the 1940s in his description of Messiah. The earlier period is marked by passages such as the following, taken from Rayatz’ Likkutei Dibburim, which reflect a “benign” message of messianism:  From the evening of Simchat Torah 7691 [1930], on discussing the fact that currently all who want to do so can hear the Rebbe’s teachings, whereas in the time of the Mittler Rebbe this was not so: “we should be grateful that it is [now] allowed for all to enter [the Rebbe’s hitva’adut at farbrengen], all the doors are open and anyone who wants can enter. The meaning of this is that now is the time of the footsteps of Messiah, and this is the time of 71

יפוצו ) ”keeping of the promise that “when your wellsprings are disseminated far and wide then Hasidut and the ways of Hasidic divine service will clean and purify the ,(מעינותיך חוצה outer world.” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Likkutei, 1987-2000, Vol 3, p40)  From the evenings of 19 and 20 Kislev 5694 [1933]: “May God give us and all the congregation of Israel the understanding and power to follow the ways of the service of God….because of the merits of our fathers the holy rabbis…and may it be that Your fountains burst forth and the King Messiah will come30” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Likkuttei, Vol. 1, 1933, p. 127).  From the last day of Pesach 5694 [1934]: “Among the wondrous new phenomena that will come with the Messiah will be that Tzaddikim will be able to see the great heavenly ascent that exists in the upward movement of repentance” (a reference to the concept that Tzaddikim exist on a supra-human plane and therefore cannot understand the religious experience of repentant humans) (ibid., p. 208).  Also from Pesach 5694 [1934]: “When Mashiach comes, this world will accord ,[אלוקות - ’exactly with the truth. Physical space will be actual Godliness [orig. ‘Elokus not clothed in any garment of physicality, for the true face of physicality will be ,.Schneersohn, Y.Y) ”[עצמות –'discernible – the face that is actual essence [orig. ‘atzmus Likkuttei, Vol. 1 (Eng.) 1934, p. 291) However, in same discourse, it can be seen that although Rayatz’ messianism is present here in as can be seen from the ,(תוכחה) relatively “benign” form, it is not free of an element of rebuke following passage: When the Messiah comes, they will long for the days of galut, then they will be Then.[עבודה .sorry that they did not busy themselves with divine prayer [orig the great pain of the [פנימיות .they will feel in their innermost being [orig absence of prayer. The days of galut are the days of divine service of man to prepare himself for the coming of the Messiah. (ibid., p. 185) In the early 1940s, Rayatz’ relatively “benign” messianism continued to be expressed, but it was joined, and often replaced, by an additional element, which became more strident, punitive, and requiring destruction and catastrophe to occur before the Messiah could arrive. Some typical 1940s passages reflect this:  From an address by Rayatz on Purim 5701 [1941]: “It is time to end the enslavement of Rabbis and clergy so that they can tell their congregants the real truth: return to a life of Torah and mitzvoth if they wish to escape, or at least soften, the divine punishment of the birthpangs of Messiah.” (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Address, 1941, p.24)

יפוצו מעיינותיך חוצה וייתי מלכא משיחתא :Original 30

 From the inside cover of Hayom Yom (1943): “The purpose of the society for Mishnayot Ba’al Pe (Section 2.3.1.1)) is …to ease the pains of the birth pangs of Messiah, and to bring forward the time for Messiah…” The change in tone is, not unremarkably, closely associated chronologically with Rayatz’ escape from Europe where he witnessed the beginning of the destruction of Polish Jewry, although the full horror of the Holocaust had not yet been realized. This experience was paralleled by his displacement from his familiar milieu, where he had been head of a large, fairly wealthy and influential community, to a situation in which his following was miniscule and weak compared to the make-up of American Jewry. Schweid (Hurban, 1994, p. 39) suggested that Rayatz’ formulation of his apocalyptic vision, in which the events in Europe represent the beginnings of the overthrow of the cosmic order and its replacement by a new Messiah-led reality, stemmed from his own need to organize and justify his activities. Thus, for Schweid, Rayatz’ first year in the USA was devoted not only to introducing his American followers to the “pninimiut of Habad tradition,” but also to preparing them for the dedication and self-sacrifice that would be required in his program of repentance and salvation. Schweid dated the initial presentation of Rayatz’ apocalyptic messianism to his discourse on Purim 5701 which was cited above (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Likkutei, Vol. 3, p. 40). In that discourse, Rayatz compared the situation of world Jewry to that of the Jews of the times of the original Chanukah and Purim, their sins and the salvations that they were granted: Every salvation comes in the wake of a time of distress, and every distress that strikes the Jewish people comes as a punishment for particular sins. …the tribulations inflicted in punishment are proportionate to the transgression, and the good fortune brought by salvation is proportionate to the repentance (ibid.) The sins of socializing with the Greeks, studying their culture, desecrating the Sabbath, eating treife food and ignoring family purity brought about the destruction of Bet Hamikdash, slaughter, slavery in exile as punishments, which was followed by repentance that brought the miracle of Chanukah. Rayatz compared the state of the Jews in his time to that of the Jews in the time of Haman, but with far greater intensity. “A certain portion of our people have forgotten that they are “God’s nation”….There has arisen an Ivri-Jew without faith and without Torah and mitzvos. People have forgotten their own roots: they have forgotten that we are in exile.” (ibid.)The Ivri- Jews of Haman’s days welcomed their life in exile …they did not want to know that the time of redemption was fast approaching…they scoffed at Mordechai’s warnings and Malachi’s prophecies…“Everyone should understand that the suffering of the Jews of today is a voice from heaven calling upon the Jews to do teshuva and return to Jewish observance and the pure Yiddishkeit of Torah and the mitzvoth.”

Rayatz saw himself as a present-day Mordechai, who like himself, recognised that Jewish redemption would require repentance, and he therewith launched his campaign of salvation through repentance – “le’altar le'teshuva , le’ altar le'geula.” The program was launched through the publication of a series of manifestos written by Rayatz in his mouthpiece journal, Hakeriah Vehakedusha, and in the Yiddish New York Newspaper, Morgen Zhurnal. The manifestoes, which subsequently appeared in Hebrew and English translation, have been studied as representing Rayatz’ messianic thought (see below). It appears that limiting appreciation of Rayatz’ thought to his Kolot Kor’im does not do full justice to the extent of his writings and the breadth and depth of the topics with which he dealt, all of which are beyond the scope of this study, and certainly warrant further research. Rayatz was not the only orthodox leader who described the times in messianic terms. Pierkaz has summarized the messianic positions of a number of these leaders (Pierkaz, Hasidut, 1990). R Kolonimus (Kalmish) Shapiro, the Rebbe of Piasatchna, described the decrees against the Jews to shave off their beards, to confiscate Jewish property and murder the Jews, and to close yeshivot and forbid public prayer, as chevlei meshiach. However, he did not predict the coming of the Messiah and did not generate an awareness of galut or of the Jews being torn from their spiritual roots and forced to live among other nations. On the contrary, Shapiro described a ibid., p. 379). R. Avraham Yellin of) (גזרות) longing for the Poland of the time before the decrees Weingrov (1929-30) described the world cataclysm of political and social revolts following World War I and the conquest of Eretz Yisrael by Christians as signs that announce the redemption (ibid., p. 240). Both these approaches differ from that of Rayatz. For him, the events of the war years (the full extent of which became known only afterwards) coupled with the persecution of Jewish life that he had experienced in Russia, Poland and Latvia, became, in his mystic-apocalyptic view of reality, the final stages of the collapses of the old world order. He perceived this collapse as a necessary step on the way to redemption and salvation. His theology thus cast the horrific events as an act carried out on the Jewish people for the agency of God to enable the coming of a better messianic era. The terrible events were the punishment for the sins of the people but were also the harbingers of a better situation, if only the Jews were wise enough to seize the opportunity to repent. His message was that the events of the time “made sense” on a cosmic level and that this should serve as an answer to the gloom and helplessness that pervaded Jewry at the time (Elior 2017, pp. 267-271; Katz et al. 2007, pp. 11-24, 171-190). The subject of orthodox and ultraorthodox response to the Holocaust has attracted much attention, and Rayatz’ thinking is usually included in such discussions (for example, Elior 2017, pp. 267-300; Katz at al. 2007; Greenberg, Mishpatecha, 2016; Greenberg, Orthodox, 2001; Greenberg, Redemption, 1992). It would appear that Rayatz’ apocalyptic messianism differed somewhat in

genre from the others and should be considered separately. Whereas the vast majority of responses to the Holocaust were post factum attempts to offer a theological understanding of the Holocaust, Rayatz’ apocalyptic formulation, however naïve it may seem in hindsight, was laid out a priori in the famous four Kolot Keriah as a call to action (Hakeriah, 1941, 1942), as discussed in depth by Greenberg (Katz, Wrestling, 2007, pp. 171-190: Loewenthal, Neutralization, 1996). The four Kolot Kor’im contained the essence of the theological basis for Rayatz’ identification of the persecution experienced by the Jews in Europe as trials that were sent by divine purpose to warn of the imminent arrival of the Messiah. Rayatz based himself on the rabbinic saying “Troubles have come to the World, look for the footsteps of Messiah!” In the first Kol Koreh, Rayatz declared that the Jewish world was facing two fires: In the Old World in Europe the Jews faced physical annihilation, while in the New World, Jewry and Judaism faced an insidious fire in the form of assimilation, loss of faith and growing non-adherence to the practice of Judaism. American Jewry was relying on the false promise that the democracies would win the war and that this would bring salvation to the Jews. Rayatz called for Jews to join the efforts of Machane Israel: this would enable them to share the knowledge of the apocalypse, and “see the truth“ of the imminent advent of the Messiah. Rayatz stated it as an undeniable fact that the Messiah was coming (“Soon", “He is behind the wall, behind our backs”), and the way to avoid the punishments that would accompany his coming was by “immediate repentance,” which would bring “immediate redemption.” Without teshuva, the world would be overwhelmed in a cosmic replacement of the existing order, and only those who truly repent in time would avoid the punishments attendant on the coming of the Messiah. The tragedies experienced by the Jews were thus part of the apocalyptic “divine plan”: the end of the old order and the footsteps of Messiah that accompanied it were consequently also a part of this divine plan. This idea seems to require as a corollary that the perpetrators of the tragedies experienced by the Jews were in fact acting as part of divine agency, even though Rayatz said that the doers of evil of other nations against the Jews would also be punished. The first two Kolot Kor’im appeared in Morgen Zhurnal of 27 May and 15 June 1941, but it is not possible to judge their public reception. The newspaper devoted its column “Readers’ Platform” of 23 June 1941 to the subject of the two Kolot Kor’im. In an introduction, the newspaper noted that too many letters were received from readers for all of them to be published. The letters were of three types, supporters of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the views expressed, opponents who criticized strongly the content of the two articles, and those who criticized the Morgen Zhurnal for publishing the Kolot Kor’im and holding the Morgen Zhurnal responsible for Rayatz’ opinion. Whether or not Rayatz’ apocalyptic program should be attributed, as hinted at by Schweid (Hurban, 1994, 39-44), to the cynical need of Rayatz to differentiate himself from the other

Hasidic streams present in America, or whether it truly evolved out the revival of messianic thought in Habad started by Rashab, the four Kolot Kor’im served to position Rayatz and Habad as different from all other Jewish religious factions. They interpreted the events in Europe as the start of messianic birth pangs that presaged the collapse of the old order and the birth of a new order by linking the sins of secular Jews in America with the punishments of the Old World with its preponderance of traditional Jews, thereby putting on secular shoulders some responsibility for the events in Europe. Moreover, the Immediate Redemption-Immediate Teshuva provided the hope that Israel would recover from the verge of annihilation, forsake exile, and move toward divinely assured survival (Elior, Resurgence, 1998, p. 391). Of course, this program appealed essentially to Rayatz’ supporters far more than to the bulk of American Jewry. Nonetheless, a ground swell of recognition of all of Habad’s the educational and social activities occurred. At least until 1945, the teshuva program, by virtue of the publications in Hakeriah Vehakedusha and the activities Machane Israel had an impact on the community with regard to overall awareness of Habad and its activities. The end of the war in 1945 marked a watershed for Rayatz and Habad. The predicted messianic arrival had not occurred: the period of Hevlei Mashiach had indeed brought disaster to the Jewish people but there was no sign of the predicted redemption, and there had certainly not been a massive wave of repentance. Within Habad, two events symbolized recognition of this failure of reality to match the theology. The mouth piece of apocalyptic messianism, Hakeriah Vehakedusha, ceased publication, and Rayatz ceased closing his letters with the slogan “le'altar le'teshuva, le'altar le'geula.” The last usage of this closing by Rayatz was apparently in his greeting to a hitva’adut of the Board responsible for creating and maintaining the kosher Chederim (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 8, Letter 2,715 of 15 Sivan 5705 [1945]). Loewenthal (Neutralization, 1996) described the change in tone from the strident apocalyptic message of the war years to a more gentle messianism based on tolerant outreach and positive encouragement to adhere to the mitzvoth rather than the “fire-and -brimstone” approach of fear of punishment, as the ascendance (or re-appearance) of the concept of geula ishit (personal redemption) in Habad in place of geula clalit (general, or national, redemption), as originally expounded by Rashab and Rayatz. One consequence of this transformation was the enhanced concentration on the communal and social aspects of Rayatz’ program, as discussed in the following chapter.

Chapter 4: Conclusions – Rayatz and His Heritage

The elements of organization that Rayatz established prior to and upon his arrival in America were described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 summarized the religious background and specific religious message that Rayatz sought to disseminate in the period 1940-45, and the changes to that message after the end of World War II. In this chapter, an analysis will be presented of the modes of operation employed by Rayatz, which led, by the time of his death in 1950, to the existence of a well-defined organizational structure and operating base for the movement. In many ways, the interrelationships between functions and activities within Habad resemble the operational structure of a family-owned corporate business, and this metaphor will be utilized often in this analysis. In a systematic review of the history of Habad under the early Admorim, Elior (Minsk, 1982, p. 184) noted that “Hasidut Habad attached great importance to systematic organization of the students and of the methods of teaching them the basis of disseminating Hasidut.” She cites Rayatz’ own use of the Habad jargon "organization and propaganda" to describe this mode of operation (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Hatamim, 1936). Gries has commented on the doubtful reliability of some of Elior’s source material, but regardless of whether a tradition of “organization and propaganda” actually existed in early Habad, Rayatz imposed this model on American Habad from the time of his arrival in the USA in 1940 and claimed tradition as his authority for his modus operandi. To extend the metaphor of the business world, “organization and propaganda” would correspond in modern parlance to “management and advertising.”

4.1 Rayatz as Manager

Rayatz was well aware of the need for efficient managers for tasks of organization, as reflected in several of his letters. For example, in reply to an initiative to establish an association of Temimim in USA, he wrote It is essential that the leadership be in the hands on one person, who has which is a special ,(תעמולה והסתדרות) abilities for propaganda and organization in (יתרונות .talent of the soul. If you have a person with great attributes (orig who has no ability to organize and establish, and (חכמה, בונה ודעת .Habad (orig a person with moderate wisdom but having management skills…[choose him] (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Vol. 1, Letter 291, 25 Iyar 5686). In the 1920s and 1930s, prior to any program to bring Rayatz to the USA, he attempted to manage and establish the organization by remote control, relying on correspondence and occasional visits of shadarim. During this period, his correspondence was marked by continual requests for information (lists of synagogues, rabbis, shul-goers, people of Habad stock), and he was continually frustrated at the paucity of the response (Chapter 2). As discussed in Chapter 2,

after taking up office in the USA, a large part of his activity was indeed devoted to “organization and propaganda.” It was perhaps to be expected that Rayatz exhibited an autocratic management style, because in his religious role as Admor, he was also the Tzaddik, who would be assumed to be the omniscient leader who did not need the input of colleagues or subordinates, and, indeed, Rayatz’ style of management was authoritarian, bureaucratic and centralistic. This approach was embodied, for example, in the management structure that he established for the Tomchei Temimim Yeshivot system. After placing his son-in-law, R Shmaryahu Gurary at the head of the “Yeshivot Division” (see Appendix), he decreed modi operandi that defined and required hierarchy, management committees and sub- committees, reporting requirements and monitoring of progress of the whole system and of the individual students (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 184-188). Thus, although R. Shmaryahu Gurary was the formal Head of the Yeshiva system, including the Achei Temimim Yeshivot, it was Rayatz who created the management system that incorporated a management committee that would meet once a month, would receive a report by the teachers on the status of the students, their studies and welfare, would take local operative decisions on the running of the school and follow up on previously taken decisions. A protocol of each such meeting would be recorded and filed, with copies being sent to Rayatz. In the yeshiva system a rigid hierarchy of functionaries was created, headed by a Rav Menahel, who would be the local authority in all religious matters. The Rav Menahel was made responsible for ensuring the timely reporting by all his subordinates (teachers, mashpi’im, etc.) to himself, and subsequently to the institution and to Rayatz himself. As described in Chapter 2, Rayatz did not content himself with the upper level management of the whole concern. He demanded a level of reporting that reflected an obsession with details. One extreme example is the letter written by Rayatz to “the management of the yeshiva” (sic),: Please inform R. Shmaryahu Gurary - in writing - that each of his students should write what they did between mincha, erev Shabbat, until they came to classes on Sunday morning. AND TO SEND IT TO ME! (my emphasis) (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 5, Letter 1,481, 18 Tamuz 5701 [1941]) Rayatz’ involvement in the details of day-to-day management was not limited to his involvement in teaching and the students. In the winter of 1943-44, the network of Chederim in the New York to ensure (מפקח) area grew from 7 to 13, and Rayatz felt it necessary to employ an inspector that teaching levels were maintained and that classes were attended and conducted as reported. In true bureaucratic fashion, a document was drawn up to‎ serve as a “job description and contract” with the suitable candidate, comprising no fewer than 23 clauses and sub-clauses! Lest it be forgotten that the Chederim belonged to Habad’s specific stream of ultraorthodoxy, the first clause read “The inspector must believe with complete faith that also in America it is

possible to educate the Jewish child until he becomes the image of the Jew as he was formerly in Poland and Lithuania…” (Levin, Toldot, 1988, p. 208). Rayatz concerned himself with important appointments, and all choices proposed by local managers were subject to his approval. He made it clear in his letter concerning developments in Montreal that all decisions were to be made and approved by him (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 10, Letter 3,353 of 5 Tevet 5709 [1949]). In one particular case, regarding the appointment of a menahel for the Bet Rivka school there, he instructed the local officials to send in a list and he (Rayatz) would tell them whom to choose. Similarly, in the same letter he authorized the appointments of a certain R Yitzhak Hendel as representative to the Montreal Rabbinical Council and of R Moshe Gerlitzer as travelling rabbi to the small Canadian communities. In the same a letter, a hint was given about how finances were handled in connection with the distant Habad operations: Rayatz authorized a payment of $72 (approximate value of $750 in 2018) to the Alumni Association of Tomchei Temimim, Montreal. Rayatz reserved to himself the authority to make the personnel and monetary decisions of even sums of this small magnitude. Rayatz as a manager was demanding and on occasion irascible, even in writing. In a letter of R Menahem Mendel, he complained about the constant pressure that Rayatz put upon him as Chief Editor of Kehot : ”…we are publishing too few [books] and we should work more in the department (as well as in all the other departments) and with greater intensity….”(Schneerson, M.M., Igrot, Vol. 3, Letter 484, 18 Iyar 5709 [1949]) In yet another letter (to R Nissan Nimnov) R Menahem Mendel complained about the workloads put on him by Rayatz: After publishing the Kuntras for Hag Hage'ula, I have to finish everything related to the index for the discourses of the Rebbe which is already in print, and after that another book. In the middle of all this it appears we do not have enough mahzorim and need to make more. In addition I received an order [from Rayatz] to add to them a short list of the leaders of Habad. And for sure, next week will come an order to prepare the kuntras for 18th Elul etc., etc... (Schneersohn, M.M., Igrot, Vol. 3, Letter 518, 26 Av 5709 [1949]). Like many managers, Rayatz had little feeling for the efforts required for his subordinates to perform the task and tended to look only at results. Another example of this can be seen in his rebuke of a certain R Levitan, whom he had sent to Montreal to oversee the integration there of 9 Lithuanian Temimim refugees who had managed to reach Canada. Replying to Leviton’s report that he had managed to recruit 24 students and organize them into two classes, Rayatz was dismissive: …they are really too few for a city like Montreal and its surroundings. Surely it is possible to find more, and it is solely that the present propaganda is not arranged as it should be…Look, within a few weeks of organized propaganda, and with the help of Anash it would certainly have been possible to advertise in the local paper and announce the opening of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim, and

to call on them to come and study…and during the course of these weeks to assemble only 24 students is not a job well done … “]זה[ אינו ענין של עבודה כלל - דאס איז ניט קיין ארבעט" (Schneersohn, Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 6, Letter 1,635, 6 Kislev 5702 [1941]) If the above descriptions refers to Rayatz’ micromanagement in the affairs of a “division“ nominally under the management of R Shmaryahu Gurary, the same centralistic approach was evident in the overall management of the whole of “corporate Habad.” In Chapter 2, the establishment by Rayatz of a number of societies and organizations was discussed. Of these units, all except those associated with yeshiva or cheder study, were placed under the management of R Menachem Mendel, who in turn reported to Rayatz (See Appendix). Rayatz thus appointed as heads of the Tomchei Temimim Yeshivot “Division” and the Mercaz Inyanei Chinuch “Division” his two sons-in-law, the people closest to him and in whom he could put his trust. The comparison is obvious to the head of a large family business (Chairman of the Board) appointing his two sons-in-law to positions corresponding perhaps to Chief Executive Officer positions (CEO, in company parlance). Each was nominally in charge of his own division, with a clear division of responsibilities between them, and each was next-in-line to the top management position. However, as shown above, the real power of decision-making lay with the Chairman of the Board, Rayatz, who undertook little real delegation of authority.

4.2 Rayatz as Head of a Corporate Conglomerate

According to Levin (Toldot, 1988, p. 347), Rayatz founded 21 societies, for all of which he served as President. Many of these had branch offices or regional departments, such as the Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim in Montreal, and if these were also included Levin reached a total of approximately 70 institutions. Some of these were small, single purpose operations that Ratyatz apparently dealt with personally or with the cooperation of various trustees, including his wife, Nehama Dina. Rayatz also dealt personally with some of most important of the subsidiaries, such as Hakeriah Vehakedusha, until this publication ceased in 1945. The most important division of activities was, as noted above, the separation of Yeshiva- related concerns from all the other educational and social activities. Thus, Mercaz Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim headed by R Shmaryahu Gurary united, under its auspices, the Yeshivot themselves, the “mechina” yeshivot Achei Temimim, the Chederim, and the Organization of the Rabbanim of the Temimim Yeshivot. These activities all dealt with people of school- and “college”-going age in all three of the “audiences” (differentiated by levels of knowledge of Judaism as discussed in Chapter 3 thus requiring the subject of Judaism to be addressed from the lowest to the highest levels.) The importance of the yeshivot in the development of the Habad movement under Rayatz cannot be underestimated. From the ranks of the higher yeshivot were drawn many of the teachers for the lower yeshivot and the Chederim, as well as 80

the shluchim who were sent by Rayatz to develop new communities where Jewish life had degenerated or where there was no existing Jewish community. This activity was widely associated with R Menahem Mendel during his tenure as Admor, but the roots of the practice were started in the time of Rayatz (see below, “business plan”). In addition, the yeshivot provided the manpower for certain activities run by Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch, such as the Mesibot Shabbat and the Mishnayot societies. More complex and multi-faceted were the activities placed under the Mercaz Le-Inyanei Chinuch headed by R Menahem Mendel. This division encompassed educational facilities for girls and young women (Bet Rivka and Bet Sarah), teaching of classes in Judaism for Jewish students in public schools (Va’ad Lechinuch Kasher), study groups for adults (Eshel HaTorah), a de facto youth movement (Mesibot Shabbat), a publishing house (made up of Kehot and Sifri), and the activities of Machane Israel. The importance of Kehot –Sifri in the growth of Habad was immense: in addition to supplying much of the educational material for the lower levels of teaching and printing the discourses of the Habad leaders, which served the upper study levels as source material, Kehot also developed into a major source of income for the group. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find financial data for the publication house (Kehot as a private autonomous religious body is not obliged to publish financial statements), but after the difficult early years described in Section 2.5, Kehot had no difficulty financing its publications, with many books being supported by donors in return for their dedication to the memory of deceased relatives. Today Kehot is claimed to be the biggest Jewish publishing house in the world (Wolff, Kehot, 2013, p. 5). Sales were enhanced by the fact that many standard texts, such as siddurim, mahzorim, etc., are in constant demand, while many of the books of discourses and commentaries are part of the “almost obligatory” personal library of the average Habad adherent, later institutionalized by R Menahem Mendel in his call to make “our house full of books” (ibid., p. 595). Machane Israel served as Rayatz’ elite corps during the years of his messianic teshuva le’altar campaign, as well as for the promotion of the Psalms Society and the Society for Mishnayot Ba’a’l Pe. After the War, the emphasis passed, as noted, from apocalyptic messianism to a gentler form of outreach, and the strident repentance campaign was wound down. Machane Israel became the wing of Habad that dealt with social welfare issues, gemilat hesed to help needy scholars, visiting the sick (Bikkur Cholim), soldier welfare, and contact with isolated Jews and small communities. Of particular importance was the start of the shluchim activity under Rayatz, which was later developed into R Menahem Mendel’s massive outreach program. The extent of these activities and their interwoven nature required a large measure of direction and control, as well as dedication to the cause and self-sacrifice by those carrying out the activities. These aims were largely achieved by virtue of the comprehensive organizational

structure that Rayatz created, which incorporated the crucial element of centralization under Rayatz and separation of activities between his two sons-in-law. Personal initiative was welcomed throughout the organization, but required Rayatz’ approval before programs could be started, both in regard to the detailed content and in regard to setting in place a mechanism for monitoring the progress of the program, which would generally include appointment of management committees and reporting requirements.

4.3 The Habad “Business Plan”

The development of Habad in the 19040s must be viewed separately for two different periods. The first period was the time of initial establishment during the war years, and was associated with Rayatz’ extreme messianic predictions, side by side with the more mundane tasks of establishing the institutions discussed above. The second period following the end of the War was marked by the quiet abandonment of the messianic predictions and their replacement by an emphasis on using the institutions already established to promote Judaism and to enlarge the population that was involved in the study of Habad-style Judaism. Both periods were marked by extensive use of “propaganda,” or in modern parlance, advertising, especially by person-to- person persuasion. Frequently the minutes of a Habad committee meeting contained reference to the request/instruction from the Rebbe that each member personally see to the mobilization of one friend to the activity under discussion, thus endeavoring to increase the activity’s participants In business terms, the former period resembled an attempt to introduce a ”product” that was largely unknown to the market. The product was largely ignored, and if not totally rejected, by its intended market, the Jewish community at large. The modes of persuasion used during this period were “fire-and-brimstone” in nature, playing on the fears of the believer or potential follower. Threats of horrendous divine punishments, or their non-reduction if the path of repentance was not followed, were invoked. The success of this approach was essentially limited to the hard-core of Rayatz’ adherents, the members of Machane Israel, and the readers of Hakeriah Vehakedusha, who tended to accept the words of Rayatz as incontrovertible truth. The end of the War, with its positive result of no apocalypse, emptied this approach of meaning. Like any company facing the fact of a failed product, Rayatz and Habad needed to redefine the Habad product and its message. In the second half of the 1940s, Habad repackaged the product of Judaism by dropping the earlier slogans of teshuva and the emphasis on the geula clalit aspect of messianism, and concentrated on a gentler outreach, clothed in terms of geula pratit, to those parts of the community further away from traditional Jewish practice, while continuing to strengthen the hard- core of yeshiva study (Leventhal, Neutralization, p. 66). 82

One of the features of Rayatz’ outreach program throughout the 1940s was the sent from the New York headquarters to the (שד''רים, שלוחים) extensive use made of emissaries distant cities to spread the message of Habad. Initially the shochtim were adult Anash, whose main task was making and maintaining contact with distant communities, preferably those with some attachment to Habad Hasidism. After the establishment of Yeshivat Tomchei Temimim, students were sent to the communities for varying periods of up to a few months, during which time they lectured on Habad under the auspices of the local rabbi, recruited students for Chederim, and worked toward the assimilation of Chabad practices in these communities. These steps were mostly the starting points of the establishment later on of Yeshivot Achei Temimim schools for boys, followed by Bet Rivka schools for girls (Levin, Toldot, 1988, pp. 369-379). In an occasional departure from the pattern, young married couples were sent on these missions with the purpose of establishing family life in these communities. Young couples with children were targeted as the nucleus of the future community. The first contribution of the shlichot was usually the establishment of a kindergarten which generated contacts with young mothers (Levin, Toldot, 1988, 222ff). This, allied with the educational efforts of her husband among the boys and young men, often created the impetus for the development of a community around these activities. Later, Rayatz institutionalized the work of the local shluchim, describing the modus operandi to be followed by the shluchim in order to make inroads in a new community upon their arrival. (Schneersohn,Y.Y., Igrot, Vol. 10, Letter 3,315, 14 Heshvan, 5700 [1949]). This pattern was later adopted and greatly expanded by R Menachem Mendel after he became Rebbe: this subject is dealt with in more detail by Heilman (Lubavitch, 2018, 137-152), who also describes the norm created in Habad by R Menachem Mendel according to which Temimim graduates would serve a period of shlichut in 'un-Jewish' or weakly Jewish areas. One of the features of the activities set up by the shlichim of Rayatz, as was also true for R. Menahem Mendel later on, was the fact that kindergarten, schooling and community membership were all offered, especially in weakly Jewish areas, at costs to the families that were significantly lower than those demanded by main-stream orthodox communities. The attraction of pricing suited to the abilities of young couples made Habad an attractive proposition, even for those with no specific leanings or sympathy to Habad but who simply wanted to strengthen the Jewish content of their lives. Habad’s openness to Jews of this type, with some willingness on both sides to advance ”one-mitzvah-at-a time” without demanding that new adherents adopt ultraorthodoxy, accounted for the movement’s growing popularity (ibid.).

4.4 The Rayatz Heritage

The success of a business leader who founds or inherits a company is measured by the way he has profitably maintained or expanded the business and by the manner in which he has prepared the company to be run by his successor/s after his death or retirement. It is pertinent to judge Rayatz’ achievements by these standards: •He inherited and expanded an empire in Europe, which was initially lost due to forces beyond his control. •He aimed to reestablish in America an empire as identical as possible to the lost empire. For this purpose, he evolved an educational (marketing) program aimed at three segmented markets, the uneducated, the weakly educated but favorably attached, and the study- committed hard-core believers, aiming to attract into his sphere of influence all parts of American Jewry not committed to other streams, such as Reform, Conservative and secular Jews. Overall, his “market potential” included all those who had or could be tempted towards a Habad outlook, ranging from ultraorthodox to “light” orthodox and non-orthodox. His apocalyptic messianism was largely irrelevant to the uneducated and weakly educated, and was rejected or ignored by the general Jewish public. With regard to the true believers, the apocalyptic messianism failed the test of reality and had to be replaced with concepts of a personal rather than a national Messiah. Nonetheless, he can be credited with success in this market segment because during the years 1940-1950 the Habad fraction grew significantly, regardless of the changed messianic message. Success among the uneducated and weakly educated was also significant in that his newly prominent educational network had begun attract significant numbers of adherents, and the outreach program had also achieved some success in infiltrating some communities, bringing them to Habad practice, as well as establishing new communities which were ab initio Habad. However, in many of these Habad-aligned communities, many of the adherents did not comply with all the norms of an ultraorthodox community. Rayatz’ greatest achievement can therefore be said to lie in bequeathing to his successor the infrastructure that enabled his successor to build upon in creating the Habad that is known today.

4.5 The Influence of Rayatz on Habad under R Menahem Mendel Schneerson The most obvious impact of Rayatz on the Habad that developed after his death is to be seen in the movement’s enormous growth in size and influence. Whereas realistic membership of Habad in America at the time of Rayatz’ arrival numbered no more than a few thousand, some estimates of the present day Habad-aligned community worldwide range between 750,000-1,000,000—a remarkable change compared to the situation on Rayatz' arrival in the

USA in 1940. Of this number, however, most estimators put the ultraorthodox component at not more than about 150,000, which is itself an enormous change compared to the situation in 1940. Whereas the numbers of Habad educational institutions at the time of Rayatz’ death numbered perhaps a few hundred, present day Habad kindergartens, schools and yeshivot are to be found in almost every city boasting an organized Jewish community. Whereas the numbers of young couples deployed as shluchim in Rayatz’ times numbered less than 100, today more than 3000 young couples act as shluchim, mostly located in major business or tourist cities where Jews visit or in areas where Jewish life was deemed to be weak (Rigg, The Rabbi, 2016). Present-day Habad is a world-wide conglomerate that grew out of the small corporate entity that Rayatz developed. Rayatz’ Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim in Europe and New York are the model for similar institutional in the USA, Europe and Israel today. The Kehot publishing complex is reportedly the largest Jewish publishing house in the world, and is a major income generator for Habad. The social support networks maintained by Habad provides communities with cost-attractive social services that are based on organizations modeled on Rayatz’ Bikkur Cholim, Hevra Kadisha, Adeinu and various other Gemilut Hasadim funds, as well as educational institutions like Achei Temimim and Bet Rivka. However, the greatest impact of Rayatz on present day Habad is ideological—his bequest of the presence of messianism in the ideological thinking of the movement. Having abandoned the strident, but discredited, apocalyptic messianism of the early 1940s, and having slowly replaced it with a more benign accommodating belief that the performance of the mitzvoth would bring about the era of messiah, Habad under R Menahem Mendel was able to place its emphasis in educational outreach that was all-inclusive and inviting in its attitude to non- observant Jews. Thus, R Menahem Mendel was able to proclaim a more benign path to redemption based on “spreading kindness and goodness” and “awakening in everyone the potential that he has.” Thus, Rayatz bequeathed to Menahem Mendel the possibility of redemption and repentance without “ 'birth pangs of messiah,' a messianism that did not require pain and catastrophe” (Biale et al., Hasidism, 2018, p. 694ff).

Appendix 1. Pictures and Reproductions

a. Memorandum from “US Department oif Labor Investigation of Agudas Chasidei Chabad”, Jan 10,1940 (reproduced from Altein, Inferno, 2002, pp 310-311.)

b. Nameplate (Flag) of Hakeriah Vehakedusha (Vol 1, No 1), Tishrei 5701 (October 1940)

US Dept of LaborMemorandum: Agudas Chasidei Habad

Nameplate of the first issue of Hakeriah Vehakedusha

Appendix 2. Organigram: Rayatz’ “Corporate” Habad: 1940-50.

President of Habad (940)

Admor – YYS

Chairman of the Board

Principal Agudat Chairman Exec Committee Yeshivot Tomchei Temimim Chasidei “Melach” (1941) Rashag – CEO (Division head) Chabad Chabad Bulletin MMS- CEO (Division Head) (1940) (1924) 1935-1939 HaKeriah Histadrut Yeshivot Yeshivot Histadrut VeHakedusha Chedrei Achei Rabenei Tomchei Temimim 1940-1945 Torah Temimim (1940) Temimimm (1945?) (1943) (1942) Va’ad Mercazi L’ezra LeYehudei Europa (194?) Irgun Beit Beit Rivka Machane Chinuch Kasher Hayom Mesibot Kehot Rivka Israel Yom Shabbat Beit Sarah (Shela) (1942?) (1942) Nichoach (1944) (1941) (1943) (1943) (1943) )Chabad Music) Split 1944-5 (1943 ) Psalm Mishnayot Eshel(Irgun Bikkur Gmilut Soldiers/ Adeinu – Fund Ba’al Pe Shiurei Cholim Hasadim Farmers to Support Society Limud Kehot 1943 Sifri 1943 Torah Students (1942) Torah (1944) (194?) (1943)

(1942) (1945) (1945) 90

Reiondoshel

(Kupat Tzedaka)

Glossary of Terms, Expressions, Transliterations and Explanations

Admor Rabbinical head of a Hasidic court. Transliteration of the Hebrew ,Our Lord ,אדוננו מורנו ורבנו the abbreviation of the title ,אדמו''ר Teacher and Rabbi) Alter Rebbe The “Old Rabbi”; R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi; founder and first Admor of Habad was (1745-1812) Anash Abbreviation of “anshei shlomeinu”; the term used by Rayatz to refer to adherents of Habad. Former adherents whose links to religion or to Habad had become weakened were generally referred .”from Habad stock“ ,מזרע חב''ד to as Besht Abbreviation of Baal Shem Tov; Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer. ,A Jewish mystical rabbi considered the founder of Hasidic Judaism (1968- 1760) Bet Hamidrash (Beis Lit. house(s) of (Torah) study; usually serving as a synagogue as Hamedrash)/ batei well;, the terms beis hamedrash and shul (synagogue) are often hamedrash used interchangeably Cheder/ chederim Lit. rooms, study rooms for children) the colloquial term for the place where children (mainly boys and youth) would study Torah and more advanced Jewish texts; Jewish elementary school; Divrei Elohim Haim Lit. “The words of the living God”: The term refers to the teachings of Habad mysticism based on Kabbalah, Tanya and the interpretations and teachings of the Habad Rebbes. Drosh/ deroshot An extended learned discourse encompassing one or more ma’amarim (q.v.) Farbrengen A gathering of Chassidim for communal prayer, mutual edification, brotherly criticism and spiritual uplift in a group setting. Usually led by a mashpi’a (q.v.) Frierdiker Rebbe See Rayatz Gabbai/ Gabbaim An executive officer of the synagogue, or other communal organization. Habad A Hasidic dynasty created by R Schnauzer Zalman of Liady. Written alternatively Habad or Chabad. The former usage is preferred here except where the word appears in an official document or quotation. Habad Hasidism See Habad. Also used as a synonym for Divrei Elohim Haim (q.v.) Haredi Ultra-Orthodox

Hasidism A mystical Jewish movement founded as a spiritual revival movement in Poland and contemporary Ukraine in the 18th century in reaction to the rigid academicism of rabbinical Judaism. It spread rapidly throughout Eastern Europe. Kol Koreh An official publication by a person or organization intended to draw attention to a specific subject. Kuntres/ kuntresim A learned essay on a specific subject, delivered in booklet or pamphlet form Ma’amar/ ma’amarim A learned discourse delivered orally by the a Rebbe, and subsequently committed to writing for further study Maharash Abbreviation of Moreinu HaRav Shmuel: R Shmuel Schneersohn; Fourth Admor of Habad (b 1834, d 1866; Admor 1866-1882) Mashpi’a chassidic spiritual mentor, usually officially appointed by the *Rebbe, usually works with yeshiva students Mittler Rebbe “The Middle Rebbe”; R. Dovber Schneuri, Second Admor of Habad (b 1773, d 1827; Admor 1812-1827). Rashab Abbreviation of Rabeinu Sholom Ber; R. Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. Fifth Admor of Habad (b 1860, d 1920; Admor 1892- 1920) Rayatz Abbreviation of Rabeinu Yosef Yitzchak; Rav Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, Sixth Admor of Habad (b 1880, d 1950; Admor 1920- 1950). Also known after his death as the Frierdiker Rebbe (“The Previous Rebbe”) Rebbe Rabbinical head of a Hasidic court. Shabbat Mevarchim The Shabbat before the beginning of each Jewish month (Rosh Chodesh). Shul Synagogue Sicha/sichot; A discussion between the Rebbe and his followers in an informal setting; often contains legends, folklore and stories. Tzaddik/ Tzaddikim Lit. “a righteous person”. In Hasidism, the Tzaddik (the Rebbe) is seen as a Kabbalistic divine conduit through which divine blessings flow to the world, and through which a Jew’s prayers to God can be assisted. Tzemach Tzedek R Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, commonly known by the name of his major book. Third Admor of Habad (b 1789, d 1866; Admor 1831-1866)

References

Altein, Rachel, Out of the Inferno: the efforts that led to the rescue of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn of Lubavitch from war in Europe in 1939-40. (from the archives of Yisrael Jacobson). Brooklyn NY: Kehot , 2002. Balakirsky-Katz, Maya, “An Occupational Neurosis: A psychanalytical Case History of a Rabbi”, AJS Review Vol 34 (1), 2010, 1-31. Bar-Or, Naphtali, “Yisodah shel Yeshivat ‘Tomchei Temimim’ vehashpa’ata al Tnu’at Habad”, in Yeshiovot Ubatei Midrash. Edit. Emanuel Etkes, Jerusalem: Shazar Centre, 5768 (2008). Biale, David; Assaf, David; Brown, Benjamin; Gellman, Uriel; Heilman, Samuel; Rosman, Moshe; Saguv, Gadi; and Wodzinski, Marcin, Hasidism: A New History, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2018. Center for Immigration Studies, “Historical Overview of Immigration Policy”, https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy, accessed 06-02-2018. Dahan, Allon, Goel Acharon, Tel Aviv: Contento de Semrik, (2014) Davis, Moshe. “Jewish Religious Life and Institutions in America: A Historical Study” in The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion. Edit. Louis Finkelstein, New York: Harper, 3rd edition 1960, 487-588. Drob, Sanford, L., A Rational-Mystical Ascent: The Coincidence of Opposites in Kabbalistic and Hasidic Thought, www.newkabbalah.com, ©Sanford L. Drob, Ph.D. 2006., Accessed 06-28-2018. Ehrlich, Avrum M., Leadership in the HaBaD Movement: A Critical Evaluation of HaBaD Leadership, History and Succession, Northvale NJ : Jason Aronson, 2000. Ehrlich, Avrum M., The Messiah of Brooklyn: Understanding Lubavitch Hasidism Past and Present, KTAV: Jersey City, NJ 2004. Elior, Rachel, “HaBaD: The Contemplative Ascent to God” in Jewish Spirituality: From the 16th Century Revival to the Present, Edit. Arthur Green, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987, 157-205. Elior, Rachel, “Tehiat HaMeshichut beHasidut Habad beMeah haEsrim: haReka haHistori vehaMisti, 1939-1996, in Habad: Historia, Ge’ut veDimui, Edit. Yonatan Meir and Gadi Segev, Jerusalem: Shazar Institute (2017), 267-300. Elior, Rachel, “The Lubavitch Messianic Resurgence: The Historical and Mystical Backround 1939-1996”, in Towards the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, Edit., Peter Schaefer and Mark Cohen, Leiden: Brill 1998, 383-408 Elior, Rachel, The Mystical Origins of Hasidism, Oxford and Portland, Or: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006 Elior, Rachel, The Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism, trans. Jeffrey M. Green, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Ettinger, Shmuel, “Hasidism and the Kahal in Eastern Europe”, in Hasidism Reappraised, Edit. Ada Rapoport-Albert, London and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996, 63-79. Fishkoff, Sue, The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch, New York: Schocken, 2003.

Friedman, Menachem, “Habad Messianic Fundamentalism: From Local Particularism to Universal Jewsih Mission”, in Accounting for Fundamentalism, the Dynamic Character of Movements, Edit. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, University of Chicago Press. The fundamentalism project Vol 4, 1994, 328-360. Friedmann, Menahem, “ Messiah and Messianism in the Hasidism of Chabad-Lubavitch” (Hebrew) in David Ariel-Yoel, ed., The War of Gog and Magog: Messianism and Apocalypse in Past and Present Judaism (Tel Aviv), 2001, 190-191 Glitzenstein, Avraham Hanoch, Sefer Ha Toldot: Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Scheersohn miLubavitch, Brooklyn, NY: Kehot (Otzar HaHasidim), 5736 (1966). Greenberg, Gershon and Yedidya, Assaf, Mishpatecha Tehom Raba (Heb.), Jersalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 5776 (2016). Greenberg, Gershon, “Orthodox Jewish Thought in the Wake of the Holocaust: Tamim poalo”, in In God’s Name: religion and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Ed. Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2001, 316-341 Greenberg, Gershon, “Redemption after Holocaust according to Mahane Israel – Lubavitch 1940-1945”, Modern Judaism, 12, 1992, 61-84. Greenberg, Gershon, “Sect of Catastrophe: Mahane Israel- Lubavitch, 1940-1945”, in: Jewish Sects, Religious Movements and Political Parties, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Kuznick Chair in Jewish Civilization, Edit. M. Mor, Omaha, NEB: Creighton University Press, 1992, 165-184. Greenberg, Gershon, “Teshuvah and the Suffering of the Pious: Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn”, in Wrestling with God: Jewish Theological Responses duriong and after the Holocaust, Ed. Steven T Katz, Shlomo Biderman, and Gershon Greeenberg, Oxfrod and New York: Oxford \University Press, 2007, 171-185. Greenberg, Gerson, “Assimilation as Churban according to Wartime American Orthodoxy (HaBaD Chassidism)”, in Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation, and Accommodation : Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects, Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization, Creighton University, Edit. M. Mor, Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1992, 161-177. Gries, Ze’ev, Sefer, Sofer veSipur beReshit HaHasidut min haBesht ad Menahem Mendel MiKotsk, Tel Aviv: 1992 Hakeriah Vehakedusha - Kolot Kor’im, Vol 1, No9, 15-16: (June 1941); Vol 1, No 10, 9-11 (July 1941); Vol 1, Noi11, 5-7 (Aug 1941): Vol3, No 25, 12-13 (Aug 1942). Heilman, Samuel C. and Freidman, Menachem, The Rebbe: the Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. Heilman, Samuel, C., “Lubavitch and How and Why It is Taking Over the Jewish World” in HABAD in the Twentieth Century: Spirituality, Poliutics, Outreach, Ed. Jonathan Meir and Gadi Sagiv, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2018, 137-152. Hertzberg, Arthur. “The American Jew and his Religion” in Understanding American Judaism: Toward the Description of a Modern Religion, Ed. Jacob Neusner. Vol I. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975, 5-24. Hoffer, Eric, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, London: Secker and Warburg (1952).

Hoffman, Edward, Despite All Odds: the Story of Lubavitch, New York: Simon and Schuster 1991. Idel, Moshe, Messianic Mystics, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998. Jewish Virtual Library, “Vital Statistics: Jewish Population in the United States, Nationally: 1654-Present”, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-in-the-united- states-nationally , accessed 06-02-2018. Kaminetsky, Yosef Yitzchak. The Rebbes (2): Rabbi Yosef Yitzhak Schneersohn of Lubavitch, Kfar Chabad: Mayanot/Chish, 1996. Levin, Shalom Dober. Toldois Chabad B’artzois Ha’bris: History of Chabad in the U.S.A. — 1900- 1950 (Hebrew and Yiddish), Brooklyn, N.Y.: Kehot Publishing Society, 1988. Liebman, Charles, “The Religion of America Jews” in Understanding American Judaism: Toward the Description of a Modern Religion, Ed. Jacob Neusner. Vol I. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975, 25-63. Loewenthal, Naftali, “Contemporary HaBaD and the Paradox of Redemption”, in Perspectives on Jewish Though and Mysticism, Edit. Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot Wolfson and Allan Arkush, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, 381-401. Loewenthal, Naftali, “The Neutralisation of Messianism and the Apocalypse”, in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought: Rivkah Shatz –Uffenheimer Memorial Volume II, 1996, 59-73 . Luriah, Iliya, “Chinuch ve’Ideologia: Reshit Darca shel Hayeshiva Ha’Habadit”, in Yashan Mipnei Hadash: Mehkarim beToldot Yehudei Mizrah Europa veTarbutam, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2009, pp. 185- 222. Mercaz Yeshivos Tomchei Temimim Lubavitch, Natsionaler Fornem fon United Lubavitcher Yeshivos: Gevidmet tzum Fufzig Yahrigen Askanus Haclal Yubelium fon Lubavitcher Rebbe’n Shalita (R. Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn), New York, 5705 (1945). Metzger, Alter B.Z., The Heroic Struggle: The Arrest and Liberation of Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn of Lubavitch in Soviet Russia, New York: Kehot 1999. Mindel, Nissan, Rabbi Joseph I Schneersohn, the Lubavitcher Rabbi: A Short Biography, Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 1961. Morgen Zhurnal, together with Forverts, the two largest circulation Yiddish language newspapers, in New York, during the period of R Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn’s residence in the city. Ophir, Ephraim, Sipora shel T’nua: Kavim Letoldot Hashomer Hatzair, Bnei Avoda veMishmar beRomania, 1918-1940, Givat Haviva, p. 14. Pierkaz, Mendel, Chasidut Polin (Heb,.) Jerusalem: Bialik, 5750 (1990). Rapoport, Chaim, “The Afterlife of Scholarship: A Critical Exploration of Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman’s Presentation of the Rebbe’s Life,” the Seforim blog (14 June 2010): (http://seforim.blogspot.com/2010/06/chaim-rapoport-review.html). © Rapoport-Albert, Ada, “Hagiography with Footnotes: Edifying Tales and the Writing of History in Hasidism”, History and Theory, Vol. 27(4), 1988, 119-159. Ravitzky, Aviezer, Haketz Hameguleh uMedinat Hayehudim: Meshichut, Zionut veRadikalism Dati beYisrael, Tel Aviv: Oved, 1993, Ravitzky, Aviezer, Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism, Trans. Michael Swirsky and Jonathan Chipman, Chicago and London: University of Chicago press,

1996. (This book is presented as a translation of Ravitzky’s book Haketz Hamguleh, but there are significant differences) Rigg, Brian Mark, The Rabbi saved by Hitler’s Soldiers: Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn and his Astonishing Rescue. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2016. Rigg, Bryan Mark, Rescued from the Reich: How one of Hitler’s Soldiers saved the Lubavitcher Rebbe, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004. Schneersohn, Shalom Dov Ber, Letter, in Or Layesharim , by Shlomo Zalman Landau and Yosef Rabinowitz, Holter Press:” Warsaw, 1900, pp 57-61. Schneersohn, Y. Y., Address delivered by Rabbi Joseph Schneerson at Conf of Agudas Chasidei Chabad, Brooklyn: Machane IsraelMachane Israel, 1941. Schneersohn, Y. Y., Bati leGani: The last Chassidic discourse by the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi, Explained by Yekutiel Green, Kfar Habad: 1962, 2007. Schneersohn, Y. Y., Chasidic Discourses: Sefer Hama’amarim , Trans. Sholom B. Wineberg, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Kehot, 1986. Schneersohn, Y. Y., Likkutei Dibburim : An Anthology of Talks by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn of Lubavitch, Ed. Uri Kaploun, 5 Vols, Brooklyn, N.Y., 1987-2000 Schneersohn, Y. Y., Likkutei Dibburim: An Anthology of Talks by Rabbi Yosef Y. Schneersohn of Lubavitch. Translated by Uri Kaploun, New York: Kehot, 1998. Schneersohn, Y. Y., Likkutei Diburim MeHarav Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, Trans (from Yiddish to Hebrew) Avraham Hanoch Glitzenstein, Vol 1, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Kehot, 5750, (1990). Schneersohn, Y. Y., Ohel Sefer Tehillim: Ohel Yosef Yitzchak, Kehot: Brooklyn, New York, 5766 (2006). Schneersohn, Y. Y., Saying Tehillim. Translated by Zalman I Posner, New York: Kehot, NY (1975). Schneersohn, Y. Y., Sefer Hama’amarim, 5709, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Otzar HaHasidim, 1986. Schneersohn, Y. Y., Sefer Hasichos 5702, Translated by Uri Kaploun, Brooklyn, NY: Kehot 5777 (2017). Schneersohn, Y. Y., Sefer HaSichos 5705 : talks delivered in 5705 (1944-1945) / by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, the Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Edit. Uri Kaploun. Brooklyn, NY: Kehot (Malamud Edition) 2014. Schneersohn, Y. Y., The “Tzemach Tzedek” and the Haskala Movement. Translated by Zalman I. Poser, Kehot, New York: Kehot (1962). Schneersohn, Y. Y., The Principles of Education and Guidance. Translated by Y. Eliezer Danziger, New York: Kehot, 1990, 1995. Schneerson, M. M., Igrot Kodesh, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Otzar HaHasidim, 5757 (1997). Schneerson, M. M., Teshura LeYom HaBahir 18th Sivan: the day that the Rebbe (Menahem Mendel Schneersohn) and the Rebbetzin, arrived in America. Brooklyn, NY: 1987. Scholem, G., “The Neutralization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism”, Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 20, 1969, pp. 20-55. Scholem, G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Third Revised Edition), New York: Schocken, 1961. Schweid, Eliezer, Bein Hurban Lishua:teguvot shel Hagut Haredit LeShoa Bizmana,(Heb.) Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad 1994. Sefer Hok LeYisrael im Hamisha Humshei Torah, (Hebrew and Yiddish), Warsaw: Levin and Epstein Publishers, 1927.

Segal, Gershon, Be’orach HaBaD: Rebbe Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov, Admor R. Yosef Yitzchak, Kvod Kodesh Admor , Shalita, Kfar Habad: Reshet Ohalei Yosef Yitzchak Lubavitch in USA, 1990. Shadmi, Eliyahu, Leidata shel T’nua: Perakim be Toldot Hashomer Hatzair: 1913-1927, Givat Haviva 1987, p 18. Shanghai Jewish History, Internet sources, http://www.chinajewish.org/SJC/Jhistory.htm; http://www.jewishtimesasia.org/shanghai/262-shanghai-communities/756-the- historic-community-of-shanghai-china; http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/from-russia-to-shanghai/2018/03/26/ Steinsaltz, A., My Rebbe, New Mitford, CT: Maggid Books, 2014, 50-52. Weinryb, Bernard D., “Jewish Immigration and Accommodation to America: Research, Facts, Problems.” In American Jewish Historical Society, Vol 47 (3), 1957, 366-403. Wolff, Zusha, Hotza’at Seforim Kehot: Toldot Hotza’at Haseforim HaHaBaDit, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Kehot, 2013.

אך ללא תועלת רבה. עיקר פעילות האגודה היה בנושא גיוס והעברת כספים לתמיכה במוסדות חב''ד באירופה ולהחזקת הקבוצה של לומדים מתמידים בחצרו. פעילות הריי’’צ בתקופה זו נסקרת בפרק 1. כאמורהריי''צ הגיע לארה''ב ב1940- לאחר שאיבד "אמפריה ומעמד" במזרח אירופה. ישיבותיו פוזרו, נאמניו בפולין, ליטה ולטוויה היו תחת הכיבוש הנאצי ורובם עתידים היו להירצח, נותק הקשר המחתרתי עם תומכין ברוסיה ומצבם הפיזי לא היה ידוע. בארה''ב הריי’’צ מצא חב''ד חלשה מבחינה רוחנית. הוא הצהיר שמטרתו היא לבנות חב''ד בארה''ב שתהיה כמו החב''ד שאבדה באירופה. פעילויותיו בארה''ב, הנסקרות בפרק 2, התבססו על המשולש "אידיאלוגיה, תעמולה, ארגון." שלשת המרכיבים פעלו במשולב: האידיאלוגיה הופצה באמצעות מוסדות או חברות שהוקמו, כל אחד למטרה ספציפית במסגרת החיים הדתיים. אלה כללו ישיבת "תומכי תמימים" עבור סטודנטים שהגיעו לרמת לימודים מספקת, ישיבות "אחי תמימים" שפעלו כמעין "מכינות" לההכשיר סטודנטים ללימודים בישיבה, "חדרים" לתלמידים שלמדו במסגרת בתי ספר ממשלתיים, קבוצות נוער תחת השם "מסיבות שבת" שפעלו כמעין תנועת נוער, חברות ללימודי משניות ותהילים, בתי ספר לבנות, חברות "ביקור חולים", "חברה קדישה" ועוד. כל אלו הטיפו להעמקת הדת ברמות המתאימות לקהל השומעים שלהם. תוכן התעמולה התחלק לשניים.הראשון – העמקת לימודם דתיים ושמירת המצוות - שהיה יכול לדור בכל ארגון יהודי דתי ללא עוררין. השני, בשונה מארגונים דתיים אחרים, היה החלק החסידי נוסח חב''ד, מבוסס על פירושים קבליים במתן תשובות לשאלות האקסיסטנציאליות של החיים, כגון מהות האלוהות, מהות המציאות והיחס בין האדם למקום. הבדל נוסף בין חב''ד לפלגים דתיים אחרים היה התאוריה המשיחית-אפוקאליפטית של הריי’’צ. בדומה לאביו, הריי’’צ ראה את האסונות והרדיפות שפקדו את היהודים במהלך חייו כביטוי לעקבות משיח, שבישרו את ביאת המשיח באופן כמעט מיידי במטרה לשנות את המציאות הקוסמית ולייסד סדר עולם חדש תןך הבאת גאולה ליהודיםשתהה מותנית בחזרתם בתשובה. הריי’’צ הפיץ את המסר הזה )"לאלתר לתשובה, לאלתר לגאולה"( באמצעות ירחון מיוחד שייסד למטרה זו ואשר שימש כביטאון אישי של הריי’’צ. בתום מלחמת העולם השנייה, כשנודעו מימדי האסון שפקד את יהדות אירופה, וכשמשיח לא בא, ולא נוצר סדר עולם חדש, נגנז החלק האפוקליפטי המאיים והמענישה של המשיחות, והוחלף במשיחית מסורתית יותר שגרסה ששמירת המצוות היא שתקרב את ביאת המשיח. הרעיונות הפילוסופיים שעמדו מאחורי הפעילות התנועתית נסקרות גם הן בפרק 3. כמו כן, ייסד הריי’’צ בית דפוס חב''די )קה''ת( אשר הדפיס חומר לימודי לשירות המסר הדתי, וגם את כתביהם של האדמו''רים ללימוד בחוגים של תומכים מתקדמים. החומר הלימודי- תעמולתי הופץ באמצעות הירחון ובית הדפוס, וגם ע''י תלמידי הישיבות השונות שגוייסו למטרת ההפצה, בין אם בעל פה בחברות ובחוגים השונים שהוקמו, ובין אם ע''י מסירה פיזית של הירחונים, החוברות והספרים. הצעדים שנקט בהם הריי’’צ בהקמת החברות נסקרים אף הם בפרק23. לצד עמודי התווך ה"אדיאלוגיה" ו"התעמולה" עמד עמוד ה"ארגון". הריי’’צ דאג לבנות מערכת ארגונית מרכזית עם הגדרה והפרדה של תחומי פעילות וסמכויות, ועם מנגנון של דיווחים תקופתיים, וועדות מעקב, ונוהלים שהופעלו באופן מרכזי כך שכל הפעילות היתה מבוקרת בדרגות ניהול גבוהות. למעשה הריי’’צ ייצר מבנה ארגוני דומה ל- commercial corporate company עם מנכ''ל )CEO( , משנים למנכ''ל ודרגים מתחתיהם. מבנה זה הוא שאפשר לו לשלוט המגוון הפעיליות שהתנועה היתה מעורבת בהם. המבנה הארגוני והדמיון ל- corporate entity מוסברים בפרק 4. תרומתו הגדולה של הריי''צ להחיית חב''ד היתה בחיבור של אדיאלוגיה ותעמולה ל לתשתית ארגונית מסודרת ורחבה . יורשו ר' מנחם מנדל שניאורסון אימץ מודל זה שאיפשר לו להרחיב את חב''ד ולהפכה לתנועה עולמית.

תקציר

ר' יוסף יצחק שניאורסון )הריי’’צ – 1880-1950( היה האדמו''ר הששי בשושלת חסידות חב''ד. התקופה בה שימש כ"רבי" ומנהיגה חסידות חב''ד )1920-1950( הושפעה רבות מהאירועים המרכזיים ביותר של המחצית הראשונה של המאה העשרים, המהפכות ברוסיה שהביאו לשלטון קומיניסטי ואתאיסטי , ועלייתם לשלטון של הנאצים בגרמניה שהובילה בהמשך לשואה. הריי’’צ המשיך את קו פעילותו של אביו לטובת חיזוק החינוך הדתי-יהודי ברוסיה גם כאשר זה הוצא מחוץ לחוק, וכתוצאה מכך גורש הריי’’צ מרוסיה ב1927- והעתיק את חצרו, קודם ללטוויה ואח''כ לפולין. בשתי מדינות אלו הקים ישיבות "תומכי תמימים" על פי הדגם של הישיבה באותו השם שהקים אביו בלובאביץ' שברוסיה. בלימודים בישיבות אלו הודגשה תורת חסידות חב''ד המבוססת על תורתו של מייסד חב''ד, ר' שנויאר זלמן מליאדי, כפי שמבואר בכתביהם של כל אדמו''רי חב''ד שבאו אחריו ותלמידיהם. הריי’’צ המשיך להטיף ליהדות חסידית נוסח חב''ד, וגם להיאבק נגד הסכנות שהיוו, לדידו, ההשכלה, הציונות, וה"מודרנה" בכלל, ליהדות הסורתית. ב1939-, עם פרוץ מלחמת העולם השנייה ניצל הריי’’צ מפלישת הנאצים לוורשה והוברח לארה''ב בעזרת התערבות דיפלומטית אמריקאית )ובסיועם המפתיע של כמה גורמים נאצים(. בארה''ב מצא הריי’’צ קהילה קטנה, שולית בגודלה ובהשפעתה בהשוואה לאוכלוסיה היהודית האמריקאית. עד מותו ב1950- פעל הריי’’צ להפוך את חב''ד בארה''ב לתנועה יהודית-דתית המונית. הצלחתו יכולה להימדד לא רק מתוך השוואת נקודת המוצא שלו ב1940- וסיום פועליו ב1950-, אלא גם בהבנת עוצמת התשתית הארגונית שהוא הוריש ליורשו ר' מנחם מנדל שניאורסון )הרמ"מ(, האדמו''ר השביעי, אשר בתקופת פועלו הפכה חב''ד אולי לתנועה הגדולה ובעלת ההשפעה הדתית החשובה ביותר בעולם היהודי. בתיזה הזאת נשאלת השאלה "כיצד ובאיזה אופן הביא הריי’’צ לשנוי העצום בחב''ד שחל בשנים 1940-1950?". התשובה נעוצה בכך שהריי’’צ אימץ תוכנית פעולה בעלת שלשה מרכיבים: "אדיאלוגיה, תעמולה, וארגון". בשני העשורים שקדמו להשתקעותו של הריי’’צ בארה''ב קיים קשר עם חסידי חב''ד שהיגרו לארה''ב. קשרים אלו מתחלקים לשלוש תקופות. במשך שנות ההעשרים של המאה הקודמת פעל הריי’’צ מרחוק באצעות התכתבות ושד''רים עם אנשי חב''ד )אנ''ש( במגמה לחזק את קהילות חב''ד ואת מעמדו כמנהיגם של חסידי חב''ד באשר הם. כבר בשלב זה )מתואר בפרק 1( הריי’’צ הבין את החשיבות של התארגנות תנועתית ופעל להקמת ארגון בשם "אגודת חסידי חב''ד באמריקה". באמצעות ארגון זה הוא שאף ליצור תחושת שייכות לתנועה ולדרבן את חסידיו לפעילות אקטיבית לטובת התנועה, כגון ייסוד חוגים ללימודי חסידות בבתי הכנסת שלהם. המאמצים האלו למעשה לא הביאו לשינויים מהותיים בין תומכיו, וחב''ד נשארה קטנה ושולית לעומת הקהל הרחב של יהודי ארה''ב. הריי’’צ דרש באמצעות האגודה לקבל רשימות של חסידי חב''ד וכתובות של בתי הכנסת שלהם, אבל אפילו לדרישה מינימליסטית זאת היתה היענות מועטה ביותר. ב1930- הריי’’צ ביקר בארה''ב ועמד על מצבה האמתי של קהילת חב''ד שם. לאחר שהייה של כארבעה חודשים בהם הוא ביקר בריכוזים הקטנים של חסידי חב''ד, הוא התאכזב קשות מהרמה הירודה של הידע החסידי הנפוץ בקהילות אלו, ומהיקף ההתבוללות וההסתייגות בקהילה היהודית הרחבה משמירת המצוות המעשיות. אחת ממטרות הביקור היה קידום הקמת ישיבה חב''דית "תומכי תמימים" בארה''ב, אבל תוכנית זו נגנזה לאור קביעתו של הריי’’צ שאנשי חב''ד בארה''ב אינם מראים התחייבות להצלחת המיזם. כמו כן דחה הריי’’צ הצעה להעתיק את מרכז פעילות חב''ד לארה''ב עקב "רמת החיים הרוחניים הירודים" שם. עם שובו לפולין ועד 1939 המשיך הריי’’צ' לקיים קשר עם אנ''ש בארה''ב ולהטיף לחיזוק היהדות החב''דית, ע''י העמקת לימודי חסידות חב''ד )"דברי אלוהים חיים"(

תוכן הענינים

הקדמה ורקע היסטורי ...... 1

פרק 1: מאמציו של ר' יוסף יצחק שניאורסון

ל"נהל" את חב''ד מרחוק ...... 9

פרק 2: התבססות והרחבת חב''ד בארה''ב תחת

הנהגתו של הריי''צ ...... 26

פרק 3: תורתו הדתית של הריי''צ ...... 62

פרק 4: סיכומים: מורשתו של הריי''צ ...... 77

אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה המחלקה למחשבת ישראל

תפקידו של הרב יוסף יצחק שניאורסון, האדמו''ר הששי של לובאביץ, בהיווצרותה של תנועת חב''ד, -1930 1950

חיבור זה מהווה חלק מהדרישות לקבלת התואר "מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה" ).M.A(

מאת: ד''ר רולנד יוליאן מוריניק בהנחיית: פרופ' יונתן מאיר

תשרי תשע''ט אוקטובר 2018