This study seeks to forge a new avenue of legal scholarship on the modern religious movement known as Hasidism. The paper focuses on Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady (ca. 1745–1812)—Hasidic master, religious thinker, and jurist. Much has been written on Shneur Zalman, his formidable leadership in the face of strident opposition and his groundbreaking religious philosophy. His legacy continues to animate contemporary Judaism, primarily through his spiritual heirs—the Lubavitch Hasidic community—and through his Hasidic thought known as Chabad. The present study maps out an aspect which has been widely neglected, but is nonetheless crucial to understanding this religious leader: Rabbi Shneur Zalman's legal activity. The first part of the study surveys existing research, assessing what has been achieved thus far, and what tools are available for further research. The second part of the essay highlights salient questions to be considered as part of a judicial biography, offering preliminary answers to these questions. The article concludes with the contention that without serious analysis of Rabbi Shneur Zalman's legal writings—or for that matter, legal writings of Hasidic masters in general—any intellectual history of this religious movement will be incomplete.
1 Grinshpan, Yehuda, Ḥiyukha shel torah (Jerusalem, 1993), 78. Regarding a portrait of Shneur Zalman's grandson, the writer Alexander Ziskind Rabinowitz (1854–1945; known by the acronym of his name, “Azar”) commented, “It is better for us to honor the words of our sages rather than their pictures.” Alexander Ziskind Rabinowitz, “Toledot mishpaḥat Shne'urzohn,” He-’asif 5 (1889), 167. Cf. Hazofe, November 23, 2007, 11 (translated partial transcript of a 1969 talk by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, regarding the image of Shneur Zalman). While Azar and Grinshpan emphasized written legacy over portraiture, Soloveitchik waxed on the value of the (alleged) portrait of Shneur Zalman.
2 Most recently, see Etkes, Immanuel, Ba‘al ha-tanya (Jerusalem: Shazar, 2011), 225–316.
3 See, inter alia, Faierstein, Morris M., “The Literary Legacy of Shneur Zalman of Lyadi,” Jewish Book Annual 52 (1994–1995): 148–62; Polen, Nehemia, “Charismatic Leader, Charismatic Book: Rabbi Shneur Zalman's Tanya and His Leadership,” in Rabbinic and Lay Communal Authority, ed. Stone, Suzanne Last (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2006), 53–64; Etkes, Ba‘al ha-tanya, 23–224, 317–413; Bronfman, Menahem Mendel, Kirshenbaum, Eliyahu, and Shilat, Moshe, eds., Ha-rishon: Admor ha-zaken, rabbi Shne'ur Zalman mi-Li'ady (Jerusalem: Sifriyat Ma‘ayanotekha, 2013). On the neglect of Shneur Zalman's legal activity, see Cooper, Levi, “On Etkes’ Ba‘al Ha-Tanya,” Diné Israel 29 (2013): 177–89.
4 Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1941), 345.
5 For English editions of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav and the treatise on Torah study, see The Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Eliyahu Touger and Uri Kaploun, 8 vols. (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2002–2014) (bilingual edition); Hilchos Talmud Torah: The Laws of Torah Study from the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Eliyahu Touger and Uri Kaploun (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2004) (bilingual edition). In citing these works, I have left their spelling and transliterations unchanged; I have, however, replaced their brackets with parentheses (brackets indicate my additions). Other citations from Hebrew and Yiddish sources are in my translation.
6 On Shneur Zalman's prayer book generally, see Oberlander, Gedalia, ed., Ha-siddur (Monsey: Heichal Menachem, 2003); Raskin, Levi Yiẓḥak, ed., Siddur rabbeinu ha-zaken (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2004); Nochum Grunwald, “Ha-siddur ha-rishon ba-‘olam ha-ḥasidut,” in Ha-rishon, 293–98.
7 The many descriptions of Shneur Zalman's life possess varying degrees of historical accuracy, e.g., Frumkin-Rodkinson, Michael Levi, Shivḥei ha-rav (Lemberg: Kugel, 1864); Frumkin-Rodkinson, Michael Levi, Toledot ‘amudei ha-ḥabad (Köningsberg: Peẓel, 1876); Walden, Aharon, Kehal ḥasidim (Warsaw, 1866), 41a–45a; Walden, Aharon, Kehal ḥasidim (Lemberg: Madfes, 1875), 57b–59a; Kodonir, Yaakov, Sippurim nora'im (Lemberg: Süss, 1875); Rudermann, Pesaḥ, “Hashkafah kelalit ‘al ha-ẓaddikim ve-‘al ha-ḥasidim,” Ha-shaḥar 6 (1875): 96–101; Heilman, Ḥayim Meir, Beit rabbi (Berdyczów: Sheftl, 1902); Teitelbaum, Mordekhai, Ha-rav mi-L'ady u-mifleget ḥabad (Warsaw: Tushiyah, 1910–1913); Judaeus [Naftoli Hertz Ehrmann], Der Raw: Kulturhistorische Erzählung (Frankfurt: Hermon, 1914). More recent works include: Glitzenstein, Avraham Ḥanokh, Sefer ha-toladot: Rabbi Shne'ur Zalman mi-Li'ady (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1967); Mindel, Nissan, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi: A Biography (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1969); Alfasi, Yiẓḥak, Ha-me'irim la-’areẓ (Kefar Chabad: Masharki, 2009), 99–125; Etkes, Ba‘al ha-tanya; Eli Rubin, “The Life and Times of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi,” Chabad.org, accessed November 23, 2014, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2077851/jewish/Timeline.htm.
8 For now, see Cooper, Levi, “Rabbanut, halakha, ve-lamdanut: Hebeitim ‘alumim be-toledot r. Levi Yiẓḥak mi-Berditchov,” in Rabbi Levi Yiẓḥak mi-Berditchov: Koveẓ ma'amarim, ed. Mark, Z. (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, forthcoming).
9 The Oxford English Dictionary, ed. Murray, James A. H., et al. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), 2:582–83; Coing, Helmut, “An Intellectual History of European Codification in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Problems of Codification, ed. Stoljar, S. J. (Canberra: Australian National University, 1977), 16–24; Peter A. J. van den Berg, The Politics of European Codification: A History of the Unification of Law in France, Prussia, the Austrian Monarchy and the Netherlands (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2007), 204–11.
10 For an overview and critique of the genre, see Posner, Richard A., “Judicial Biography,” New York University Law Review 70, no. 3 (1995): 502–23. Earlier studies also highlighted the challenges of the genre; see papers presented at the symposium “Writing of Judicial Biography” held by the American Political Science Association in Chicago, December 28–30, 1948, published in Indiana Law Journal 24, no. 3 (1949): 363–400. Posner suggested alternatives under the rubric of what he termed “judicial studies”—namely, “studies of a person's works with only incidental reference to his life” and “studying [the judge's] opinions, philosophy, style, legacy, and influence.” It seems that the sum total of judicial studies of a jurist, together with more than incidental references to his life, might add up to a worthy judicial biography. See Posner, “Judicial Biography,” 510, 520, 523. For an opposing view, see Urofsky, Melvin I., “Beyond the Bottom Line: The Value of Judicial Biography,” Journal of Supreme Court History 23, no. 2 (1998): 143–56.
11 Methodologically, I consider both academic and internal Chabad scholarship, without prejudicing either but without losing sight of the difference between the two genres.
12 Soloveitchik, Haym, “History of Halakhah—Methodological Issues: A Review Essay of I. Twersky's Rabad of Posquières,” Jewish History 5, no. 1 (1991): 75.
13 Iggerot kodesh . . . admor ha-zaken . . . admor ha-’emẓa‘i . . . ẓemaḥ ẓedek (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1987), 224–25, 234; “Preface by the Rabbis, Sons of the Learned Author,” in Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Touger and Kaploun, 1:42.
14 To cite a few examples: I. A. Benjacob listed Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav and Shneur Zalman's other writings, omitting the role of Shneur Zalman's sons in the posthumous publication of their father's work. Benjacob, I. A., Oẓar ha-sefarim (Vilna: Rom, 1880) 139, 586, 587, 588. Samuel Joseph Fünn noted how unique it was that Shneur Zalman authored a code, though he mistakenly wrote that Shneur Zalman “published a number of sections of it.” Fünn, Samuel Joseph, Kenesset yisra'el (Warsaw: Zaks and Ẓukermans, 1886–1890), 331–33. In Fünn's entry for Shneur Zalman's son, Shneur Zalman's name appears as “Shne'ur Shlomo Zalman” and no mention is made of the son's role in the publication of the code. Ibid., 187. J. D. Eisenstein's encyclopedia lists only the 1854 edition of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, with no mention of Shneur Zalman's other legal works. Eisenstein, J. D., ed., Oẓar yisra'el (New York: Eisenstein, 1906–1913), 10:194–95. Shimon Moshe Chones added bibliographic details for Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav in his lexicon of halakhists. He did not list the first edition, though he noted that Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav was published by Shneur Zalman's sons. Chones, Shimon Moshe, Toledot ha-posekim, 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Ẓeilingold, 1922), 576–78. The 1930 endeavor by Boaz Cohen to record the responsa literature mostly listed Shneur Zalman's responsa that were appended to Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav. Cohen, Boaz, ed., Kuntras ha-teshuvot (Budapest, 1930; repr., Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), nos. 248, 1249, 1746, 1403a. See also Glick, Shmuel, Kuntras ha-teshuvot he-ḥadash (Jerusalem and Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2006–2010), nos. 3669, 3910, 3911, 3912, 4399.
15 Because of his focus on civil law, Elon's major study of Jewish law only gives Shneur Zalman's legal works passing mention. See Elon, Menachem, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, trans. Auerbach, Bernard and Sykes, Melvin J. (Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 3:1447; cf. Mondshine, Yehoshua, Sifrei ha-halakhah shel admor ha-zaken (Kefar Chabad: Kehot, 1984), 49–50 (Hebrew numbers). Elon noted that Shneur Zalman did not bequeath responsa on civil law; Mondshine demonstrated that at least one responsum on civil law was excised and postulated that there may have been other civil law responsa.
16 Horodezky, Samuel Abba, Ha-ḥasidut ve-ha-ḥasidim (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1923), 3:165–211, 4:97–102; Horodezky, , Ḥasidizm, trans. Zeligman, Y. (Berlin: Klal, 1924), 104–06; Horodezky, , Leaders of Hassidism, trans. Horodezky-Magasanik, Maria (London: Hasefer Agency for Literature, 1928), 57–63; Horodezky, , Der ḥasidizm un zayne firer (Vilna: Tomor, 1937), 155–75; Horodezky, , Yahadut ha-seikhel ve-yahadut ha-regesh (Tel Aviv: Twersky, 1947), 181–83.
17 Horodezky, Leaders of Hassidism, 61.
18 Rosman, Moshe, Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba‘al Shem Tov (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996; repr., with new introduction, Portland, OR: Littman Library, 2013).
19 E.g., Marcus, Ahron (Verus), Der Chassidismus (Pleschen: Jeschurun, 1901), 137–40; Marcus, Ahron, Ha-ḥasidut, trans. Shenfeld, M. (Tel Aviv: Neẓaḥ, 1954), 87–91; Dubnow, Simon, Toledot ha-ḥasidut (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1930–1932), 232–41; Kamelhar, Yekutiel Aryeh, Dor dei‘ah (New York: Broynfeld, 1953), 160–65; Mondshine, Yehoshua, Ha-ẓofeh le-doro (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1987), 285–86; Steinman, Eliezer, Be'er ha-ḥasidut (Tel Aviv: Keneset, 1951–1962), 4:30–78; Steinman, Eliezer, Gan ha-ḥasidut (Jerusalem: Ha-histadrut Ha-ẓiyonit Ha-‘olamit, 1957), 83–85, 142–44.
20 See note 7 above.
21 Faierstein's survey of Shneur Zalman's literary legacy and contemporary academic scholarship provides only a brief account of his legal writings. Faierstein, “The Literary Legacy of Shneur Zalman of Lyadi,” 148–62. See also Polen, “Charismatic Leader, Charismatic Book: Rabbi Shneur Zalman's Tanya and His Leadership,” which, as the title indicates, focuses on these two vectors. This lacuna has been noted by scholars. See Gries, Zeev, Sifrut ha-hanhagot (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1989), 125n82; Avinoam Rosenak, “Theory and Praxis in Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Tanya and Shulḥan ’Arukh HaRav,” Jewish Law Association Studies 22 (2012): 252nn102–03.
22 Etkes, Ba‘al ha-tanya, 20–21; cf. Cooper, “On Etkes’ Ba‘al Ha-Tanya”; Naftali Loewenthal, review of Ba‘al ha-tanya, by Etkes, Immanuel, Zion 79, no. 2 (2014): 256. Etkes declared that Shneur Zalman's legal works were beyond the scope of his study. I have argued that these works should be considered. For a similar observation regarding “the discipline of history as practised in Australia, which pays insufficient attention to the law,” see Macintyre, Stuart, “What Makes a Good Biography?” Adelaide Law Review 32, no. 1 (2011): 15.
23 Teitelbaum, Ha-rav mi-L'ady, 1:10–15, 252–53.
24 Diskin, Yoel, Mishnat yo'el, ed. Orenstein, Yiẓḥak Avigdor (Jerusalem: Ẓukerman, 1941), 24–32 (changing prayer rites), 40–46 (ritual slaughter knives). On Mishnat yo'el, see Zevin, Shlomo Yosef, Soferim u-sefarim (Tel Aviv: Ẓiyoni, 1959), 3:277–81.
25 Zevin's article first appeared in 1945 in the Hebrew daily Hazofe, to commemorate 200 years since Shneur Zalman's birth. Zevin's piece was subsequently reprinted numerous times: Hazofe, August 24, 1945, 5; Soferim u-sefarim, 2:9–20; Maḥanayim, no. 97 (1965): 47–50; ‘Al ha-sifrut ha-ḥabadit: Leket sekirot ‘al sifrei ḥabad (Kefar Chabad: Kehot, 1969), 9–22; Members of the Kollel in Melbourne Australia, He‘arot u-vei'urim be-kuntras aḥaron le-shulḥan ‘arukh rabbeinu ha-zaken (Melbourne: Kollel Avreikhim, 1981), 213–23. In honor of the 200-year anniversary of Shneur Zalman's death, Zevin's article was translated into English: Zevin, “Systematization, Explanation and Arbitration: Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi's Unique Legislative Style,” trans. Eli Rubin, Chabad.org, accessed November 23, 2014, www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2087395/jewish/Systematization-Explanation-and-Arbitration-Rabbi-Schneur-Zalman-of-Liadis-Unique-Legislative-Style.htm, reprinted in Ve-samti kadkod (Melbourne: Yeshivah Gedolah, 2013), 53–71. Other articles by Zevin surveyed Shneur Zalman's biography and writings, and reiterated the striking features of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav: Zevin, , “Demuto shel r. Shne'ur Zalman ba‘al ha-tanya,” Maḥanayim, no. 46 (1960): 36–43; Zevin, “Rabbi Shne'ur Zalman mi-L'ady,” Panim el panim, January 18, 1963, 14–15; Zevin, , “Demut ha-pela'im shel ba‘al ha-tanya,” Shanah be-shanah, 1964, 189–99, reprinted in Ma‘ayanotekha, no. 35 (2013): 8–12. See also Zevin's 1960 paper on the contribution of Hasidic masters to Jewish law, in which he also considered Shneur Zalman's legal writings along similar lines. Zevin, , “Gedolei ha-ḥasidut be-halakhah,” in Sefer ha-besht, ed. Maimon, Y. L. (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1960), 28–30. This paper also appeared numerous times: Sinai 47 (1960): 142–52; Le-’or ha-halakhah, 4th ed. (Jerusalem: Kol Mevasser, 2004), 444–56. Zevin's analysis was also recounted in Heilprin, Shmuel Elazar, Sefer ha-ẓe'eẓa'im (Jerusalem, 1980), 16–17. For others who similarly lauded Shneur Zalman's writing, see Steinman, Be'er ha-ḥasidut, 4:35; Avinoam Rosenak, “Theory and Praxis,” 272–77.
26 Shulḥan ‘arukh begins Passover laws with bedikat ḥameẓ, the pre-Passover ritual where householders check that there is no forgotten leavened bread in the house. Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 431:1. In contrast, Shneur Zalman opens with the biblical commandment and its rabbinical development that gave rise to the bedikat ḥameẓ ritual. Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 431:1–5. On the naming conventions of these two works, see note 36 below and accompanying text.
27 This distinction is reflected in the arrangement of laws: Shulḥan ‘arukh begins with the ideal course of action (lekhatḥila) and then considers post factum situations (bedi‘avad); Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, with its educational goal, opens with the core elements of the requirement before considering later rabbinic embellishments or cautionary fences. Zevin's example is the time for morning prayers. Compare Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 89:1 with Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 89:1.
28 In the section dealing with tort, Shneur Zalman ruled that one may not cause bodily harm to another, even where the would-be claimant expresses consent, explaining, “For a person does not have any ownership over his body to injure it.” The rule against harming one's own body appears in earlier sources; Shneur Zalman's articulation teaches a principle—a person's relationship to his or her body—in addition to the law. Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, ḥoshen mishpat, hilkhot nizkei guf ve-nefesh ve-dineihem, 4.
29 In discussing the prohibition against erecting a tent on Sabbath, Karo did not include definitions for the pertinent legal categories “tent” and “temporary tent”; such definitions are offered by Shneur Zalman. Compare Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 315:1, with Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 315:1.
30 Regarding preparations for the Passover seder, Shulḥan ‘arukh directs a person to set the table before the onset of the festival “in order to eat as soon as it gets dark . . . because it is a religious ideal to hasten and to eat so that the children will not fall asleep.” Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 472:1. Shneur Zalman changed the wording: “in order to begin the seder as soon as it gets dark . . . because it is a religious ideal to hasten to begin the seder so that the children will not fall asleep.” Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 472:1. All agree that seder rituals and recounting the Exodus story precede the meal; Shneur Zalman's language is more precise.
31 E.g., explanations for disqualification of ḥameẓ (leavened bread that is forbidden on Passover) that was not disposed of before the onset of the festival, Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 448:3; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 448; for celebrating two days of Rosh Hashana, Rashi to Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashana 30b; Rosh to Rosh Hashana 4:14; Yaakov b. Asher, Arba‘ah turim, oraḥ ḥayim 600; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 600:4; for rules for Gentile agency on Sabbath, Meir b. Yekutiel, Hagahot maymoniyot, hilkhot shabbat 6:2; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 243:1.
32 E.g., the Sabbath prohibition against moving a plant potted in a container without holes, Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 336:12; the status of the day after Shavuot, ibid., 494:19.
33 E.g., the requirement to extend Yom Kippur beyond its official end. Ibid., 608:1. Shneur Zalman's innovative approach on this point has been discussed in Lubavitch literature before and after Zevin: Ha-tamim, no. 6 (1937): 620–21; Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 31–33 (Hebrew numbers); Alashvili, Avraham, “Derashot ḥazal ‘al ha-pesukim be-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken,” Pardes Chabad, no. 9 (2003): 93–95.
34 Hilkhot talmud torah 1:4.
35 See Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 70–83 (Hebrew numbers); Touger, Eliyahu, Kaploun, Uri, and Avtzon, Yonah, “Overview,” The Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2002), 1:12–14.
36 See Levi Cooper, “Mysteries of the Paratext: Why Did Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady Never Publish His Code of Law?” Diné Israel 31 (forthcoming): sec. 2.1.
37 Tchernowitz, Chaim (Rav Tzair), Toledot ha-posekim (New York: Jubilee Committee, 1946–1947), 3:261–73.
38 For now, see Ashkenazi, Mordekhai Shmuel, introduction to Hilkhot talmud torah mi-shulḥan ‘arukh shel admor ha-zaken (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2000), 1:xx–lxx; Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 47–49 (Hebrew numbers). The kabbalistic elements should be examined for originality, e.g., Hilkhot talmud torah 1:4, 2:2, 2:9, 4:3–6. Apart from Ashkenazi's volume, see Shraga Faitel Ha-levi Levin, “Be-hilkhot t[almud] t[orah] le-’ad[mor] ha-z[aken],” Or Hadorom 1, no. 2 (1984): 11–30; Moskovits, Ḥayim, “Keiẓad ‘ḥokrim’ ḥasidut be-yameinu,” Heichal Habesht, no. 29 (2010): 179–84; Tworek, Wojciech, “Setting Times for Torah Study in R. Shneur Zalman of Liady's Thought,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 38, no. 1 (2014): 29–57. In an analysis reminiscent of Zevin's work, Levin highlighted five unique aspects of Shneur Zalman's Hilkhot talmud torah: practical instruction, novelty, explanation, precision, and compilation.
39 For Tchernowitz's example, compare Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 25:1; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 25:1–2. Alas, Shneur Zalman is not consistent in his grammatical choices; e.g., his treatment of the word makom in Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim (masculine—mahadura tinyana 1:7, 2:2, 3:6, 3:7, 3:11, 4:1, mahadura kama 3:20, 4:3, 8:16, 10:13, 92:7, 164:2, 178:6, kuntras aḥaron 75:2; feminine—mahadura tinyana 2:1, kuntras aḥaron 75:1). See, however, Yehoshua Mondshine, “Tevila be-mei ha-da‘at,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 753 (1998): 38; ibid., no. 755 (1998): 102–03. Shneur Zalman's insistence on correct grammar is highlighted in connection to his Siddur. For example, see his brother's approbation to the 1822 edition of the Siddur. Zevin, Soferim u-sefarim, 3:333–35.
40 Tchernowitz's example is that instead of the traditional but anachronistic term for the supplicatory prayers—nefilat appayim, literally meaning “falling on the face”—Shneur Zalman used the term taḥanun, meaning “supplication.” Shulḥan ‘arukh, oraḥ ḥayim 429:2; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 429:8. Unfortunately, Tchernowitz overlooked numerous instances where nefilat appayim or its derivatives are used. Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 108:5, 111:3, 131, 292:7.
41 Porat, Yisrael, “Shulḥan ‘arukh shel ha-rav,” Or Hamizrach 11, no. 3–4 (1963): 8–13.
42 Wertheim, Aaron, “He‘arot ve-ha'arot le-darko shel ‘ha-rav’ ba-torah,” Or Hamizrach 11, no. 3–4 (1963): 23.
43 For earlier efforts, see Sippura shel shenat ha-ken (n.p.: 2012), 20; Laufer, Shmuel, “Bi'urei ha-rebbi shlita le-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken,” in Sefer ha-yovel karnot ẓaddik, ed. Laufer, Mordekhai Menashe (Brooklyn: Ma‘arekhet Oẓar Ha-ḥasidim, 1992), 612–19.
44 Alashvili's articles, all in Hebrew, appeared in Pardes Chabad, nos. 7–11. See also Avraham Alashvili, “‘Lashon ẓaruf be‘alil’: Li-me'afyanav shel shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav,” in Ha-rishon, 265–77.
45 See, e.g., Schneerson, Menachem Mendel, Likkutei siḥot (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2006), 4:1124, 1127; 9:14ff; 24:67ff; 31:199. See also Blau, Tuvya, “Libbun halakhah—be-‘shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav,’” Shema‘atin, no. 29 (1971): 19–23.
46 E.g., Zevin observed that Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav notes the legal sources of laws, a feature that does not necessarily appear in other codes. Alashvili dedicated his third essay to this feature. Rather than comparing the feature to other codes, Alashvili examined Shneur Zalman's language in presenting those legal sources and identified where Shneur Zalman departed from earlier sources. Alashvili then boldly presented the legal implication of the alterations.
47 Koveẓ he‘arot u-vei'urim be-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken: Hilkhot birkhot ha-nehenin (Jerusalem: Kollel Avreikhim Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, 1973).
48 Titled Yagdil torah, these journals appeared in New York (68 issues, 1976–1986, including a section dedicated to research on Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav) and in Jerusalem (28 issues and an index, 1977–1986). See Ramash's letter in Levin, Sholom Dovber, Dover shalom (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2003), 1:4–5; see also Levin, , ‘Avodat ha-kodesh eẓel ha-rebbi mi-Lyubavitch (Brooklyn: printed by author, 1995), 7–20; Friedland, Sholem Dovber, Shulḥan ha-zahav (Kefar Chabad: Ḥish, 2010), xiii.
49 E.g., deciphering Kuntras aḥaron, Shneur Zalman's in-depth excursuses that supplement the code. The endeavor to identify the sources of the code resulted in the series entitled Mar'ei mekomot ve-ẓiyunim by Nissan Mangel (three volumes, 1969, 1973, 1974), Mordekhai Shmuel Ashkenazi (1971), and Levi Bistritsky (1974, 1975, 1977). In 1976 these publications (except for Bistritsky's 1977 volume) were reprinted in a single volume, together with an index of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav prepared by Aharon Chitrik in 1965. Bistritsky also published two volumes under the title Leket ẓiyunim ve-he‘arot le-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken (1982, 1986). This project culminated in a new edition of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav (see below). Regarding Ashkenazi's first volume, see Yisrael Alfenbein and Moshe Marinovsky, “‘Akhshav efshar lada‘at ma be-’emet pasak admor ha-zaken,” Aspaklarya, no. 1231, April 20, 2007, 24.
50 Levin was also editor of and a regular contributor to the New York Yagdil torah; in 2003 he published a volume on Shneur Zalman's laws for Passover, and in 2006 he published a volume about how to instruct a Gentile to do work for a Jew on Sabbath according to Shneur Zalman. Levin's two-volume Dover shalom contains comments on specific rulings in Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav. Video and audio recordings of Levin's lectures on Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, mostly in Yiddish but also in Hebrew and in English, together with source sheets, and multiple-choice exams are available at http://video.chasidut.net/videos/load/levin, www.chabadlibrary.org/shiurim, www.chabadlibrary.org/mivchanim, accessed December 11, 2014.
51 Levin, Dover shalom, 1:248–58; Alfenbein and Marinovsky, “‘Akhshav,” 20–27. For a critique, see Grunwald, Nochum, “He‘arot ve-hagahot ‘al ‘Ḥoveret le-dugma 3,’” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 780 (1999): 51–58; Grunwald, , “Be-darkei ‘arikhat shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 783 (2000): 91–93; Grunwald, , “He‘arot ve-ẓiyunim ‘al shulḥan ‘arukh rabbeinu va-‘arikhato,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 794 (2000): 59–65.
52 Shneur Zalman of Liady, She'elot u-teshuvot admor ha-zaken, ed. Bistritsky, Levi (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1988); Shneur Zalman of Liady, She'elot u-teshuvot ha-rav, ed. Segal, Shlomo Ha-levi (Kefar Chabad: Sifriyat Eshel, 2005); Shneur Zalman of Liady, She'elot u-teshuvot . . . Shne'ur Zalman . . ., ed. Levin, Sholom Dovber (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2007) (hereafter Responsa Rabbi Shneur Zalman).
53 Levin, Sholom Dovber, Mafteiaḥ ‘inyanim le-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2006).
54 Levin, Sholom Dovber, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2010), 41–52. See also Levin's earlier works: Dover shalom, 1:9–12; Perakim be-toledot ḥabad (Brooklyn: printed by author, 2005), 11–14.
55 Habermann, A. M., “Torat ha-rav,” in Sefer ha-ken (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1969), 133–71. Habermann published a bibliography of Chabad literature in 1952, though this effort did not include legal writings: “Sha‘arei ḥabad,” in ‘Alei ‘ayin (Jerusalem, 1952), 293–370.
56 Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah; see also Yehoshua Mondshine, “Ha-shulḥan ‘arukh, ha-she'elot u-teshuvot, ve-ha-siddur: ha-reka, ha-matara ve-ha-mivne” in Ha-rishon, 239–64.
57 Farkash, Yekutiel, Kelalei ha-posekim ve-ha-hora'ah (Kefar Chabad: Machon Oholei Shem Lubavitch, 1991).
58 “Preface by the Rabbis, Sons of the Learned Author,” in Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Touger and Kaploun, 1:28–33; see Alfasi, Ha-me'irim la-’areẓ, 102–03.
59 Lainer, Jeruchim, “Ha-gra z[ikhrono] l[i-vrakha] ish ha-nigleh ve-ha-nistar,” Talpioth 4, no. 1–2 (1949): 188.
60 Responsa Rabbi Shneur Zalman, no. 14.
61 The preface was signed by Shneur Zalman's sons: Dov Ber, born in 1773 and named after the Maggid; Ḥayim Avraham, born ca. 1779; and Moshe, born ca. 1784. The sons' account includes exact citations of what the Maggid said. As Macintyre noted, a biographer “can't contrive dialogue to dramatise interactions.” Macintyre, “What Makes a Good Biography?,” 8.
62 Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 20–39; Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 199–202.
63 Immanuel Etkes, “Shneur Zalman of Liady,” YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe (October 27, 2010), www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Shneur_Zalman_of_Liady; Elior, Rachel, “Shneur Zalman of Lyady,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. Berlin, Adele, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 683.
64 Fünn, Kenesset yisra'el, 332; Chones, Toledot ha-posekim, 578; Eisenstein, Oẓar yisra'el, 10:194–95 (Chones copied Fünn; Eisenstein did not go into as much detail). See also Joseph Sat's comment: “Just as he saw fit to innovate . . . a special approach in the paths of Hasidism, so he chose to rewrite old rulings.” Joseph Sat, “Ha-hevdeilim bein mahadura kama le-vein mahadura batra be-shulḥan ‘arukh shel ba‘al ha-tanya” (Master's thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 2010), 247.
65 Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:262.
66 Epszteyn, Boruch, Mekor barukh (Vilna: Rom, 1928), 3:1232; Wertheim, “He‘arot,” 26; Heilprin, Sefer ha-ẓe'eẓa'im, 14, 15; Kaminetsky, Dovid, “Hityaḥasut ha-g[a'on] r[ebbi] Sh[ne'ur] Z[alman] li-telunot ha-mitnaggedim,” Yeshurun 20 (2008): 785. In Epszteyn's hagiographic memoir, this explanation is recounted as the words of Shneur Zalman's grandson, Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel Schneersohn of Lubavitch (1789–1866), a Hasidic master and jurist in his own right.
67 Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:262, 264, 265, 273.
68 Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 17–19, 43; cf. Kaminetsky, Dovid, “Sefer ‘Ma‘aseh rav,’” Yeshurun 21 (2009): 778–79n10.
69 Teitelbaum, Ha-rav mi-L'ady, 1:253; see also Moskovits, “Keiẓad ‘ḥokrim’ ḥasidut be-yameinu,” 184–86.
70 Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 198–99.
71 “Preface by the Rabbis, Sons of the Learned Author,” in Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Touger and Kaploun, 1:30; Schneerson, Likkutei siḥot, 4:1126–27; Iggerot kodesh . . . admor Menachem Mendel Schneerson mi-Lyubavitch (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2006), 3:137, 149 (hereafter Iggerot Ramash).
72 “Preface and Approbation by . . . R. DovBer, Son of the Author . . .” in Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Touger and Kaploun, 1:48.
73 Cooper, Levi, “Divide and Learn,” Jewish Educational Leadership 12, no. 1 (2013): 59–63.
74 Wertheim, Aaron, Law and Custom in Hasidism, trans. Himelstein, Shmuel (Hoboken: Ktav, 1992), 325. For similar assessments, see Alfasi, Yiẓḥak, Torat ha-ḥasidut (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2006–2012), 1:419; Broyde, Michael J. and Bedzow, Ira, “The Codification of Jewish Law and an Introduction to the Jurisprudence of the Mishna Berura,” Hamline Law Review 35, no. 3 (2012): 632; Broyde, Michael J. and Bedzow, Ira, The Codification of Jewish Law and an Introduction to the Jurisprudence of the Berura, Mishna (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2014), 12.
75 Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:262–63; see also Wertheim, “He‘arot,” 26.
76 Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:265.
77 Tchernowitz's examples: Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 1:7 (both editions); mahadura kama 2:7 and 46:2 as opposed to mahadura tinyana 2:6; mahadura kama 4:4 as opposed to mahadura tinyana 4:1.
78 Sat, “Ha-hevdeilim,” 247; see also ibid., 79–80, 128–29, 148–49, 245–47.
79 Rosenak, “Theory and Praxis,” 263–64, 274.
80 Soloveitchik, Haym, “Rabad of Posquières: A Programmatic Essay,” in Studies in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period Presented to Professor Jacob Katz, ed. Etkes, I. and Salmon, Y. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980), 30–31.
81 Regarding ritual slaughter knives, see Iggerot kodesh, 143–48, 188, 391–92, 397, 453, 465; Responsa Rabbi Shneur Zalman, nos. 7, 10, 47; Leib, Yehuda of Yanovichi, She'eirit yehudah, 3rd ed. (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2008), yoreh de‘ah, nos. 19–20; Diskin, Mishnat yo'el, 40–46; Levin, Sholom Dovber, Mi-beit ha-genazim (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2009), 156–59. Regarding changing prayer rites, see Responsa Rabbi Shneur Zalman, no. 44 and sha‘ar hashmu‘ah, no. 5; Diskin, Mishnat yo'el, 24–32; Zevin, Soferim u-sefarim, 3:280; Jacobs, Louis, “Honour Thy Father: A Study in Hasidic Psychology,” in Cambridge Opinion, vol. 39: On the Jews, ed. Griffiths, Malcolm (Cambridge: Cambridge Opinion, 1965), 4–8; Etkes, Ba‘al ha-tanya, 237–38.
82 At present, see Teitelbaum, Ha-rav mi-L'ady, 1:14–15; Diskin, Mishnat yo'el; Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:273n4; Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 49–54 (Hebrew numbers).
83 E.g., the latest permissible time for reciting the morning shema is earlier in Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav than it is in the Siddur. Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 58:3 (per Magen Avraham); Raskin, Siddur, 91–92. In an unrelated issue, nightfall is calculated as later in Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav than it is in the Siddur. Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 261:5 (per Rabbeinu Tam); Raskin, Siddur, 235–38 (per Geonim).
84 E.g., Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 321:7 as opposed to 511:7 and kuntras aḥaron.
85 Lavot, Avraham David, Sha‘ar ha-kollel (Vilna: Rom, 1896), followed Lavot's earlier 1886 effort entitled Sha‘arei tefillah and appended to Siddur torah or.
86 Noe, A. H., Piskei ha-siddur (Jerusalem: Ẓukerman, 1937). Noe's later work, Kuntras ha-siddur (Jerusalem, 1942), lists eighty-nine corrections to the Siddur. See Zevin, Soferim u-sefarim, 3:333–35.
87 Zirkind, Yiẓḥak, “He‘arot be-hilkhot hashkamat ha-boker le-’admor ha-zaken,” Koveẓ divrei torah, no. 13 (1980): 51–55; Friedland, Shulḥan ha-zahav.
88 Zipporah Maidanchik, “Shinuyim be-fiskei ha-rav mi-L'adi” (Master's thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 1998); Sat, “Ha-hevdeilim.” Both writers are affiliated with Lubavitch: Maidanchik refers to Ramash using the Hebrew abbreviation M.H.M. denoting melekh ha-mashiaḥ (King Messiah); Sat's Lubavitch affiliation is apparent from his two books, Yosef ḥayim (Kiryat Gat: printed by author, 2006) and Dover emet (Kiryat Gat: printed by author, 2011), and articles in Lubavitch journals, including a relevant piece that preceded his thesis, “Bi'ur ha-hevdeilim she-bein mahadura kama le-mahadura tinyana be-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken siman 3,” Li-khvodo shel melekh 3 (1997): 423–35.
89 Noe, introduction to Piskei ha-siddur.
90 She'eirit yehudah, oraḥ ḥayim, no. 5; Neḥemiah Ha-levi Ginsburg of Dubrovna, Divrei neḥemiah (Vilna and Warsaw, 1866–1877), oraḥ ḥayim, no. 21; Schneersohn, Menaḥem Mendel, Ẓemaḥ ẓedek (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1992–1999), oraḥ ḥayim, no. 18:4. Shneur Zalman's initial reliance on Magen Avraham is noted in his sons’ introduction to Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav.
91 Lavot, Avraham David, Sha‘ar ha-kollel, 2nd ed. (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2005), 1:1; Schneerson, Likkutei siḥot, 16:363; Heilprin, Sefer ha-ẓe'eẓa'im, 18. Lavot's example concerns one who lives in the Land of Israel and visits the Diaspora for a festival: how should this person act on the festival's second day, a day which is celebrated only in the Diaspora? Lavot, Sha‘ar ha-kollel, 1:2; compare Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 496:8, with mahadura tinyana 1:8.
92 Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 25:28.
93 Heilman, Beit rabbi, 32, 162–63, 167; Lavot, Sha‘ar ha-kollel, 1:1–4, 2:7; Noe, introduction to Piskei ha-siddur; Schneerson, Likkutei siḥot, 11:246–47, 33:98.
94 Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:265. Lavot opposed the notion of Shneur Zalman revising his opinions, yet it is unclear how he understood the relationship between the texts. Noe responded that it is not disrespectful to suggest that Shneur Zalman revised his positions: the Talmud has many such cases, and it is clear that Shneur Zalman did just that. See also Sat, “Ha-hevdeilim,” 147–50. For a defense of Lavot, see Yehoshua Mondshine, “Sidduro shel rabbeinu ha-zaken: pirkei ‘iyun, birur u-sekirah,” in Oberlander, Ha-siddur, 153–55.
95 E.g., Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 318:11; Raskin, Siddur, 243. This is also an example of Shneur Zalman's initial reliance on Magen Avraham and later revision.
96 Maidanchik argued that Noe's reasons can be subsumed under Lavot's explanation. She claimed that both scholars acknowledged that Shneur Zalman's attitude towards Kabbalah as a legal source constitutes the prime difference between his early and later works. “Shinuyim be-fiskei ha-rav mi-L'adi,” 124. Note that from Noe's language it is apparent that he thought he was rejecting, not explicating, Lavot's approach.
97 Noe, Piskei ha-siddur, nos. 16–18, 26, 38, 42, 46, 80, 119; see also Raskin, Siddur, 603–04n4.
98 Lavot, Sha‘ar ha-kollel, 1:1. Lavot wrote that he heard this report from Hillel Paritcher. Shneur Zalman's words are interspersed with explanatory glosses that I have not transcribed; it is unclear whether those explanations were Lavot's or Hillel Paritcher's.
99 Bornsztain, Avraham, Avnei neizer (Piotrkow and Warsaw: Fullman, 1912–1934), oraḥ ḥayim 447:2; Shapira, Ḥayim Elazar, Minḥat el‘azar (Munkács: Kahana and Fried; Bratislava: Neufeld and Sons, 1902–1930), 1:35a; Halbershtam, Ḥoneh, Divrei ḥoneh ha-shalem (Antwerp: Wagschal, 1990), 2:64. See Wertheim's similar opinion regarding the issue of wearing tefillin on the intermediate days of festivals. Law and Custom in Hasidism, 125. For a Lubavitch writer who seemed to accept this distinction, see Lifsh, Yosef Yehuda, “Mahadura batra de-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken ve-ha-siddur bi-netiv ha-ḥayim,” He‘arot ha-temimim ve-’anash: Rishon le-ẓion 11, no. 1 (1993): 75–76.
100 Noe, introduction to Piskei ha-siddur; see also Mondshine, “Sidduro shel rabbeinu ha-zaken,” 155.
101 Divrei neḥemiah, yoreh de‘ah, no. 1.
102 A. H. Noe, introduction to Keẓot ha-shulḥan, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Ẓukerman, 1926–1954).
103 Friedland, Shulḥan ha-zahav, xiii–xv. Friedland offered similar categories to Sat. Friedland's volume appeared in 2010—the year that Sat submitted his thesis—but his work had different goals and, unlike Sat, he did not attempt to explain the rationale for the changes.
104 Sat, “Ha-hevdeilim,” English abstract, p. e; Hebrew abstract, 4; see also ibid., 125–31, 247.
105 E.g., Raskin, Siddur, 238, 433; Hilkhot mekhirat ḥameẓ in Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, following the laws of Passover; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, yoreh de‘ah 189:43; see also Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 16–17, 67 (Hebrew numbers); Farkash, Kelalei ha-posekim ve-ha-hora'ah, 88–91; Friedland, Shulḥan ha-zahav, xiv–xv.
106 “Preface by the Rabbis, Sons of the Learned Author,” in Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Touger and Kaploun, 1:34, 36; see also Ẓemaḥ ẓedek, yoreh de‘ah, no. 130; Grunwald, Nochum, “‘Al mahadurot shonot she-shuk‘u be-shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav,” Ohr Yisroel 5, no. 4 (2000): 164–65; Heilprin, Sefer ha-ẓe'eẓa'im, 18.
107 Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 70–83 (Hebrew numbers); see also Mondshine, Yehoshua, “Ha-rav: divrei ẓaddikei ha-dorot odot ha-rav ve-shulḥano ha-tahor,” Ma‘ayanot ha-ḥasidut, no. 4 (1992): 40–42; Touger, Kaploun, and Avtzon, “Overview,” 1:12–14; cf. Grunwald, “‘Al mahadurot shonot,” 183–84. Scholars have commented on how later jurists related to Shneur Zalman's rulings. Grunwald, however, cited a particular case where Shneur Zalman's ruling has been ignored by subsequent jurists. For initial comments on the use of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav in Mishna Berura, see the text accompanying notes 13 and 14 in Marc B. Shapiro, “Plagiarism, Halakhic Paradox, and the Malbim on Kohelet,” The Seforim Blog, July 10, 2013, http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/plagiarism-halakhic-paradox-and-malbim.html.
108 For Lubavitch customs that diverge from Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, see Morozov, Yochanan, “Reshimat hashva'at shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken ‘im minhagei ḥabad,” in Be-’ohola shel torah (Detroit: Oholei Yosef Yitzchok Lubavitch, 1990), 196–220. For Lubavitch customs that differ from directives in the Siddur, see Laufer, Mordekhai Menashe, ed., Ha-melekh bi-mesibo (Kefar Chabad: Kehot, 1993), 1:126–27, 130–31, 199. For a discussion of the phenomenon of disputes between Shneur Zalman and Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, see Prus, Ephraim, “Ha-maḥloket bein admor ha-zaken le-vein admor ha-ẓemaḥ ẓedek u-fiskei ha-halakhah beineihem,” in Koveẓ torat ẓedek, ed. Deutsch, Ḥ. S. and Friedman, B. B. (Jerusalem: Kehot, 1986), 172–81. See also Farkash's responsum in Farkash, Yekutiel, “Piskei rabbeinu ha-zaken u-fiskei ha-ẓemaḥ ẓedek,” Hitkashrut, no. 467 (2003): 16–18. Wolpo saw such departures from Shneur Zalman's rulings as a legitimate completion of Shneur Zalman's unfinished work. See Shalom Dovber Ha-levi Wolpo, Pardes shalom (Kiryat Gat: printed by author, 1998), 2:127–28.
109 Regarding commentary, Rabbi Shneur Zalman Mordekhai Schneersohn of Zhitomir (d. 1866) annotated Shneur Zalman's Seder netilat yadayim li-se‘uda and Seder birkat ha-nehenin, and added the title Kuntras shem ha-gedolim. In 1946 Ramash began to prepare the manuscript for publication, adding his own notes. Ramash did not complete the project, but the unfinished work was published in 1999. Iggerot Ramash, 2:149; Laufer, Mordekhai Menashe, “Le-miẓvat netilat yadayim,” Hitkashrut, no. 691 (2007): 7–8.
Regarding efforts to complete, see Divrei neḥemiah, oraḥ ḥayim, 145–56 (addressing Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim, nos. 131, 573, 581, 651, 670); see also Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 30–31 (Hebrew numbers).
Regarding an abridged version, the information on this attempt is sparse. According to Lubavitch tradition, one of the Hasidic masters instructed Moshe Rosenblum (1850–1928) to write such a work. Once the project was completed, a fire broke out in Rosenblum's home on Sabbath. Exercising self-control, Rosenblum did not transgress Sabbath in order to save the manuscript from the flames. Mondshine, Yehoshua, “Ha-rav he-ḥasid r. Moshe Rosenblum,” Kerem ḥabad, no. 3 (1987): 4; Mondshine, Yehoshua, Koveẓ Rostov ‘al nehar Don (Rostov: Agudat Ḥasidei Ḥabad Be-ḥever Ha-‘amim, 2000), 16.
110 Fenster, Mark, “The Folklore of Legal Biography,” Michigan Law Review 105, no. 6 (2007): 1272–73, 1276.
111 Divrei neḥemiah, oraḥ ḥayim, no. 9; Ẓemaḥ ẓedek, ḥiddushim, 92; Lavot, Sha‘ar ha-kollel, 1:1; Noe, introduction to Keẓot ha-shulḥan, vol. 1; Noe, introduction to Piskei ha-siddur; Schneerson, Likkutei siḥot, 11:246, 16:522; Iggerot Ramash, 3:149, 4:147, 12:167, 22:476–77; Ma‘ayan, B., “Siddur ha-tefillah shel admor ha-zaken,” Bitaon Chabad, no. 26 (1965): 20; Prus, “Ha-maḥloket,” 176; Oberlander, Baruch, “Sidduro shel admor ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 43 (1990): 36–37; Farkash, Kelalei ha-posekim ve-ha-hora'ah, 40–41; Cowen, Shimon Dovid, trans., Seder Bircas Hanehenin; Seder N'tilas Yodoyim l'S'uda: The Laws of B'rochos Said on Foods, Fragrance, and in Thanksgiving and Praise and also Washing of the Hands for a Meal (Melbourne: Yeshivah Gedolah, 1995), xi; Alfenbein and Marinovsky, “‘Akhshav,” 26; Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 51. Levin demonstrated that the Siddur postdates the second edition of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav. Levin, Sholom Dovber, “Negi‘a bi-levushim kodem netilat yadayim shaḥarit,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 777 (1999): 95–97. For a non-Lubavitch source that accepted this position, see Shapira, Minḥat el‘azar, 4:32b. For the application of this principle to differences between Shneur Zalman's Luaḥ birkat ha-nehenin and his later Seder birkat ha-nehenin that was included in his Siddur, see Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 67 (Hebrew numbers).
112 Yiẓḥak Eizek Yehuda Yeḥiel Safrin, Shulḥan ha-tahor (Tel Aviv, 1963–1965), no. 8, zer zahav 2.
113 Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 14n2 (Hebrew numbers). Aharon, son of Rabbi Yissakhar Dov Rokeaḥ of Belz, reported the tradition in his father's name. Mondshine suggested that the account may be referring to a no longer extant version, as opposed to the four extant sections of mahadura tinyana. Cf. Heilprin, Sefer ha-ẓe'eẓa'im, 19n. Heilprin cites an alternative testimony regarding the Belz tradition. For sections of Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav that may have been written after the Siddur, see Oberlander, “Sidduro shel admor ha-zaken,” 37; Sat, “Ha-hevdeilim,” 1–2.
114 Harfenes, Y. D., Yisra'el ve-ha-zemanim, 2nd ed. (Brooklyn: printed by author, 2002), 2:850–51n18.
115 Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 43.
116 Ramash noted the uniqueness of these sections: see Siḥot kodesh . . . 5729 (Brooklyn, 1985), 1:353; Siḥot kodesh . . . 5731 (Brooklyn, 1986), 1:33; Siḥot kodesh . . . 5736 (Brooklyn, 1986), 1:325. See also Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 10, 26 (Hebrew numbers), 262–65. For the exchange, see Grunwald, Nochum, “Miẓvat tokheiḥa le-ha-rambam ve-’admor ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 735 (1997): 37; Oberlander, Baruch, “Le-hokhiaḥ ‘ad kedei haka'ah,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 737 (1997): 63–66; Kalmansohn, Yosef Yiẓḥak, “Be-‘inyan shi‘ur miẓvat hokhaḥa,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 744 (1998): 77–82; Yisroel Noah Shneur Vichnin, “Be-‘inyan shi‘ur miẓvat hokhaḥa,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 746 (1998): 96–98; Grunwald, Nochum, “Be-‘inyan hanal,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 746 (1998): 98–99; Grunwald, Nochum, “Din tokheiḥa be-mishnat rabbeinu ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 748 (1998): 74–87; Oberlander, Baruch, “Din tokheiḥa u-meḥa'ah be-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 759 (1998): 40–47. Nos. 155 and 156 have been dated to sometime between 1784 and 1790. Nochum Grunwald, “‘Al mahadurot shonot,” 164–67; Raskin, Siddur, 705n5; Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 47–48. In the specific case that precipitated the discussion, the earlier text (608:6) followed Magen Avraham, while the later text (156:7) rejected this position: a further example of Shneur Zalman's initial reliance on Magen Avraham, and later reversal. In addition, the later ruling could be sourced to Zohar: a further example of greater weight given to kabbalistic sources in Shneur Zalman's later writings.
117 Grunwald, “‘Al mahadurot shonot,” 163. For other examples, see Raskin, Siddur, 221, 693–98; Meyers, Pinḥas Avraham, Divrei pinḥas (Jerusalem, 2009), 1:34; Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 49.
118 Maidanchik, “Shinuyim be-fiskei ha-rav mi-L'adi,” 127–28.
119 Wolpo, Pardes shalom, 2:121–24, 127–28.
120 Levin, Dover shalom, 2:111–33; Levin, , Hilkhot amira le-nokhri mi-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken (Brooklyn: Kehot, 2006).
121 Pack, Ḥanokh Henikh, Zikhron yosef (Bardiov: M. Ch. Horovitz, 1929), 48.
122 E.g., Wolpo, Pardes shalom, 2:129–35.
123 Ashkenazi, Hilkhot talmud torah, 1:xxxvi–xxxviii; Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 48 (Hebrew numbers); Grunwald, Nochum, “Zeman ketivat hilkhot talmud torah bi-dei admor ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 834 (2002): 83; Grunwald, “‘Al mahadurot shonot,” 168–70.
124 Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 13 (Hebrew numbers).
125 Lavot, Sha‘ar ha-kollel, 49:2; Iggerot Ramash, 2:344.
126 Schneerson, Likkutei siḥot, 24:67–72; Bistritsky, Levi, “Luaḥ ve-seder birkat ha-nehenin shel rabbeinu ha-zaken,” Yagdil torah (Jerusalem) 2, no. 4 (1978): 647–63; Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 53–58; Alfenbein and Marinovsky, “‘Akhshav,” 25.
127 “Preface by the Rabbis, Sons of the Learned Author,” in Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, trans. Touger and Kaploun, 1:34. See also Heilprin, Sefer ha-ẓe'eẓa'im, 18n14; Wolpo, Pardes shalom, 2:143–45; Raskin, Levi Yiẓḥak, “Mitẓvat ha-tokheiḥa be-mi she-’eino shomer torah u-mitẓvot,” Tif'eret Eiropa 1 (2002): 193.
128 Touger, Kaploun, and Avtzon, “Overview,” 1:15. For a full discussion, see Cooper, “Mysteries of the Paratext.”
129 Wolpo, Pardes shalom, 2:116–18, 121–24.
130 Wertheim, “He‘arot,” 26; cf. Mondshine, Sifrei ha-halakhah, 47n1 (Hebrew numbers). Mondshine references Wertheim and summarily dismisses his explanation.
131 Ashkenazi, Hilkhot talmud torah, 1:xxix–xxxiii. See also Hilkhot talmud torah, 4:6, which echoes passages in Tanya.
132 Soloveitchik, “History of Halakhah,” 84.
133 E.g., Hilkhot talmud torah, 1:4, 2:2; Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 1:8. See also Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-posekim, 3:263, and Moshe Hallamish's studies of the interaction between Jewish law and Kabbalah.
134 E.g., Shulḥan ‘arukh ha-rav, oraḥ ḥayim 56:1. See also Grunwald, Nochum, “Mekorot kabbalah le-shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 830 (2002): 79–82.
135 Lavot, introduction to Sha‘ar ha-kollel, no. 6.
136 Fairman, Charles, “The Writing of Judicial Biography—A Symposium,” Indiana Law Journal 24, no. 3 (1949): 368 (citing a 1948 letter by Frankfurter). On Shneur Zalman's library, see Levin, Sholom Dovber, Sifriyat ḥabad (Brooklyn: Kehot, 1993), 1–17; Grunwald, Nochum, “Haẓaẓa el tokh sifriyat rabbeinu ha-zaken u-mashma‘uto,” Pardes Chabad, no. 6 (2001): 67–85; Blau, Amram, “Haẓaẓa nosefet le-tokh sifriyato shel admor ha-zaken,” Pardes Chabad, no. 7 (2002): 109–14; Levin, Toledot ḥabad be-Rusya ha-ẓ’arit, 74–79.
137 See, e.g., Wolpo, Pardes shalom, 2:130; Friedland, Shulḥan ha-zahav, 4.
138 Schneerson, Likkutei siḥot, 3:763; Grunwald, Nochum, “Mahadura tinyana shel shulḥan ‘arukh admor ha-zaken,” He‘arot u-vei'urim, no. 775 (1999): 91–100.
139 Quoted in Tuchman, Barbara W., Practicing History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981), 89.
140 Macintyre, “What Makes a Good Biography?,” 8.
141 Iris Brown (Hoizman), “R. Ḥayim mi-Ẓanz” (PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2004); Tamir Granot, “Tekumat ha-ḥasidut be-’Ereẓ Yisra'el aḥarei ha-sho'ah” (PhD disseration, Bar-Ilan University, 2008); Levi Cooper, “Ha-'admor mi-Munkatch ha-rav Ḥayim El‘azar Shapira” (PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2011); Cooper, “Rabbanut, halakha, ve-lamdanut.”
142 For a case study that considers this question, see Cooper, Levi, “Bitter Herbs in Hasidic Galicia,” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 12 (2013): 1–40.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed