Shneur Zalman of (Liozna-) Lyady
Shneur Zalman of (Liozna-) Lyady
SHNEUR ZALMAN OF (Liozna-) LYADY
SHNEUR ZALMAN OF (Liozna-) LYADY (1745–1813), founder of *Chabad Ḥasidism. According to family traditions he was born in Liozna, Belorussia, on the 18th of Elul. After his marriage in 1760 he devoted himself to Torah study. Concluding that he knew "a little about learning, but nothing about prayer," in 1764 he decided to learn about Ḥasidism from *Dov Baer the Maggid of Mezhirech, leader of the ḥasidic movement. In Mezhirech he became one of the inner circle of the Maggid's pupils. He also studied as a friend and pupil with *Abraham b. Dov Baer. Although Shneur Zalman was one of the youngest pupils, the Maggid had a high opinion of him and in 1770 delegated to him the task of composing a new and up-to-date Shulḥan Arukh. Shneur Zalman worked on this book for many years but published only small parts of it. About one-third was printed posthumously (the rest had been destroyed by fire) and is known as the "Shulḥan Arukh of the Rav" (1814). Though not a ḥasidic work, it represents – as the Maggid had intended – a great halakhic achievement. It evidences Shneur Zalman's superb Hebrew style and his ability to provide lucid explanation and profundity without complexity. It became an authoritative halakhic source among the Ḥasidim of *Lubavitch.
In 1774, during the early period of the opposition to Ḥasidism by traditional Jewry, Shneur Zalman and *Menaḥem Mendel of Vitebsk went to Vilna in an attempt to meet with *Elijah b. Solomon, the Gaon of Vilna, and reach some kind of understanding between the Ḥasidim and Mitnaggedim, but the Gaon did not agree to meet them. After Menaḥem Mendel went to Ereẓ Israel with many of his followers, Shneur Zalman was left with two others as a deputy leader in Rydzyna (Reisen, Belorussia and adjoining areas). In 1788 Menaḥem Mendel formally appointed Shneur Zalman as ḥasidic leader of Reisen: this was really only a post facto appointment, as he already had many devoted personal pupils. It had become apparent that Shneur Zalman had created a distinct type of Ḥasidism, to become known as Chabad (see Chabad system, below). In 1797 he published (anonymously) his Likkutei Amarim ("collected sayings"), which became known as the Tanya. A masterly and systematic exposition of Ḥasidism, it was accepted as the principal source of Chabad Ḥasidism, "the written law of Ḥabad."
By then the influence of Shneur Zalman was already penetrating the strongholds of the Mitnaggedim, who made a last effort to check the spread of Ḥasidism by informing on its followers to the Russian government. *Avigdor b. Joseph Ḥayyim, the rabbi of Pinsk, formally accused Shneur Zalman of personal acts of treason against the state (his sending of money to Ereẓ Israel was interpreted as "helping the Turkish sultan") and of creating a new religious sect (all sectaries being forbidden in Russia). In 1798 Shneur Zalman was arrested and brought for trial to St. Petersburg. No exact details of this trial are known, though many legends have been related about it. He later received a full acquittal and was released on the 19th of Kislev that year. The day is celebrated among Chabad Ḥasidim as the "Holiday of Deliverance." Shneur Zalman was again arrested in 1801 under the same accusations but was released later in the year when Alexander i succeeded to the throne. From St. Petersburg, Shneur Zalman settled in the town of Lyady and became known as the "Rav of Lyady."
Subsequently there developed a marked difference in his exposition of Ḥasidism, a deepening of the scholarly element and new ways of expression. This change was among the reasons for a resurgence of inter-ḥasidic rivalry, which also had many personal sources. The opposing faction was headed by *Abraham (Katz) of Kalisk (then in Ereẓ Israel) and *Baruch of Medzhibezh, the grandson of *Israel b. Eliezer Ba'al Shem Tov. The strife caused Shneur Zalman much pain but did not weaken his influence. When the Franco-Russian war began, Shneur Zalman was among those who thought that a victory by the revolutionary French would be injurious to Judaism. He therefore brought all his influence in favor of the Russian side and fled with the defeated Russian armies. He became ill during the flight, died in Piena (Kursk district) and was buried in Hadich (Poltava district).
Shneur Zalman was one of the great Jewish personalities of his age, as great a scholar in talmudic studies as in *Kabbalah. He had a wide knowledge of science and mathematics, and his powers as a systematizer were enhanced by a fine style. Yet he was also a mystic and deeply emotional; he composed ḥasidic melodies and was a charismatic leader. All these qualities blended in a strangely harmonious way. His work is masterly on every subject, an almost unique combination of mysticism and common sense. His other important works are Likkutei Torah (Zhitomir, 1848), Torah Or (1836), and Ma'amarei Admor ha-Zaken (1958–60).
Chabad Ḥasidism continued to be led by the descendants of Shneur Zalman of Lyady: dov baer (1773–1827), the eldest son of Shneur Zalman, became after his father's death in 1813 the leader of the majority of his father's Ḥasidim. He settled in the little town of Lubavitch, which became the center of Chabad. Under Dov Baer's leadership, the Chabad approach was strengthened and deepened. His blend of intellect and mysticism is expressed in his clear and profound commentaries on his father's works. He was a prolific writer and wrote many works, the majority being explanations of diverse subjects, among them Kunteres ha-Hitpa'alut (1876; Tractate on Ecstasy, 1963), according to his systematized Chabad Ḥasidism. At the same time he supported the idea of productivization in the Jewish economy and encouraged his Ḥasidim to take up manual occupations. He also persuaded all the Chabad Ḥasidim in Ereẓ Israel to settle in Hebron (1820), which became the Chabad center there. Dov Baer was imprisoned for a time because of accusations against him by an informer but was released on the 10th of Kislev, which is celebrated as a minor holiday among Chabad Ḥasidim. He died in *Nezhin in Ukraine.
menaḤem mendel (1789–1866), grandson of Shneur Zalman (son of his daughter) and son-in-law of Dov Baer, became the leader of Chabad after his father-in-law's death. Orphaned while young, he was educated chiefly by his grandfather and from a very early age began to write on halakhah and Ḥasidism. He wrote numerous books and sermons, most of which remained in manuscript. He was generally acknowledged as one of the greatest Torah scholars of his day. His responsa Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek (1870–74, in honor of which he is referred to as the "Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek") is a highly esteemed halakhic work. Menaḥem Mendel greatly assisted the Chabad settlers in Hebron. The Russian government accorded him the hereditary title of an honored citizen, and he was acknowledged as one of the leaders of Russian Jewry. He fought the assimilationist policy of the government and the adherents of *Haskalah who gave it their support. The year before his death, no longer able to fulfill his manifold duties, he assigned them to his sons.
After Menaḥem Mendel's death the Ḥasidim could not reach an agreement on a leader, and most of his sons became leaders of different branches of Chabad Ḥasidim. As the basis for the division was mainly personal, they reunited after a time.
judah leib founded the Kopys branch of Chabad (see below). Another son of Menaḥem Mendel, Ḥayyim shneur zalman (1814–1880), became leader in Lyady, noted for his special way of worship. Collections of his sermons have been made (remaining in manuscript). His successor, isaac dov baer (1826–1910), published a commentary on the prayer book entitled Siddur Maharid. His many other writings remain in manuscript. He was the last leader of this branch, and after his death his followers returned to the main Chabad group.
Another branch of Chabad was headed by israel noah (1816–1883), rabbi and ḥasidic leader in Nezhin and the most notable scholar among Menaḥem Mendel's sons. These also included joseph isaac, who became (in his father's lifetime) a ḥasidic leader in Ovruch in the Ukraine, but his circle was not a branch of Chabad Ḥasidism.
samuel (1834–1882), youngest son of Menahem Mendel, was his successor in Lubavitch. Like his father, he was active on behalf of Jewry. Only a few of his works have been published. His son shalom dov baer (1866–1920) succeeded him in the leadership of Chabad. A dynamic personality, his most important achievement was the founding of the first ḥasidic yeshivah "Tomekhei Temimim" (1897), which led the way to a more organized and effective religious education in the Chabad movement and elsewhere. His literary work is closely connected with his educational work. In 1916 he began to establish a network of Chabad yeshivot in Georgia and was the first ḥasidic leader to spread Ḥasidism among non-Ashkenazi Jewry.
His son joseph isaac (1880–1950) assumed the leadership of Chabad during the period of the civil war in Russia which followed the 1917 Revolution. An outstanding organizer, he began to reconstruct Jewish life and became the foremost religious leader of Russian Jewry. He fought courageously to resume religious activities under the Communist regime. Under his leadership the Chabad movement became the core of a strong Jewish spiritual revival. Although his activities were at first permitted, he was arrested in 1927, and only after powerful pressure within Russia and from abroad was freed on 12th–13th of Tammuz of that year, days commemorated by Chabad Ḥasidim as a holiday of deliverance. He left Russia and went to Riga (Latvia), where he organized new Chabad centers, and founded Chabad organizations throughout the world. In 1934 he settled in Poland and organized a network of Chabad yeshivot. After the outbreak of World War ii and the German occupation of Poland, he was rescued and went to the United States. With undaunted energy he stimulated, from his headquarters in Brooklyn, a renaissance of Orthodoxy in the United States. Joseph Isaac founded modern organizations of Chabad, a network of schools and yeshivot, newspapers for adults and children, a flourishing publishing house, and numerous welfare organizations. In 1948 he founded *Kefar Ḥabad in Israel. He wrote a notable history of Chabad, and published many of his sermons and talks.
menaḤem mendel (1902–1994), the son and pupil of Levi Isaac Schneersohn of Yekaterinoslav and son-in-law of Joseph Isaac, also studied mathematics and science at the Sorbonne in Paris. After the death of his father-in-law in 1950, he became the seventh successive leader of Lubavitch Ḥasidism. Under his direction, its institutions expanded, new ones were founded, and the number of adherents throughout the world increased to over 25,000. He encouraged hundreds of young men to go out to Jewish communities everywhere to establish contact with the Jewish masses and bring them back to Orthodoxy. The Lubavitch Youth Organization, which he founded in 1955, has continued to play a vital role among Jewish college students. Regional offices were established around the globe, and Kefar Chabad served as the Lubavitcher headquarters in Israel. Under Schneersohn's direction the influence of Lubavitch spread far beyond the ḥasidic community and penetrated the mainstream of Jewish life in many parts of the world. Schneersohn, while not belonging to any formal rabbinical or political organization, was frequently consulted on Jewish problems and issues.
This Chabad branch was founded by judah leib (1811–1866), a son of Menaḥem Mendel of Lubavitch (see above). After his father's death in 1866, following a quarrel over the leadership, Joseph Leib settled in the town of Kopys where many of the Ḥasidim became his followers. He died, however, in the same year. He was succeeded by his son solomon (shneur) zalman (1830–1900), under whose leadership his followers became a most important and active branch of Chabad Ḥasidism. A selection of Solomon's ḥasidic sermons was published in one of the important Chabad books, Magen Avot (1902); other sermons were published in Derushim Yekarim (ed. G.A. Yankelzon, 1903). Another son of Judah Leib, shalom dov baer (1840?–1908), a pupil of his elder brother, Solomon, was also a rabbi. He later assumed ḥasidic leadership in Rechitsa (now Belarus), which became a secondary center of Chabad Ḥasidism. After his brother's death, Shalom became the moving force of this branch. A third brother, shemariah noah (1845?–1926), a rabbi and later a ḥasidic leader in Bobruisk (central Belarus), was the last leader of this branch. He built one of the first ḥasidic yeshivot (1901) and wrote a book of sermons, entitled Shemen La-Ma'or (1864). Upon his death his followers joined the Lubavitch branch of the movement.
The Chabad System
After Shneur Zalman became recognized as an independent ḥasidic leader, the new trend in Ḥasidism became known as Ḥa-Ba-D, an acrostic of the kabbalistic term ḥokhmah, binah, da'at ("germinal, developmental, and conclusive" knowledge). Shneur Zalman's methodical approach, and the need to formulate Ḥasidism in order to transmit its study, gave rise to methodological changes in the approach to Ḥasidism, which also became to a certain extent changes in essence. Although some ḥasidic ideas had received definition before the advent of Shneur Zalman, it was based on no system which could be studied by regular methods. The conversion to an organized theory which could be studied (as in the ḥadarim founded by Shneur Zalman) necessitated an intellectual approach. Although Shneur Zalman did not reject the "intuitive" approach to Ḥasidism in principle, he emphasized that this "all embracing way" in practice held many dangers: it could encourage self-deception and especially could lead to the severance of the vital link between simple faith and emotion, and daily practical life. Shneur Zalman stressed the necessity of regular study and unceasing spiritual exercise as indispensable for achieving lasting results. From this he derived a new ethical concept of the "beinoni" ("the average man"). He defined the ẓaddik as an exceptional human type, whose characteristics are inborn and who directs all his spiritual life to attaining the transition to the divine. However, this person is extremely rare, and there exists a disconnect between him and the average man which is almost impossible to bridge. The practical Jewish ideal is a different figure, that of the beinoni.
The beinoni that "every man should aspire to become" is the person who does not manage in the unconscious depths of his soul to achieve complete spiritual identity with the Divine, yet in his practical life and in his emotions and intellect, he strives toward perfection. This is given additional importance by Shneur Zalman through emphasizing that the beinoni ranks parallel to the ẓaddik, but the degree of the latter can only be attained by exceptional individuals who are chosen from birth, whereas that of the beinoni is the ideal which may be achieved in practice and is required of every Jew. The beinoni is not required "to change darkness into light or bitter into sweet," nor can he induce evil to change to good: this task, which kindles heresies and their consequences, is the sole province of the ẓaddik. The beinoni is required to resist evil throughout his life, to reject it by virtue of his inner decision and the subjection of evil to good (control of the evil impulse). To achieve this aim, man is required to utilize his spiritual powers. Instinctive reverence, like "the hidden love that is in the heart of every Jew from birth," forms the primary basis from which every beinoni may advance to higher degrees of perfection. The beinoni's struggle against the evil impulse within him is sustained by knowing that "the brain rules the heart from birth" and by persevering in the use of *meditation (hitbonenut). Meditation on the greatness of the Creator and on love and reverence for Him results in the elevation of the primitive feelings in the sacred soul to a higher degree of "love and rational reverence." This does not necessarily imply an intellectual or rationalist approach to adherence to God but is essentially the propulsion of the hidden emotional life to a degree of full awareness. Similarly, strict attention is required to be paid to the accepted Jewish ethical behavior – such as punctiliousness in the performance of the precepts, additional stress on Torah study, and the worship of God in joyousness while repressing melancholy. In placing additional significance on the role of meditation as a primary means of achieving elevation in the ḥasidic progression, Shneur Zalman regarded study of Kabbalah not as a theoretical study but essentially as a means of strengthening faith in the Creator and of arousing the heart.
In consequence of its teachings and discourses, Ḥasidism develops into an independent study encompassing a variety of subjects which promote meditation. However, while Shneur Zalman did not diverge from the approach of his ḥasidic mentors in the abstract spheres of speculation, he systematized their teachings by the use of special methods of exposition. In particular he broadened and developed the exposition of Kabbalah (which had already begun during the lifetime of the Ba'al Shem Tov) by employing parables and examples from spiritual life. The symbols and principles of Kabbalah were understood as operating also in psychological problems. In his work Sha'ar ha-Yiḥud ve-ha-Emunah, Shneur Zalman summarizes his general theological concept, the basic problem being the reciprocal connection between God and the world. Although he accepts the view that the existence of the world has its origin in the hidden and concealed aspect of the divine nature, this does not lead him to deny the basic reality of the world as an illusion of the senses. He draws considerably upon the deductive methods of *Judah Loew, the Maharal of Prague, explaining that even the concealed and hidden aspects are revelations of other facets of the divine nature.
As a corollary to this explanation there arises the paradox of which Shneur Zalman makes regular use, that the physical world, precisely because it conceals the divine manifestation, is an expression of the highest degree of the divinity ("material creation derives from the divine substance"). This explanation also postulates conclusions concerning the conduct of man: fulfillment of the practical precepts just because they are materialistic and study of the Torah just because it is linked with material factors in the world are higher degrees than theoretical spiritual adhesion to God. The link with the apparent concealed divine presence in this world is the ascent which follows the descent of the soul into the body. Observance of the precepts, like Torah study, forms a link of real adhesion to God (and in fact the only link). It follows that love of God and reverence for Him, and even the feeling of adhesion to Him, are only a means of arousing the soul toward the true adhesion – through Torah study and observance of the precepts.
By emphasizing the unbridgeable chasm between the divine essence and any attempt at understanding and identification with it, it follows that the only bridge is through the channel of revelation – the Torah and its precepts – while in the life of the soul the most praiseworthy quality is the negation of selfhood. This negation is not expressed through self-mortification but is basically a "negation of existence," subjection of the individual wish; and "negation of reality" is the wish of the individual to identify with the divine will. Surrender of the soul, as one of the main forms of such negation, serves simultaneously as the basis for the path to worship of God in both the life of feeling and of action.
This interpretation of Ḥasidism, predicated on observance of the precepts out of a wish to identify with God, in study and meditation, is clearly an individualist process. Every Ḥasid is responsible for pursuing, and is obligated to pursue, independent worship activity, while the assistance of the ḥasidic congregation, and even of the ẓaddik himself, is not integral to divine worship. Hence Shneur Zalman does not dwell extensively on the status and nature of the ẓaddik. In his view the admor is a spiritual leader and guide who assists his Ḥasidim to find their individual way to God, while the ḥasidic group, or the isolated Ḥasid, can and are required to pursue their way by virtue of their independent powers and responsibility.
Shneur Zalman did not intend to present a complete theosophical system, like the kabbalists, nor did he engage in theological speculations for their own sake. Rather, he was a guide to the path leading to the true service of God. From his position as ẓaddik, Shneur Zalman sought to demonstrate that by following his advice the ḥasid would be realizing the verse, "the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to observe it" (Deut. 30:14). He constructed a psychological system based on kabbalistic principles, distinguished by subtle analyses and penetrating to the depths of the human soul. His treatment of theology is arrived at incidentally through psychology, and hence his system may be regarded as Kabbalah in ḥasidic dress.
In his theology, Shneur Zalman presented a conception of theistic transcendence even of a somewhat pantheist nature. In this respect he is closer to the conception of Moses *Cordovero than to Isaac *Luria. On the one hand there is no limit to the greatness of God, and "the intellect cannot grasp it"; on the other, the term "infinite" (*Ein Sof) in its adverbial form is understood as "there is no object to the light emanating from Him," i.e., in terms manifested outside of Him. Shneur Zalman explains this by the use of the terms "surrounds all the worlds" and "fills all the worlds," i.e., on His own terms God is infinite (Ein-Sof), surrounding and encompassing everything. His greatness lies in that the only luminance revealed outside Him is infinitesimal, though this luminance supports and establishes all existence in the many worlds. Hence the concept of Shneur Zalman cannot be defined as total acosmism, as held by several scholars.
Shneur Zalman explains the concept of ẓimẓum ("contraction," see *Kabbalah) as being allegorical only, reflecting some inner compulsion. The abundance of the upper world would flow unimpeded in the act of creation, but ẓimẓum is constituted to conceal this light before the limited creatures.
Shneur Zalman emphasizes the importance of "germinal, elemental, and conclusive knowledge" (ḥokhmah, binah, da'at), i.e., those powers of the soul which are employed in intellectual activities, whose object is the immensity of Ein-Sof. However not the intellect alone, but attributes such as love and reverence and the like ought to be directed toward the Creator. Evil is not bad on its own terms and is constituted to serve as a challenge to man. Whoever manages to subject it (the beinoni), and even to convert it to good (the ẓaddik), augments holiness in the world and brings the Divine Presence to a complete harmony and the soul to great joy.
This is the first and primary work of the Chabad system, first published anonymously in 1796. Shneur Zalman himself calls the book Likkutei Amarim ("Collected Sayings"), but on the title page of the second edition it is designated "Tanya," and it has continued to be widely known by this name ever since. It has been translated into English (including pt. 5; 1964–66). The book consists of five parts:
(1) Sefer shel Beinonim ("The Book of the Average Man").
(2) Sha'ar ha-Yiḥud ve-ha-Emunah ("The Gateway of Unity and Belief"), called in the first edition ḥinukh katan ("brief instruction").
(3) Iggeret Teshuvah ("Letter of Repentance"); this exists in two editions: the first, and briefest, was published in Shklov in 1799, while the second edition, the longer version, was published in Shklov in 1806 and has been the most frequently republished. It is also called "Tanya Katan" ("Brief Tanya").
(4) Iggeret ha-Kodesh ("Letter of Holiness"), published in Shklov in 1814 soon after the author's death. Not all the letters have been published in their entirety, and their supplements are scattered in various texts.
(5) Kunteres Aḥaron ("Last Thesis"; Shklov 1814).
The 1814 Shklov edition of the Tanya includes all five parts, and this form has since been retained. Various abridgments and explanations have been written to the Tanya. The Chabad Ḥasidim refer to it as the "written law of Ḥabad" and designate it for daily study.
Apart from the letters included in the "Iggeret ha-Kodesh" and "Kunteres Aḥaron," the rest of the parts of the book present a complete and consistent system, which develops out of the determination not to "fail" in precision of terminology and logic. This gives rise to complicated syntax and lengthy sentences, which make the subject difficult to comprehend. However, the Tanya is one of the few works of Ḥasidism which is not a collection of discourses but a complete systematic exposition and was developed by the originator of the system himself. When the book appeared, it was criticized adversely by both maskilim and Mitnaggedim, and even by the Ḥasid, Abraham of Kalish. But it eventually was greatly appreciated for the profundity of its thought and organized structure. However, commentators have not always succeeded in penetrating its inner meaning. Contradictions exist between Shneur Zalman's other books of discourses and the Tanya.
Successors to the Chabad System
Those continuing the system advanced by Shneur Zalman of Lyady merely explain and expand what he laid down. The principal contribution of his own descendants to the Chabad system was their selection of various subjects out of the total of those treated by him. Shneur Zalman's ramified work was given direction and definition principally by his son and successor Dov Baer. He placed even greater emphasis on the element of meditation and also expanded it. He strengthened the intellectual aspect of Chabad, designating the study of Ḥasidism not only as a means to an end but also an end in itself. By this he brought an additional distance between the Ḥasidism practiced by Chabad and the rest of the branches of Ḥasidism (see Aaron of *Starosielce).
Menaḥem Mendel, author of Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, added halakhic works and also introduced a new category of ḥasidic writings. In Derekh Mitzvotekha (1911–12), on a part of the Torah precepts, Mendel employed a form which combined halakhah, kabbalah, and Ḥasidism; and in Sefer ha-Ḥakirah, he brought together concepts and terms from Jewish philosophical literature and the systems of Kabbalah and Ḥasidism. However, subsequently Chabad returned to the framework established by Dov Baer – ḥasidic sayings, mainly arranged according to the portions of the Law, which explain religious and theoretical problems (intellectual) or ethical-practical concerns (worship) according to Shneur Zalman's system. The works which expand the sphere of ideas (of the Kopys dynasty) or the kabbalistic context (those of Shalom Baer) still do not go beyond this general framework, hence the special status acquired by the admorim of Chabad as the sole authoritative exponents of the system. In contrast, a different, more personal type of literary work developed in the form of talks, in which guidance is the principal motif. They are not constructed in an organized form. In them the Chabad admorim of the last few generations express themselves freely, each in his own manner, through ethical tales or general explanations of contemporary problems.
M. Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Ladi u-Mifleget Ḥabad (1913); D.Z. Hilman, Iggerot Ba'al ha-Tanya u-Venei Doro (1953); H.M. Heilman, Beit Rabbi (1965); Dubnow, Ḥasidut, index; M.L. Rodkinson, Toledot Ammudei Ḥabad (1876); R. Schatz-Uffenheimer, in: Molad (1963), 171–2; A.M. Habermann, in: Alei Ayin (1953), 293–370; M. Buber, Tales of the Hasidim, 1 (19684), 265–71; J.I. Schneersohn, The Tzemach Tzedek and the Haskala Movement (1962); idem, On the Teaching of Chassidies (1959); idem, Some Aspects of Chabad Chasidism (1957); idem, Lubavitcher Rabbi's Memoirs (1966); M.M. Schneersohn, Mafte'ah (1968); idem, Sefer ha-Toledot (1947); N. Mindel, Rabbi Schneur Zalman (1969); idem, R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn (1947); A.H. Glicenstein, Rabbenu ha-Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek (1967); idem, Ha-Admor ha-Emẓa'i (1950); idem, Sefer ha-Toledot (1967); H. Bunin, in: Ha-Shilo'ah, 28–31 (1913–15); L. Jung (ed.), Jewish Leaders (1953), 51–75.