41. See, for instance, Schneerson, Likutei Sichot, part 18 (5750), pp. 276-284, in which the Rebbe examines Maimonides’s rulings in detail. For an example of a Chabad publication on Mishneh Torah that came out before the Rebbe’s death, see the halachic ruling discussed in note 39, above. For an example of a publication that came out afterward, see Long Live the King Messiah, pp. 13-14 and 42-58, which describe Maimonides’s messianic criteria and explain how they were fulfilled by the Rebbe.

42. See Dahan, “‘A Dwelling in the Lowly Realms,’” p. 221, note 76.

43. The claim of the Rebbe’s “kingship” is based on the belief that he embodied the sefira of malchut, which rules this world. Berger points out in reference to this claim that “by ‘king,’ Maimonides surely meant a temporal ruler with genuine powers of compulsion who fought real wars, not someone who is king only by virtue of the rabbinic dictum that rabbis are called kings, nor was Maimonides thinking of a man who persuades a few thousand Jews to observe the Torah and whose battles are fought with ‘mitzvah tanks’ and soldiers belonging to a youth movement named ‘the armies of the Lord.’” Berger, Rebbe, p. 9.

44. Dahan explains that “an essential difference between the rebbes of Chabad and the rest of the tzadikkim is that both the Chabad rebbes and their followers viewed themselves [the rebbes] as the exclusive leaders of Israel… in their view, the tzaddikim, especially those from Galicia and Poland, do not constitute the general soul of the Jewish people, but only that of their followers… only the rebbes of Chabad absorb the heavenly plenitude.… Chabad perceives itself as the essence of Judaism, and not just as another movement or a stream therein.” Dahan, “‘A Dwelling in the Lowly Realms,’” pp. 238-239.

46. Yaakov Ariel, a professor in the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, points out that there was no massive Jewish repentance movement before Chabad embarked on its missionary activism. In the 1950s, the first two emissaries sent to address Jews who were no longer observant were Rabbi Zalman Shachter-Shalomi and Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. Missionary activities were expanded only as a result of their achievements—about which their leaders were in truth quite ambivalent. Later emissaries, however, were more loyal to the hasidic movement’s ideological stance. The success of these enterprises inspired the establishment of the Diaspora Yeshiva in Israel in 1967, headed by Rabbi Mordechai Goldstein. The Ohr Samayach and Aish Hatorah yeshivas appeared shortly afterward, and drew in many of the newly observant during the 1970s. One may conclude, therefore, that Chabad was present at the onset of the modern phenomenon of the “return” to observance by secular Jews. For more on this topic, see Yaakov Ariel’s May 21, 2008 lecture at a conference at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev titled, “Kabbala and Contemporary Spiritual Revival: Historical, Sociological and Cultural Perspectives,” available as an abstract at

47. For example, a severe public condemnation was delivered by the Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, in his book On Redemption and Change (Brooklyn: Jerusalem Publishing, 1967) [Hebrew]. After the Six Day War, Teitelbaum criticized religious Jews who “drag” after the Zionists and “call out that God has delivered great, mighty miracles” (p. 88). Teitelbaum further declared, “Some observers of the Torah and mitzvot have until now recognized the impurity of Zionism, whose actions and ruses and successes are all but the Devil’s acts meant to incite and expel many of the Jewish people, and suddenly they have changed their mind and they speak like typical Zionists and marvel at the success of the wicked” (p. 186). Although the Satmar Rebbe did not mention Chabad or its Rebbe by name, it is clear that he is referring to them: Chabad initially objected to Zionism but later changed its position and came to see the State of Israel as a positive development in the process of redemption. Teitelbaum also referred directly to the mitzvah of tefillin and wondered why his unnamed rivals “specifically focus on [it],” an implicit criticism of Chabad’s “mitzvah campaigns.” The Rebbe apparently understood Teitelbaum’s intentions and replied to the accusations, albeit without mentioning his name, immediately following the release of his book. See Schneerson, Likutei Sichot, part 6 (5750), p. 271. More details of the debate can be found in Kraus, Seventh, pp. 167-174.

48. One must distinguish between the encouragement of tshuva and the “mitzvah campaigns.” The purpose of Chabad’s tefillin stands, for example, is first and foremost to get Jews to perform one mitzva, not necessarily to bring them to complete ritual observance, although clearly this is the most desirable outcome. According to Chabad theology, “the act is the main thing,” and the redemption cannot be brought about simply by contemplating the radiance of the divine spirit. Instead, one must perform actual mitzvot and encourage others to do so as well. This is done in order to create a “dwelling in the lowly realms” for God—that is, to bring the divinity into this world. According to the Rebbe, it is the Jewish people’s role to prepare this “dwelling,” and no Jew can escape this mission. “There is no doubt,” he said, “that in preparing this home for God in the lower world, all of us need to be involved, and all of the Jewish people, each and every one, needs to fulfill his mission himself.” Schneerson, Farbrengen/Convening, 5711, part 1 (5754), p. 213. From this point of view, it is unnecessary and even forbidden to wait for all Jews to repent, because redemption is in any case extremely near. Precisely because salvation is so close, however, it is necessary to convince more and more Jews to perform mitzvot, even if only on random and isolated occasions, because every single mitzvah has the potential to breach the last barrier separating us from redemption. This outlook is obviously influenced by the kabbalistic teachings of Yitzhak Luria, according to which the fulfillment of the mitzvot raises the divine “sparks” confined in the olam haklipot (“world of husks”). Only when all of the sparks have been liberated and returned to their divine origin will redemption be attained.

49. The Rebbe described the Four Species, the plants waved together on the holiday of Sukkot, in a particularly militaristic way: “The etrog is a sort of ‘bullet’ or ‘shell;’ the lulav is like a ‘gun,’ and the hadas is like a ‘knife’ and so forth.” Schneerson, Farbrengen/Convening, 5744, part 1 (5750), pp. 268-269. Quoted by Kraus, Seventh, p. 215.

50. Yosef Hartman, Education in Chabad Doctrine (Kfar Chabad: Ohalei Yosef Yitzhak Lubavitch, 5744), p. 323 [Hebrew]. Quoted in Kraus, Seventh, p. 206.