Here we have an example of the positive attitude of Hasidic teachers toward Torah study, with the unique - and challenging - Hasidic perspective. That is, one must study Torah, as that is the means to live according to the divine will. Yet, it is not sufficient to know Torah superficially, without understanding its deeper, esoteric meaning - particularly that meaning which enlivens both knowledge and performance. Study is for the sake of connecting to the root-source, the deepest level of meaning, and so with God. R. Elimelekh focuses on the study of Torah along with performance of mitzvot. The impulse to make this connection is hidden in our verse in the place name "terebinth of Moreh". He understand "Moreh" to signify "instruction (hora'ah)", and so "Torah (and oraita, the Aramaic term for Torah)". But, the Torah that is to be studied is that which takes us back to the "Tree (alon; ilan)", ultimately the Tree of Life. The latter has its roots in heaven, and it is through this Tree, the living Torah, that true life and vitality flow to us. True study is that which leads us back by way of the branches of halakha, up through the trunk of Torah, to the roots in heaven. In addition, study is for the sake of doing: we study in this manner so that we can know and feel God's vital force in the performance of any mitzvah such that through it we connect directly, intimately, to God.

It is typical of Hasidic teaching, as well, to hint at mystical teachings or imagery in the Zohar without directly citing them. So, consider in this case, the following passage from Zohar I 79b (Pritzker edition, ed. Daniel Matt, II:16-17):

Similarly Abraham did not enter the covenant of the blessed Holy One until he entered the land (note: Land, symbolizing Shekhinah. By being circumcised, one identifies with Yesod, the divine phallus, who unites with Shekhinah.)

See what is written: Abram passed through the land of Canaan (Va-ya'avor Avram ba-aretz) (Gen. 12:6). He passed. The verse should read He went (va-yelekh). But here is an allusion to the holy name by which the world is sealed with seventy-two letters, all included in this name. Here is it written He passed (va-ya'avor), and there it is written: YHVH passed (va-ya'avor YHVH) before his face and proclaimed (Ex. 34:6).

In The Book of Rav Yeiva Sava: Here is written He passed (va-ya'avor) and there it is written I will make (all my goodness) pass (ani a'avir) (Ex. 33:19), alluding to the holiness of the land, from a fittingly supernal site (note: The holiness of Shekhinah, symbolized by the land, emanating from a higher sefirotic source).

As far as the site of Shechem, as far at the terebinth of Moreh (Gen. ibid.), from one side to the other, fittingly (note: Apparently, through all aspects of Shekhinah, or through the entire realm of the sefirot, as reflected in Shekhinah).

Here we find Abram's travels through the land signifying inward journeys of the soul or upward travels through the supernal realms, connecting to the Shekhinah, and through her, to the root of all the sefirot.

This unification is mirrored in the closing element of the teaching, where R. Elimelekh refers to connecting the alephin of ADN"Y and EHYH. The former refers to Shekhinah, as she is also Malkhut, the dimension through which God is experienced as Lord, Adonai. That is one aleph. The other is Binah, the third of the upper sefirot, the dimension of Teshuvah. It is in Binah that all returns to its primordial source, where all exists in potential. It is there that all negative forces can be sweetened, transformed, transmuted from their experienced form into some new potential alternative: eheyeh, I will become a new being the future. Connecting Shekhinah and Binah is one of the goals of mystical practice. Often this is represented in connecting the upper Heh of the divine name YHVH, which is Binah, with the lower Heh, which is Shekhinah, but here it is two alephs. This process signifies the uniting of all of the lower sefirot in the upper realm, bringing all emanated existence back to its source in the upper triad of the godhead.

To further appreciate this process, let us unpack the citation from Eruvin. Here is the mishnah:

He who was coming along the way and darkness overtook him, and who knew about a certain tree or a fence and said, "My place of residence for the Sabbath will be under it," has said nothing at all; "My place of residence for the Sabbath is at its root," he may then go from the place at which he is standing to the root, for a distance of two thousand cubits, and from the location of its root up to his house, for two thousand cubits. So he turns out to have the right to go four thousand cubits after it gets dark.

R. Elimelekh is only slightly concerned with the legal aspects of this mishnah. What may interest him is that this is an instance in which the law itself seems to undermine or contradict itself. That is, the situation of the mishnah is that someone is traveling on the eve of Shabbat, and is unable to get home before sunset. One is permitted to walk only a distance of 2000 cubits outside of one's "habitation" on Shabbat, which would seem to limit the distance this person could walk to get home in the dark. However, despite this limitation, the mishnah finds a mechanism by which he is permitted to walk twice that distance. This is accomplished by extending his thought and intention beyond his current position to a particular "tree or fence". The Talmud understands that the traveler acquires a place at the "root" from which he can take a measure for his travel home. But for R. Elimelekh this points to his mystical concern. It is insufficient, when we engage in Torah study, to make our "place of residence" merely on the surface, or to "cease" our inquiry with the "givens" of law and practice. This is, for him, a virtual definition of the biblical idiom "a commandment of men, learned by rote (mitzvat anashim melumadah)" (Is. 29:13). One must instead extend one's thought and intention to the "root" of Torah and mitzvah, to discern the deep intention of the Creator to guide one's practice. This goal inspires one, then, to behave impeccably, avoiding doing that which would not please God in each and every instance.

And, again, we are left with the ambiguous mention of the tzaddik who pushes to understand the mitzvah at its root, who is able to connect the two alphin. We are invited to see ourselves as one who might bring this about through our personal devotions.