The point of contention comes down to a simple question. Do words mean what they say (peshat is true) or does one have to accept a set of beliefs and spend many years of study to understand properly (drash) - all of this being contrained by the essential belief that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is infallible and he obviously could not have said anything wrong.
To respond to Rabbi Oliver's puzzlement regarding my turning his comments into a post. It is simply the consequence of his being the only member of Chabad who is willing to try and communicate the Chabad position to non-Chabad Jews in this forum. Most of the forums discussing these issues are amongst people who have already accepted one particular view. Through the greatly appreciated efforts of Rabbi Oliver it is possible to at least attempt some type of dialogue on this significant issue.
BTW Rabbi Berger has in fact read Al Hatzaddikim - the Chabad attempt to show that identifying a person with G-d is found in many mainstream sources and is not an innovation of Chabad as well as Rabbi Posner's efforts to explain how a Lubavitcher understood the words "Atzmut placed in a human body."
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver has left a new comment on your post "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
To respond to Rabbi Oliver's puzzlement regarding my turning his comments into a post. It is simply the consequence of his being the only member of Chabad who is willing to try and communicate the Chabad position to non-Chabad Jews in this forum. Most of the forums discussing these issues are amongst people who have already accepted one particular view. Through the greatly appreciated efforts of Rabbi Oliver it is possible to at least attempt some type of dialogue on this significant issue.
BTW Rabbi Berger has in fact read Al Hatzaddikim - the Chabad attempt to show that identifying a person with G-d is found in many mainstream sources and is not an innovation of Chabad as well as Rabbi Posner's efforts to explain how a Lubavitcher understood the words "Atzmut placed in a human body."
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver has left a new comment on your post "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
I find it odd that every post of mine is blown up into a blog post. I responded to this post of micha in the earlier blog post, but I'll repost that response here.R' Micha Berger responded: "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
micha,
My response was not to your post, but to the post on the blog, so I wasn't responding "off point." I have no clue what you know or don't know. I was commenting on my impression of the bloggers' very meager knowledge of Chabad teachings. As for your post, as soon as I see that you start discussing buddhism, I stopped reading it, being that I don't read avodah zara. The Rebbe never said that a Tzadik is the "embodiment" of G-d, ch"v, that's a gross distortion of what the Rebbe said in the original sicha, quoting sources.
In any case, I wonder how much background you have to the teachings of Chabad, how much in-depth study of Kabbalah and Chassidus (not just controversial excerpts) you've engaged in. I would venture a guess: very little.
Have you studied the book "Al Hatzaddikim," from Reb Avrohom Boruch Pevzner? It quotes extensively from Chazal, Kabbolo, and non-Chabad sources in defense of the Rebbe's sicha.
=======================================
Your guess is wrong. I fancy myself a student of Jewish Philosophies of all (frum) sorts. I'm tired of your assuming that Lubavitch is so obviously right, the only possible reason someone would disagree is ignorance. Instead of just assuming my ignorance, reply to the point! Give a substantive response, or let the world assume that you are stooping to ad hominems because there is none.
I am tempted to post here my warm ties with Lubavitch organizations in practice. Because I know that if I don't write this paragraph, the usual next response is that I hate Lubavitch, always hated Lubavitch, and my opinion is therefore dismissable. Since you're insisting on the ad hominem route, that is your logical next step.
The words "Atzmus uMahus melubash beguf" does literally translate to "a Tzadik is the 'embodiment' of G-d"'s Essence. I fail to see how quoting words and translating them can possibly be "a gross distortion of what the Rebbe said in the original sicha". Is there some magic context in the sichah that turns A into not-A? Not in the copy I read!
Now, had Lubavitch had a more misnagisher version of creation and tzimtzum this would be altogether idolatry.
However, Lubavitch teaches an extreme form of the Chassidic doctrine that tzimtzum is figurative. In fact, that "ein od milvado" and tzimtzum is an illusion. Therefore, everything and everyone is G-d. Panentheism -- that the universe is of G-d, but He is greater than creation.
And therefore, the concept of a tzaddiq being Atzmus isn't as straightforward. Everything is G-d, but the rebbe, the generation's Yechidah Kelalis, who reached full bitul with respect to the Almighty, who is thus aware of that unity with the A-lmighty and pierced the illusion of tzimtzum, is Atzmuso.
This is the point I was making by saying the heresy is closer to Buddhism than trinitarian Xianity. I described a form of Buddhism which is theologically identical to Lubavitch. Replace their jargon for Hebrew and Yiddish, and it would match perfectly.
In sum: When any man says "the rebbe is the Core and Essence of G-d dressed in a body" you can rest assured that the majority of Jews (who are not his followers) will understandably shudder. There is no way to make those words work -- they contradict the most fundamental concept in Judaism.
"The point of contention comes down to a simple question. Do words mean what they say (peshat is true) or does one have to accept a set of beliefs and spend many years of study to understand properly (drash)"
ReplyDeleteJudaisms answer is clearly the latter. "Eye for an Eye", G-d having a hand, a sword, etc, all of these have not been accepted literally. In fact, accepting these concepts literally puts you outside the fold.
Why is it so unreasonable to assume that the same applies to Chabad in these types of cases?
Rael Levinsohn said...
ReplyDelete"The point of contention comes down to a simple question. Do words mean what they say (peshat is true) or does one have to accept a set of beliefs and spend many years of study to understand properly (drash)"
Judaisms answer is clearly the latter. "Eye for an Eye", G-d having a hand, a sword, etc, all of these have not been accepted literally. In fact, accepting these concepts literally puts you outside the fold.
Why is it so unreasonable to assume that the same applies to Chabad in these types of cases?
=================
If you live in a world where it is obvious that eye for an eye is meant literally than it is a shock when you move to the Orthodox world where such fundamentalism doesn't exist.
However even in the world of kabbala and chassidis - the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe were shocking.
Having spent some time with the apologetic work "Ahl HaTzadikim" which brings many sources that a man can be said to be an aspect of G-d - the explanations are not satisfactory.
As I mentoned before one needs to acept the Rebbe as infallible as well as become a functionally Lubavitcher - not to be shocked by the Rebbe's words.
Even the words of Rabbi Posner that the previous Rebbe reached the level of bitul of the Avos - is not something I can swallow.
In addition even if you can accept this type of explanation there is another major barrier. The Rebbe's attitude toward his father in law was basically not shared in the rest of the Orthodox world. The story about the Ragotshover's defense of the previous Rebbe is a good illustration of my point.
Just as Rav Noach Weinberg said that if Moshaich is coming from the dead we could do better than the Lubavitcher Rebbe - the world would say that even if there is such a thing as such a degree of bitul - the previous Rebbe would not be the one most people would select as an example.
In sum, all of this only makes sense only if one accepts the total package presented by Chabad - including the infallibility of the Rebbe.
I have drawn fire a few times by quite innocently mentioning to Chabad Chassidim that the Rebbe did not have the scientific knowledge that folkore attributes to him. For instance, the Rebbe once claimed in writing that according to modern Science the view that the stars rotate daily around a fixed Earth is as valid as the view that the Earth is a rotating planet. This claim about Science is very untrue. More than once I was left stupified by the emotional nature of the reactions that followed. For instance, one person claimed that I insulted the Tsaddik and unless I immediately repair my sin, great punishment would await me! I would mumble that I only meant to point out an objective fact. How can that be an insult? Only now, thanks to your posts, DT, I understand. I was unaware of the principle of infallibility. I unwittingly attacked Chabad faith at its core.
ReplyDeleteWords mean what they mean in the context in which they are said. The Rebbe's words in the sicha under discussion were said in the context of certain ideas found in Chassidus (of the Rebbe Rashab for example) that the crowd was familiar with, and didn't require elaboration. Do you take every phrase in Zohar literally also? Obviously, you are expected to have a certain background in how the Zohar speaks to understand it. Same here.
ReplyDeleteThat Rabbi Weinberg doesn't have a good opinion of the Rebbes is pretty irrelevant to damning Lubavitch. Maybe we don't believe in the infallibility of Rabbi Weinberg.
(Incidentally, I spoke the issue of the sun revolving around the earth over with someone who is a physics student in college, and he agreed that technically you could suppose that the sun revolves around the earth. Don't confuse facts and models.)
In response to the blog post:
ReplyDelete"Do words mean what they say"
I gather you're referring to the sicha concerning revelation of Elokus in Tzaddikim. My response is that if you learn the sicha properly, instead of quoting lines out of context, you'll see that the sicha is not saying the distortion that some here are attributing to it at all.
And I never said that one has to be a Lubavitcher to accept the idea, or accept the sichos concerning infallibility (that's something that you threw in); I said that one shouldn't jump to condemn if one is lacking in background knowledge, and also that one should be careful what one says about such great Tzaddikim.
As for dialogue, I am willing to engage in it on the condition that I feel that there is some degree of basic respect. I'm getting the impression that there is none at all. If that impression continues, I will stop posting here.
"The Rebbe's attitude toward his father in law was basically not shared in the rest of the Orthodox world."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "attitude," but the Rebbbe Rayatz was held in very high esteem by the gedolei Yisroel of his time. But if you don't feel that the Rebbe Rayatz was as great as the Rebbe thought (e.g., worthy of being Moshiach if Moshiach would come from the deceased) that's fine for you. But there's a precedent for chassidim of all groups thinking very highly of their Rebbes, and using expressions that others might think are exaggerated. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the concept of focussing highly on the relationship with the Tzadik and regarding that Tzaddik highly (which was referred to in very derogatory terms) is central to all Chasidic groups.
So to each their own. Thinking that one's Rebbe is a very, very great Tzaddik doesn't contradict any ikrei emunah. In fact, there's no explicit source against having such a view. It's certainly not a reason to attack the Rebbe and harass and ostracize his chassidim, who follow his example in the way he approached the Rebbe Rayatz in their relationship to him.
"(Incidentally, I spoke the issue of the sun revolving around the earth over with someone who is a physics student in college, and he agreed that technically you could suppose that the sun revolves around the earth. Don't confuse facts and models.)"
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse the claim of an arbitrary student with knowledge. I suggest you ask someone who really understands Einteins relativity theories. They are around. If you want to pursue this yourself, please realize that the Earth rotates daily around its axis, and moves yearly aroung the Sun. In the theory of General Relativity, the latter movement has a fundamentally equivalent description with the Sun circling the Earth every year. The daily rotation has not such equivalent description.