Rabbi Oliver wrote to: "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?": [this is an excerpt from Rabbi Oliver's comment translating and explaining the Rebbe's statement regarding Atzmut in a body]
Rabbi Micha Berger comment to "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?":
“Ve’al derech maamar haZohar, ‘man p’nei ho’adon do Rashbi, oder vi be’eIs ha’shlichus iZ afilu malach nikra b’shem Havayeh, oder vi Moshe Rabeinu hot gezogt venosati eisev.”======================
“This is similar to the statement of the Zohar,(1) ‘Whose is the face of the Master [G-d]? This is the Rashbi.’(2) Or [this can be explained along the lines of the idea that] at the time he performs his mission, an angel is called by the name of Havayeh [one of the Names of Hashem].(3) Or [this can be explained along the lines of the idea that] Moshe Rabeinu said, ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass.’” [Devarim 11:15] (4)
(1) Zohar 2:38a.
(2) I saw baalei nigleh [Talmudic experts] questioning this [statement from Zohar], and with a tremendous noise [claiming that it contradicts the doctrine that Hashem doesn’t have a form], how is it possible, etc., etc. [and thereby seeking to dismiss the words of the Zohar].” However [this is not only a matter of Kabbolo, for], we find [a statement] similar to this also in the revealed dimension of Torah [i.e., a Talmudic source], in Yerushalmi, Bikkurim, 3:3, “‘And G-d in His holy chamber’—this refers to Rebbi Yitzchok, the son of Rebbi Lezer in the house of study of Keisrin.”
(3) Tanya, Igeres HaKodesh end sec. 25. [One should not be surprised if a spark from a ray of the Shechinah is called [in the Baal Shem Tov’s Tzavaat HaRivash] by the name Shechinah, for we find that even an angel, which was created [and not a spark of the Shechinah], is called by Hashem’s Name in the parsha of Vayeira [“And he [Avraham] said [in reference to the angels who visited him], ‘L-rd, do not pass by your servant” Bereishis 18:3], according to the commentary of the Ramban [ibid.: “He [Avraham] called them by the Name of their Master [G-d], because he recognized that they are supernal angels, as they are called Elokim and Eilim [names of Hashem], and therefore he prostrated to the ground before them.] And as it is written [ibid. 16:13], ‘And she [Hogor] called the name of Hashem, Who spoke with her [where the verse says explicitly in ibid. 16:7 that it was an angel speaking to her],’ and there are many similar examples.]
(4) See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 50a. [There the Alter Rebbe writes: With this we will understand that which appears surprising at first glance concerning the meaning of [the section] “And it will be if you will surely listen,” [Devarim 11:13] which Moshe said. How did he say, ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass’ [ibid. 11:15] as reward for observing the Mitzvos] as if he is the one giving, G-d forbid, as the commentators ask. For since in Mishneh Torah [Devarim] Moshe is like one speaking for himself [as opposed to repeating the words dictated to him by Hashem]—analyze the Ramban in his preface to his commentary on the Torah—if so it should have been written ‘And Hashem will give the grass.’ Rather, the explanation is that the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid. The reason for this is along the lines of what was explained earlier that through the Giving of the Torah the [Jewish people] attained the level of marriage [with Hashem], which is the inclusion and complete bittul [nullification] to Atzmus Ohr Ein Sof [the Essence of Hashem’s infinite light], until their souls literally flew out from them. In a similar manner, was the constant state of Moshe Rabeinu, as he said, ‘Go [Moshe] and tell them, return to your tents, and you stand here with Me.’ [Devarim 5:30] For he took up no space, and he was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all. Therefore he was able to say ‘I will give,’ because the word of Hashem was speaking in him from within his throat.]
Rabbi Micha Berger comment to "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?":
R' Oliver,
Thank you for going to substance.
You do not bring proof that RMMS was speaking of connectedness rather than identity. Rather, you cite his proofs that the chiddush is not as big of a chiddush as it seems; that it has priority. In none of the quote does your rebbe define Atzmus. Was he saying that the Zohar said that seeing Rashbi was a way of seeing godliness, or that the Zohar said that seeing him was actually seeing God?
I disagree that the Rebbe explicitly and clearly explains himself as meaning one and not the other. Frankly, I believe that given Lubavitch's form of tzimtzum shelo kepeshuto, the ideas are identical. Once there is chibur to the Borei, the illusion of yeish (yeish meiAyin as seen from "down here") is gone. I'll explain.
Where your quoted material does address explaining what those sources say is where the footnote points to your Alter Rebbe. Far from explicit, it's cited in a footnote without quotation. And in terms of clear -- it says both!
On the one hand, "the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid."
On the other hand, the text concludes "and he [ie Moshe -micha] was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all."
It leaves us wanting. MRA"H is both not the Borei, and not a nivra distinct from the Borei. Moshe isn't the Giver of grass, however Moshe is so mevateil himself as to be a puppet that the Giver can speak through.
Now here's where things get messy, and I'll explain what I intimated above. "Ein od milvado". Or, "cheileq E-loak mima'al". Nu, so the rebbe IS G-d -- in the same way you, I, and perhaps even the keyboard I'm typing on are also G-d. And yet the rebbe is a puppet whose actions are G-d's, unlike you or I who have bechirah, or the keyboard which isn't a memutza mechabeir, hiding its godliness.
And thus, the Alter Rebbe isn't contradicting himself. By proving a rebbe is a memutza hamechabeir, one proves he is "cheileq E-loak mima'al' mammash" (as RMMS quotes the Tanya with emphasis) in a more immediate way than the rest of us.
This is my aforementioned "jump" in the argument. No one explicitly points out why by proving chibur, one proves true unity, identity, "Atzmus uMahus", not "merely" a vehicle for the Shechinah ("merely in quotes because being the merkavah is only a small thing by comparison).
What RMMS himself does write is
Last, Rabbi Oliver writes: "How amazing (to put it nicely) that you call a whole group of Jews by such a harsh, serious halachic name because you read a text, when at the same time you openly admit that you have no idea whether it's actually understood by members of the movement the way you as an outsider understand it!"
Check again what I wrote. I was careful to repeatedly say that I am trying to give a dispassionate assessment of a single idea, not of any people. (Never mind labeling them; even if I knew someone believed kefirah, that's insufficient to brand him a kofeir.)
PS: I have Al haTzaddikim and the sichah open in front of me when I write to this discussion.
“Rather, you cite his proofs that the chiddush is not as big of a chiddush as it seems; that it has priority.”
ReplyDeleteWhat the Rebbe said wasn’t a chiddush altogether, as is evident from the traditional sources that he cites immediately. It’s just that people who don’t learn Chassidus don’t know about the earlier sources, so when they saw the phrase taken out of context discussing an idea they never heard of, without bothering to read the explanation that the Rebbe goes to the trouble to give in the sicha, they concluded (unfairly) that this idea is odd and new (to put it nicely).
“In none of the quote does your rebbe define Atzmus. Was he saying that the Zohar said that seeing Rashbi was a way of seeing godliness, or that the Zohar said that seeing him was actually seeing God?”
The term Atzmus needs no definition; it is understood (to the extent that it can be understood, considering that it is beyond our understanding). The Rebbe then EXPLAINED that seeing the Rashbi was a way of Hashem revealing himself through the Tzaddik, because of the Tzaddik’s tremendous bittul, NOT as the misnagdim twist it to say, that the Tzaddik IS .. chas v’shalom. Does anyone think that an angel is shem Havayeh? No, but because of the angel’s bittul, shem Havayeh was revealed THROUGH the angel to the extent that the angel is called b’shem Hashem. That was the point of the reference to the Ma’amar concerning the fact that the posuk identifies shem Havayeh with the melach. So too with Tzadikim.
As for ein od milvado, it’s of course a core concept in Chassidus Chabad, but it’s not the focus of that sicha, so I really don’t see the relevance. If you want to ask a further profound philosophical question concerning ein od milvado and Beriah yesh mei’ayin, that’s fine, but that’s a broader discussion. It simply unfair to say that “I disagree that the Rebbe explicitly and clearly explains himself as meaning one and not the other,” when as I have shown, that’s exactly what the Rebbe does, by quoting concerning angelim being identified with shem Hashem, and concerning Moshe’s saying “I will give the grass.”
“No one explicitly points out why by proving chibur, one proves true unity, identity, "Atzmus uMahus", not "merely" a vehicle for the Shechinah ("merely in quotes because being the merkavah is only a small thing by comparison).”
The Rebbe never said, as you put it, “true unity, identity” that the Tzaddik IS etc. chas v’shalom. The Rebbe spoke about Hashem being revealed THROUGH the Tzaddik because of the Tzaddik’s bittul, which is clear from the sources cited in explanation of the phrase.
“On the one hand, "the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid." On the other hand, the text concludes "and he [ie Moshe -micha] was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all." It leaves us wanting. MRA"H is both not the Borei, and not a nivra distinct from the Borei. Moshe isn't the Giver of grass, however Moshe is so mevateil himself as to be a puppet that the Giver can speak through.”
If you read a full sentence instead of breaking it up, you’ll see that it’s very straightforward. The Alter Rebbe simply says that due to Moshe Rabeinu’s bittul, HE wasn’t an independent metzius from Hashem, so therefore Hashem could be revealed through him. I see nothing difficult here, and I’m tired of repeating myself. All I can say is that if you still do find difficulty with it (and see the need to share that with one and all), maybe you need to learn more Chassidus so you’ll be able to grasp such concepts better, and maybe it would be wiser to get more background study in a field of knowledge (you still didn’t answer my question concerning your degree of expertise in the particular area of Chassidus Chabad) before you publicise to the entire world your beginner’s criticisms. Chassidus Chabad is very different from chakirah, and expertise in one doesn’t translate to expertise in the other.
“Check again what I wrote. I was careful to repeatedly say that I am trying to give a dispassionate assessment of a single idea, not of any people. (Never mind labeling them; even if I knew someone believed kefirah, that's insufficient to brand him a kofeir.)”
Huh? You said clearly and the beginning of the conversation that Lubavitchers are “apiqursim”! Have you forgotten already?
I do not claim to be an expert on Tanya, much less the approach of Lubavitch to the Tanya but I'm not sure it is entirely correct to speak of "illusion of yeish" when the Ba'al HaTanya that the world as it is now constitutes "יש גמור" (Sha'ar HaYichud chapter 7).
ReplyDeleteRabbi Oliver, it would seem to the casual bystander that he has an ax to grind. Between me and you he has no knowledge of Chabad Chassidus, and truth be told I doubt he has the tools to learn the Kabblah/Chassidus jargon he keeps on ranting, building ideas out of thin air. Until he can clearly converse on basic concepts as “yicud ohr and kali” differences between Rambam and Mahral(which would solve his paradox) Tzimmzum Ramak and what the novelty of the Arizal was(some wanted to persecute him for this as is well know), a concise understanding of basic Chabad Chassidus principles(Sharr Hayichud with R Hiller Paritcher’s piursh would be a nice place to start discussing topics)really think you are going to convince him? Be even on the same wavelength? This really can be a forum used to spread Chassidus and you have an opportunity to view his as a student not as an adversary, pick a topic he is touches on and discuss, and stop rehashing same statements over again. Stop asking what he know and find out.
ReplyDelete“Hamoer Hu Bisgalus”
Anon., the concept of achdus Hashem and bittul ho'olamos to Hashem is extremely deep and complex, and it's the goal of the entire vast literature of Chasidus Chabad to explain it. My guess is that the extent to which R' Berger has studied these topics in Chasidus Chabad itself is very superficial. He certainly hasn't asserted otherwise, and has avoided the question.
ReplyDeleteYou are right he hasn't, and if he had the Rebbe's words would not even be in the top ten of controversial statements (as the one i quoted to end the last comment).truth be told, i always thought that if the "Goyim" really knew our torah, there would be more problems not less. so maybe its a good idea he knows basically nil? The irony here is that by talking about concepts he has no real knowledge about,besides that there might be an Issur due to misconception and the possibility of twisting words like he does to the Rebbe's (definitely to the blog world where everything is up for interpretation)he really is putting the head of the king in the garbage which is the whole reason of "tzimtzum kipshuto".. Ala Madonna and the like. may G-D have mercy.
ReplyDelete“Your rebbe does not say it's Hashem's way of revealing Himself. He compares it to earlier quotes...There is no explanation in the text, only proofs. Which means that your argument that the words shouldn't just be read literally and taken in context is difficult -- nothing in the context explicitly contradicts the literal.”
ReplyDeleteWell, thanks for admitting that the Rebbe bases himself on earlier sources!
There IS explanation in the text that contradicts what you call “the literal” (which is a concept that would never occur to those who’ve learnt Chassidus Chabad, whose whole focus is that Hashem is in His Essence completely one and beyond any limitation, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it could occur for those who’ve studied other religions and have not studied Chassidus Chabad): the Rebbe explains that it’s like the angel was CALLED by the Name of Hashem while he performed his Shlichus. In other words, the angel wasn’t Hashem chas v’shalom, but he revealed Hashem and therefore he was called by shem Hashem. But indeed, the Rebbe doesn’t discuss it at length there, and for a very simple reason: because the whole idea is only quoted in the sicha as an aside. The Rebbe’s purpose here is not to go into great depth in this inyan (which is discussed in numerous places in Chassidus Chabad) but to mention it briefly in context of the main discussion concerning how Hiskashrus to the Frierdiker Rebbe should continue even after the Frierdiker Rebbe’s passing.
The general concept that Hashem doesn’t have a form, even a spiritual form, chas v’shalom (elov v’lo l’midosov), is one of the most basic concepts in Chassidus Chabad. On the contrary, Chassidus Chabad with its numerous explanations of Hashem’s absolute unity comes specifically to make one’s belief in Hashem far purer, so that there will be no attribution of form to Him whatsoever. One well-known source where elov v’lo l’midosov is discussed is in the beginning of Shoresh Mitzvas HaTefillah in Derech Mitzvosecha, which is a Ma’amar that it is stressed in Chabad yeshivos be studied with beginners.
Again, the only people who can attribute such a belief to Chassidus Chabad or to chasidei Chabad ch"v, is those who don’t know either. Well, you haven’t yet admitted to knowing Chassidus Chabad, and you’ve admitted to not knowing about this concept directly from chasidei Chabad, so it makes a lot of sense that you could make this attribution!
As for the citation to Likkutei Torah (did you look it up inside?), I don’t know what more you want. It says clearly: chas v’shalom to say that Moshe gave the rain himself, but rather due to his tremendous bittul to Hashem, Hashem spoke through him. No deification, chas v’shalom; on the contrary, the one who learns Chassidus is PROTECTED from false beliefs by knowing the true explanation of the maamorei Chazal and the Ma’amar ha Zohar HaKodosh that could be read incorrectly.
I’m tired of repeating myself over and over on this point, and bli neder I will not do so again.
As for your philosophizing about “yeish meiAyin, every Jewish soul being cheileq E-loak mima'al *mammash* (as RMMS stresses), ein od Milvado”:
For your information it’s not the Rebbe who stresses the word “mamash”, but the Alter Rebbe in Tanya Kaddisha ch. 2 (so little is your knowledge of even the most basic sources in Chassidus Chabad).)
You want to discuss broader questions on what is the exact meaning of yeish meiayin and ein od milvado? Fine, but these are broader questions. The vast corpus of Chassidus Chabad is devoted to discussing these ideas in the most intricate manner. I see no direct relevance to the current discussion. And really, I’m surprised that someone who is apparently a scholar (and a secular one as well) presumes to express opinions and issue criticisms on matters out of his field. Expertise in chakirah (never mind other religions, lehavdil) doesn’t give one the right to criticize matters of Kabbalah or Chassidus. First study these fields in great depth, and then perhaps if you still have questions, ask them respectfully. Your dismissal (and in such harsh halachic terms!) after reading a handful of sources is like a junior high-school kid dismissing the words of a world-class professor.
“bad and offensive choice of phrasing”
You bet it was. Maybe you could apologise?