I have long been very open minded and accepting toward Chabad. As a chussid, I have been raised to love every yid, no matter what.
I learned about Chabad in a kind of backwards fashion. I asked Chabadniks both in person and on the net for explanations. And I started to become increasingly alarmed not merely about the irrationality of some of their beliefs, but also of the utter hatred they have toward others. A Jew who did not learn Tanya is not learning an integral component of the Torah!!! The Rebbe actually stated this to justify the remarks of a certain drunk shliach which amounted to, "The Chazon Ish is jealous of any young boy learning Tanya in Tomchei Temimim." Once I saw this for myself, I started really questioning the Rebbe. The Chazon Ish was quite close to the Vizhnitzer Rebbe, and I, as a Vizhnitzer Chussid, always had appreciation for the way the Chazon Ish talked about the Ahavas Yisroel, zy"a. My Rosh Yeshiva, the great gaon, Rav Rafoel Schorr, shlit"a, introduces us to the method of the Chazon Ish. As you can imagine, I love his seforim. To read this comment and the tortured logic used in his justification shook me up considerably. I later found several blogs on the net which is seething with hatred toward litvishe gedolei yisroel, replete with lies. The vehemence of their rancor toward Rav Shach knows no bounds--and facts and honesty don't get in the way, either. Reading the well known comments you are grappling with leads me to conclude, like my father always said, that the Rebbe was an incredibly great man who simply said things which were, at times, off. Much worse, I think, are those who call themselves Chabad chassidism who have brought so much hatred for anyone who is not like them in this world. I am not saying everyone is like this, c"v. On the contrary, I have met some genuinely lovely people from Chabad. But others like Ariel Sokolovsky and those who post on
theantitzemach.blogspot.com have genuine issues with halacha, hashkafa, and other yidden. And that, I think, is something which would cause their Rebbe pain.
Its a real shame things ended up like this.
The Rebbe was referring not to "a drunk shliach" but to a Yid, a Baal Mesiras Nefesh in Russia, who made a statement, not disrespectfully I might add, about the Chazon Ish. The Chazon ish of 1954, not the Chazon Ish of 2008. By that I mean that his reputation was not what it is today.
ReplyDeleteI have issues with people who like the anonymous commenter you quote who make statements about groups they know VERY little about, and do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what they mean.
I'll reiterate the statement I made on my blog: This is nothing but pure unadulterated hate towards Chabad, albeit in a suit and tie. Sorta like Joe Kennedy's anti-Semitism, very refined, but still the same thing, if not worse.
I take personal humbrage at your insinuation that I do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what the shliach--in his drunken stupor--said about the Chazon Ish. I certainly have the same ability to understand what the Rebbe said, and what was written in his name, which justified this sinister and evil comment, as you or anyone else who went to Yeshiva. One more thing, a shliach is a yid. He just happened to be shikkar when he made this comment.
ReplyDeleteTo state the Chazon Ish, after his death, no less, is jealous of a little boy learning Tanya is a grave insult. The Rebbe himself acknowledged that he recieved letters complaining about this affront to the great man's name. Clearly, then, plenty felt that this was insult to the CI of 1954. As a side note, the great R' Chaim Ozer (whom the Rebbe glibly labeled a "lamdan") and many other gedolei yisroel held the Chazon Ish of the early 20s and 30s in the highest esteem. So your argument suggesting that there is somehow a meaningul distinction between how the Chazon Ish was regarded at the time of his death and now is, at best, fallacious.
Your Rebbe's comment was, to quote you, "pure unadulterated hate toward" the Chazon Ish and all those who do not learn Tanya. The fact that the Chazon Ish was close to my Rebbe and many other helige chassidim was irrlevant to him. The Rebbs suggested that the Chazon Ish was, chalila, against Tanya. The drunk shliach made his comment about Tanya and the Rebbe agreed with him. This is not about the learning of chassidus, or kaballa (the latter being regarded as the pnimous hatorah by the helige Or HaChaim Hakadosh, zy"a). The Rebbe affronted the entire Jewish world as being somehow deficient if they did not learn Tanya (for they, in the Rebbe's opinion, do not fall within the meaning of Ashrei mi shebo lkaan vitalmudo byado).
We will allow objective thinkers throughout the frum world to determine what they think is objectionale. I suspect they will look through your sugarcoating and personal insults about my intelligence and knowledge and see the truth for what it is.
One more thing, your comment is suggestive of the general tone of Chabad: dismissive of any and all meaninful criticsm, full of malicious insults, and, finally, so full of self-pity as to lose sight of the metzios.
Reb Daniel.
ReplyDeleteJust discovered this interesting blog. Wish you hatzlocho.
I think that Litvacks have a problem with Lubavitch because it retains some of the anti-nomian vildkeit of the first generations of chasidim. Other chasidim have come around and have more or less become compliant with halacha and hashkafa. This is especially true of Galicianer/Hungarian chasidim which never really exhibit this characteristic. Since they constitute the majority of Chassidim today, people expect all chasidim to be like that.
Lubavitchers and other Russian chassidim always had a negative opinion of misnagdic gedolim, especially of the Gr"a. Some non-chabad chassidim will not learn the Biur Hagra even today.
What has changed in the past two generations with chabad is the exaggerated personality cult surrounding the last Rebbe. He actually encouraged this cult towards his father-in-law, the previous Rebbe. Another drastic change was the abandonment of Torah and Avodas ha-tefilla, the main pillar of Chabad chassidus, in favor of kiruv. One wonders what the Rasha"b would think of the changes wrought by the Rama"sh on Chabad. Based on the Rashab's writings, I don't think he would be too happy with what Chabad looks like today.
The point of the story regarding learning Tanya was not to bash any true godol ch"v (note that the Rebbe didn't refer to him by name) but to bring out the greatness of learning Tanya, that someone who has learnt it, even a beginner, attains a certain level that even a great gaon who hasn't learnt Tanya doesn't attain. So what, what's the big scandal. What's the "sinister" "evil" "grave insult" over here. It's along the lines of a clear maamar Chazal: "Each tzaddik will be scorched by the 'canopy' of his fellow." (Bava Basra 75a) See Maharsha.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Rebbe had great respect for the Chazon Ish, as recorded in the sefer Mishvochei Rebbi, Mordechai Menashe Laufer, p. 126, where the Rebbe says, "He appears to have been a yerei Shomayim". Someone commented "he was also a lamdan". To this the Rebbe responded, "this too was with yiras Shomayim."
Anon., why not investigate a bit better before jumping to conclusions about Tzadikim, do they not also have a chezkas kashrus?
The point of the story regarding learning Tanya was not to bash any true godol ch"v (note that the Rebbe didn't refer to him by name) but to bring out the greatness of learning Tanya, that someone who has learnt it, even a beginner, attains a certain level that even a great gaon who hasn't learnt Tanya doesn't attain. So what, what's the big scandal. What's the "sinister" "evil" "grave insult" over here. It's along the lines of a clear maamar Chazal: "Each tzaddik will be scorched by the 'canopy' of his fellow." (Bava Basra 75a) See Maharsha.
ReplyDeleteThe Rebbe suggested that gemara in the very begining of his apologetic. The reason why its inappropriate is because it is, simply put, an ideological argument. The Rebbe could have easily said, "we in Chabad learn Tanya. That is our way. They have theirs." But he did not do that. He justified a comment made by a man in his drunken stupor about the jealousy a gadol b'yisroel in shomayim feels toward little children because they learn Tanya and he did not. The Chazon Ish was well versed in all of Torah, nistar included. The percieved benefits of learning Tanya would be akin to the benefits of the Rebbe learning, in addition to Rambam with its nosei kailim, all Brisker Torah. I could argue, based on his tortured logic, that since Brisker Torah is the amkus d'pashtus (according to THEM, not you--you have to appreciate how utterly wrong his comment actually is!), and since the Rebbe did not learn it, then, obviously, the Rebbe is jealous of any mesivta shnook learning a Brisker Rav! I would add that the Rebbe is profoundly jealous of me as I am certain he did not touch certain brisker seforim that I have learned cover to cover. I would add that he never learned anything from the Ahavas Yisroel. For this reason, he is PROFOUNDLY jealous of, you've got it, ME. After all, in my opinion, the torah of the Ahavas Yisroel is what Chazal mean by "talmudo."
The Rebbe's argument was unfounded, poorly thought out, led only to greater dissension between him and the rest of Charedi Jewry, and, in the final analysis, silly. He basically insulted a dead gadol in public because he is idealogically driven to one point of view.
>>Also, the Rebbe had great respect for the Chazon Ish, as recorded in the sefer Mishvochei Rebbi, Mordechai Menashe Laufer, p. 126, where the Rebbe says, "He appears to have been a yerei Shomayim". Someone commented "he was also a lamdan". To this the Rebbe responded, "this too was with yiras Shomayim."
A lamdan? A Yorah shomayim? Well, let me tell you, I think I have a GREAT shevach to say about the Rebbe: He had a beard. It was nice, white and robust. In fact, the beard was worn with yiras shomayim.
Why didn't the Rebbe just say that the CI did not pish in the mikva? That, too, is a "compliment."
Gedolei Yisroel like the Chazon Ish do not NEED such so-called respect. But the Rebbe NEEDED to be respectful of gedolei yisroel. If this is your best example of respect, the Rebbe has more to worry about than his canopy being scorched by another's.
>>Anon., why not investigate a bit better before jumping to conclusions about Tzadikim, do they not also have a chezkas kashrus?
I am not jumpting to conclusions, I was aware of there great "shvachos" the Rebbe heaped on the Chazon Ish before I wrote this post. I still believe the Rebbe was a reverse misnagid, so to speak--not (like the original misnagdim) to protect the holy Torah from any breaches, c"v--but the misseh kind, the kind which hated because they believed their way was superior. And that notion of ethnocentrism and superiority is preciself what the Rebbe advocated in this apologetic.
The man was not "in a drunken stupor." And it was not just any old man, it was Reb Folye Kahn, who was a great Chossid and baal mesiras nefesh, translation: He risked his life regularly in Soviet Russia to keep basic Yiddishkeit alive. You know what that means? Torture. Torture of one's family. One's wife becoming an agunah. So Jewish children won't shmad zich to communism. You ever had this sort of mesiras nefesh?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to dismiss the story as "ideological," good luck to you. The Rebbe is not interest in ideology and relativism, but in revealing emes. You obviously don't have much of a sense of the greatness of the sefer of Tanya, so you equate it to everything else. But for those who sense what Tanya is, and have read even a handful of the statements of the Rebbeim concerning the greatness of Tanya, there's nothing really remarkable about the story.
And s I said, the Rebbe's words have a clear basis in that maamar Chazal.
How did you know (and are certain!) that the Rebbe did not learn a certain sefer? Wow, you must have some inside information. Every talmid chochom who spoke to the Rebbe was blown away by his knowledge of kol haTorah kula, but you seem to know something they didn't.
I established through my quote that the Rebbe DID have respect for the Chazon Ish; thus, the point of the story was not to disparage the Chazon Ish, *whose name wasn't mentioned* but to show the greatness of the Tanya. See?
The rest of your post is so crude it doesn't deserve a response. Nu, guess you'll find out when you reach olam ho'emes exactly what's what. Boruch Hashem I have a Tzadik who reveals it to me before I get there, so I can be smart while I'm still alive; as is known, one can no longer do Teshuvah and Torah and Mitzvos in olom ha'emes.
>>Boruch Hashem I have a Tzadik who reveals it to me before I get there, so I can be smart while I'm still alive; as is known, one can no longer do Teshuvah and Torah and Mitzvos in olom ha'emes
ReplyDeleteAnd no one else does? You sound like an evangalist!
To sum up: the Rebbe simply supported the statement of a Chosid that someone who hadn't learnt Tanya would feel that he missed out when reaching Gan Eden. That's all. Nothing about hate, ch"v, but rather love: revealing to us that even one very learned in halacha will feel that he missed out if he doesn't learn pnimiyus haTorah, and so we shouldn't neglect this study. Along these lines, the Ramak and R' Chaim Vital speak very sharply about those who neglect this study, although they were great Tzadikim and ohavei Yisroel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to show how much anon. assumes about that which s/he is clearly ignorant, the Rebbe refers to Chidushei Rabeinu Chaim in Likutei Sichos vol. 29, p. 392, and vol. 26, p. 69.
Rabbi Oliver
ReplyDeleteI'm stunned by your apologetics!
You state that the Rebbe said that the Chazon Ish 'APEARED' TO BE A YIREI SHOMAYIM??AND LAMDAN??
If anybody would write such language about your rebbes you'd be up in arms:Your rebbes have a haskomo that, yeah, lichoiro they are ehrlich.
You probably do not even realize how this sounds to a non Lubavitcher
Btw, the guy who said the 'brilliant' remark about the Chazon Ish in yenner velt being mekaneh a young bochur in Lubavitch, because the bochur has studied chassidus and not the Chzon Ish (and actually many other rabbonim like the Chofetz Chaim, R'Chaim Ozer etc)was R'Yoel Kahns father
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn
ReplyDeleteI respectfully ask that you forcefully repudiate the poster Hirshel Tzigs words against you.On his blog he has called you a 'hater' and other things that had he been a gentile he would have been accused of anti-semitism!
I imagine that you don't take it personally, but a stand has to be taken against this type of practice, accusing anybody who respectfully challenges some Chabad notions.
Most people I know would have a problem with some of the Lubavitcher practices and teachings that you discuss.For example I don't know of any non Lubavitcher who thinks that the Rebbe had the halachik classification of a Novi in the very literal sense of the word (if he did we'd have a major problem, since he said that Moshiach is coming 'ot ot' sixteen years ago! and a real novi who says prophecy on a good tiding ,it has to happen! according to the Ramba'm and if not he is a novi sheker.So,i think Lubavitch is better off saying that the Rebbe was saying it as a prayer to Hashem)Nobody I know is comfortable with the 'atzmus umahus shenislabesh beguf' So although things can be explained raising questions does not make one a hater.
N.B I also happen to know this fellow and he has no right accusing you of these things, especially since you are not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity and he is
Yankel, it's amazing how people can misquote. I said that when the Rebbe heard some people begin to level criticisms against the Chazon Ish, the Rebbe cut them off, and then said that he WAS a yerei Shomayim, and added that he learnt Torah with yiras Shomayim. Sounds respectful to me! Enough of this nonsense.
ReplyDeleteYankel, "shenislabesh" is not what the sicha says! And did you learn the source inside, or just hear it misquoted third-hand before you came to your "conclusion"?
As for your point re hating, there are definitely people with an open agenda of hatred lurking here, and one of the telltale signs is that they jump to conclusions and speak in a hateful way against an entire group of Chasidim and their Rebbe--not ask questions respectfully--*without having even seen the sources inside*. Without investigating. Giving the benefit of the doubt. Consulting with an expert. This indeed stems from "pure unadulterated hate towards Chabad, albeit in a suit and tie." Sinas chinom, the cause of the churban, R"l.
Herschel has a point: This intellectually dishonest approach IS definitely comparable to the style of the anti-semites who misquote "the Talmud" when they wouldn't know which way to hold a Gemoro.
Also, although Rabbi Eidensohn has not said outright hateful things that I have noticed (though he has admitted that he feels hate, just that he thinks it's justified and ought to be expressed, and therefore he thinks it's good to create a forum to express it), for some reason he allows very nasty, completely unacceptable hateful postings through, and even turns them into separate blog posts. Odd.