Rabbi Micha Berger comment to "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
This marks the end of my 5th attempt to get you to explain how the rebbe's words say what you claim they do that just caused Rabbi Oliver to criticize my ability to read the words myself. My citing phrases from your source text didn't help elevate the plane of conversation. I am forced to conclude that he does not in fact have an actual explanation, that it's simply a faith decision that the rebbe couldn't have possibly meant what he clearly wrote.
To leave on a more positive note, I'm glad to hear that in your neck of the Lubavitch community most people "spin" those words so as to avoid their saying something my rav would consider apiqursus.
As for my knowledge of machashavah, I suggest you read my work and decide for yourself. I'm not going to sit here and play up my credentials. My ego doesn't need massaging that badly.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
help me.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my frustration at being unable to launch a meaningful conversation with R' Oliver should be promoted from comment to blog entry.
ReplyDeleteIt also presumes that I believe R' Oliver's position is common among Lubavitchers. I have no idea what is common, although R' Posner's JA article read:
When the Rebbe, referring to his
father-in-law, stated “Atzmut was
placed in his body,” this, I would suggest, is what he had in mind: there was no separation between him and Him, no barrier, not that Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak is God but that he is one with God....
I could well be reading too much into "I would suggest", but when I use that phrase I'm introducing a chiddush, not presenting the notion as everyone understands it.
Again, I really have no idea, and there are times I would be thrilled to find out I'm wrong.
As for the essay itself, though, while it shows sources to prove "no barrier", from that sentence on it definitely speaks of a deity in a body. Those are the words of the essay, not the one sentence lifted out of context.
-micha
R. Micha, while there is no doubt that you are a Baal Machshavah of repute please stop saying that our Rabbanim would consider the L. Rebbe an apiqores. There are few Rabbanim who are Baalie Machshavah and capable to render such opinions.
ReplyDeleteI have long been very openminded and accepting toward Chabad. As a chussid, I have been raised to love every yid, no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI 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 alaremed not merely about the irrationality of some of their beliefs, but also of the utter hatred they have towad 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.
As I was clear at the top of this conversation, I'm dispassionately assessing the halachic state of a position. It has nothing to do with how I relate to Lubavitchers in person. The previous poster wrote, "As a chussid, I have been raised to love every yid, no matter what." This Litvak was taught similarly. But that's different than ignoring the reality of the "what".
ReplyDeleteThe people on the Anti-Tzemach have nothing to do with Chabad in particular. Much of the Jewish blogosphere are similar cynics who get together to bash Torah and those who try to observe it. "Ish el rei'eihu ya'azoru, ule'achiv yomar 'Chazaq!'"
"Not the Gadol haDor"'s current blog gets more hits than Hirhurim. The Jewish Atheist is going strong. And they have links to similar blogs... This is by far not a Lubavitch phenomenon.
Whether they're former Lubavitchers (many of whom came from non-observant homes and simply tried it and left; a phase), "kipot zeruqot" (the Religious Zionist term for the "tossed yarmulka" set), "Kids at Risk" from the yeshiva world... There is a single phenomenon that is more likely to have a common cause than one per community.
-micha
micha, it’s true that you dropped some phrases, but what you were trying to get at was quite enigmatic, very far from clear communication.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you didn’t answer my specific question concerning your breadth of knowledge of Chassidus Chabad, the school of thought that you are attacking. How many seforim of the Rebbeim of Chabad have you read through, I wonder? Your knowledge of chakirah (or lehavdil secular philosophy or other religions) is neither here nor there.
In any case, what’s hard to understand is how anyone—even a total outsider and beginner to all concepts chassidic, assuming he’s being intellectually honest, and not simply a coarse scandalmonger—could interpret the sicha in that way if immediately in the next paragraph after the Rebbe speaks about Atzmus “as it put itself in a body,” the Rebbe explains exactly and unequivocally what he means (first is the Yiddish, then the translation, the [] is my commentary and the numbers below are the footnotes in the sicha):
“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.]
Can anyone who reads this, and spends even a few minutes looking up the sources (never mind someone who owns a copy of the sefer Al HaTzadikim, which is replete with such sources from kol haTorah kulah, and claims to have read it) that the Rebbe immediately cites, walk away thinking what the misnagdim twist the Rebbe’s words as if to be saying, chas v’shalom? I think not. The Rebbe is solidly basing his words on earlier sources, and clearly explaining what he means.
Perhaps an apology is owed.
"It also presumes that I believe R' Oliver's position is common among Lubavitchers. I have no idea what is common"
ReplyDeleteHow 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!
again david berger you spout your nonsense as if you really care.how many people have you gone out of your way to bring into Yiddishkeit?
ReplyDeleteand if you do care why don't you concentrate on the Jews who dopn't keep Shabbos and get them to keep Shabbos?
you are now a big-shot in YU. The Rav was a personal friend of the REbbe and came to his 80th birthday.
the sicho that is in your craw was said in 1950 and was widespread. 32 years later the Rav comes to greet your apikores in his building?!
so what can the casual observer say ?? that the Rav found a way to interpret that Sicha in a kosher way. The same for Reb Moshe who was a personal friend of the Rebbe
even while he disagreed with some of the REbbe's ideas. If this is so blatant then how would Reb Moshe have the audacity to address the Rebbe as Hagaon HaKodosh in the Igros MOshe?-well after 1950!
your interpretation is consistently weighted to the bad side when it can be equally translated differently from your silly conclusion even in this tzitut that you quote.There are many dargos of what is called Atzmus Umehus including the esser Sefiros and many dargos in OHr ayn sof. furthermore the concept is based upon memutza hamechaber-not a new idea but the biur of Shchina Medaberes Bigrono Shel Moshe by the Rebbe Rashab in resh nun tes.(1899) if this was so awful how was REb Chaim so close to such an Apikores????chas vesholom! the Rebbe Rashab was a gaon and a Kodosh as was our late Rebbe ZTL
and you are the opposite.
use the word memutza hamechaber as a wire for electricity and there are no shaalos except what you would like to place because of your sick need to kick someone around.
you will say no-you want to save the generation-save the jews in YU
that they should't do non-tznius things , that they should never become Rabbis in conservative shuls,
that they should not endorse the zoologist slifkin, that the girls in stern's college should have a dress code according to the Shulchan Aruch, that the thousands who are frieing out in front of you should pause and reconsider.
instead all of your energies are focused upon blackballing Jews who are more religious than you and for a great part more knowledgeable than you and enjoy their religion more than you. this is really a great thing you are doing-for the Satan!
chaim moshe bergstein
farmington hills michigan
R' Oliver,
ReplyDeleteThank 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. From from explicit, it's cited in a footnote without quatation. 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.)
-micha
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?
R' Oliver, you write: "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..."
ReplyDeleteIf you take Atzmus without a definition, then you are talking about G-d being placed in a body. That's the literal words. So clearly you are requiring a subtext.
Your rebbe does not say it's Hashem's way of revealing Himself. He compares it to earlier quotes. It could mean he is saying the Rashbi too had G-d inhabiting his body no less than any meaning you assign it. 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.
What there is is a footnote pointing you to the Alter Rebbe in Liqutei Torah. Note this isn't in the body of the text. It's not quoted or paraphrased. Not quite the clear denial of the literal one would expect if a reiterated "Atzmus uMahus" didn't mean "Atzmus uMahus" are actually places in a body.
The citation to Liqutei Torah, in turn, actually says two contradictory things: 1- that Moshe isn't the one who gives the grass, he speaking on behalf of G-d; and 2- when Moshe opens his mouth, G-d is speaking. So, who is actually speaking -- Moshe as connected to G-d, or Moshe as G-d's vehicle? This too isn't even a clear disproof of the notion!
I disagree with you as to what the Liqutei Torah means, since you're taking one side of a paradoxical paragraph. I, OTOH, feel that placing it within the greater context of yeish meiAyin, every Jewish soul being cheileq E-loak mima'al *mammash* (as RMMS stresses), ein od Milvado, etc... shows that a memutza hamechabeir and Atzmus are identical. How? Everything is G-d, therefore something that doesn't hide that fact is *blatantly* G-d.
This is where I think RMMS wasn't saying what the Elohistim claim. He was saying the rebbe is G-d in a quantitatively different way than a rock is. Everything is G-d, and humans are more aware of that than rocks, Jews more than nachriim, and a rebbe most of all. They are claiming the rebbe is qualitatively different.
I said this at the open of this discussion, but with a bad and offensive choice of phrasing:
RMMS was deifying the rebbe in a Buddhist way, they're deifying the rebbe in a Xian one.
And there is a machloqes as to whether this quantitative difference assigned to the rebbe reaches the point of violating the ikkarim, or not. RMMS obviously was meiqil (if he said it was true, then obviously he held it was mutar to believe), but your rebbe may be a daas yachid on this.
-micha