Friday, August 1, 2008

Chabad - Infallibility/Struggle for the soul of the Jewish people

Rabbi Oliver has been patient enough to respond to my comments regarding the perspective of Chabad and other chassidim to the words of their leaders and how/why it differs from that of an outsider. He thus addresses the doctrine of infallibillity.

The question has been raised as to what I am trying to do in posting material about Chabad and Breslov etc. My perspective is that of Rav Binyamin Silber that I posted before. Even if we disagree with others - we need to understand what we are disagreeing about and what degree of legitimacy we can ascribe to the views of others.

It is conceivable that some of what they are doing is unacceptable. However as both Rav Sternbuch and Rav Eliashiv replied when I raised this question stated - "bring documentation and witnesses." Without a psak against them from gedolim they are presumed to be kosher Jews doing kosher things The flip side is the need for these groups to be aware of the concerns of outsiders and to either provide justification - which is what is being done - or to modify their activities.

I am not calling for a ban on Chabad or Breslov - even though I am personally very uncomfortable with what they are doing. That is for gedolim to decide not me. I am asking for sources. Interestingly there is a chasidic sefer called Vikuach Rabbah - which is presented as a debate between a Chassid and a student of the Gra. The Misnagid accuses the Chassid of deviating from the Mesorah and the Chassid responds that they are merely returning Yiddishkeit back to the way it used to be.

While there is nothing new under the sun - each generation needs to grapple anew with these issues and the resulting debate usually leads to needed changes on both sides.

It is also very important to understand that my questions - and that of others is -not part of an agressive offensive of Litvaks against Chassidim. The opposite is true. It is in large degree the defense of Litvaks against a massive campaign by Chabad and Breslov to change the nature of Yiddishkeit as we have known it. Anyone who lives in Yerushalayim and other places is constantly exposed to ads regarding Moshiach. Everywhere one finds graffiti regarding na nach.
A few years a psychologist friend of mine was giving a series of lecuures in Kfar Chabad to the teachers. One day he was told by the principal that the day of the next lecture needed to be changed because they needed to dedicate a mikveh on that day .When my friend asked why it was so urgent to dedicate the mikveh on that day - the principal responded, "Why don't you know? That is the day the Rebbe is coming to Kfar Chabad!"
Let me close with a personal anecdote concerning my experience with Chabad. [BTW I gave the Rebbe a copy of my Yad Moshe when it first came out and received his beracha in return.]

The event is seared into my memory - even though it took place thirty-five years ago. I was standing in the entrance hallway of 770 talking to a shliach I had known for several years. In the middle of our discussion he turns to me and says in a very serious tone.
"You are an apikorus! While it is true you keep Torah and mitzvos but you refuse to become a Lubavitcher. Everyone knows that in each generation there is one tzadik who has the biggest connection (tzinur) to HaShem. Everyone knows that in our generation it is the Rebbe. Your refusal to accept him as your rebbe shows that you really are not interested in the closest possible connection to HaShem. You are an apikorus!"
==================================================
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver commented to "Infallibility - Are our religious leaders infallib...":

"Any discussion with Chabad seems to be predicated on the axiom that they have an infallible doctrine and by definition anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Consequently Chabad does not engage in genuine dialogue but rather views it as an opportunity to educate their opponents of the error of their ways."

Well, you're putting it quite pejoratively, but I would word it like this:

Perspective of a Chosid

A Chossid accepts the words of his Rebbe fully and unconditionally with pure emunas Tzadikim as emes la'amitoi (the absolute truth). If he is indeed a Chossid, he has not the slightest shadow of doubt that what he is told by his Rebbe is Shechina medaberes mi'toch grono of the Rebbe. Does he understand what his Rebbe says? Not necessarily. But his approach is not predicated upon intellect, but upon emunah.

Thus it is out of the question for him to "second-guess" his Rebbe, G-d forbid, and decide that he knows better in some case. Not that he can't try to understand why his Rebbe would have told him as he did; on the contrary, he can and he should. But even if he doesn't understand, he accepts and obeys regardless because of his pure emunah that Hashem is speaking to him through his Rebbe.

This is also an approach that according to various non-Chabad chasidishe stories I've heard is found in all Chasidic groups, and it's one of the main differences between the way that a Chossid looks at his Rebbe and the way a non-Chossid looks at his gadol.

Perspective of a non-Chosid

However, a non-Chossid is not expected to have this degree of reverence (though he should respect him in general, of course), because he hasn't accepted that person as Rebbe. This is perhaps similar to the concept in Chazal that kabolas malchus Shomayim must precede kabolas ol Mitzvos, because a king only has authority over those who have accepted him as such. Members of all countries should accord respect to a king, but only the king's subjects, who have accepted his sovereignty, are expected to obey his every command. Not that a king can't direct himself to those who are not his subjects, but those words are be more properly categorised as suggestions, not commands. You can see the difference in the way the people who went past the Rebbe to receive dollars spoke to the Rebbe and the way the Rebbe spoke to them. It was all very different if it was a non-Chossid.

So, too, here. If the Rebbe taught something that you personally choose not to accept, that's up to you. But the Rebbe was a tremendous talmid chochom and Tzaddik, so at least respect what he said. Don't go around bashing it. Thus if Chassidim do or say things at the Rebbe's instruction, leave them alone.

It should also be noted that whenever the Rebbe came out with an instruction that he encouraged all Jews to follow, which he did on many occasions, he would always explain the necessity for it at length, quoting traditional Torah sources and Rishonim and Achronim. He would respond to those who raised criticism based on halachic claims. These explanations and responses (e.g., concerning Mivtza Tefillin, Mivtza Mezuzah) are printed in Likutei Sichos. The Rebbe wanted his suggestions to klal Yisroel to make sense to them, so they would adopt them willingly and not necessarily out of a sense of obedience, and it appears to me that at least part of the reason for this was precisely because the Rebbe knew that they were not Chassidim.

16 comments :

  1. ***********************
    It is conceivable that some of what they are doing is unacceptable. However as both Rav Sternbuch and Rav Eliashiv replied when I raised this question stated - "bring documentation and witnesses."
    ***********************

    With all respect, this is weird. Why do need documentation and witnesses for what they surely know already?


    ***********************
    Without a psak against them from gedolim they are presumed to be kosher Jews doing kosher things.
    ***********************

    Are the (your) gedolim greater than the rebbes? I hope you understand (by now) what I mean. The Torah specifies that we establish and submit to Sanhedrin. It is very much overdue that both rebbes and gedolim submit to Sanhedrin. This is Bli Kesher a Mitzva D'Oriata, and it the only way to sort the things out that you are currently pursuing with your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I had a similar experience while working cutting wigs about 12 years ago.

    I group of Lubavitch ladies came into the shop because for a sale and after one of them had selected a wig, she asked me "When are you going to become frum?"

    I stepped back for a moment because I know that we could all stand to improve our hashkafa and middos but I had been religious for my whole life or at least I thought so.

    I told her that I THOUGHT was was pretty religious, but maybe I am lacking in some area that she could help me with. Honestly, I thought maybe I had been rude to her or something in the course of the sale.

    "No", she said to me. "You are not frum until you believe that the Rebbe is Moshiach. No matter what you are doing or what you are keeping, you are an apikoris until you believe that the Rebbe is Moshiach".

    I was pretty shocked and actually speechless. I still don't know what I would answer her today.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "bring documentation and witnesses."

    Aren't the sources you have posted documentation enough? Get a response to the ideas. In the long run this is more effective than trying to get anyone in a cherem.

    But if you intent is to respond to the onslaught of NaNachers or Mashichists etc. then I think it is misguided for you to frame this in terms of Misnagdish vs Chassidish.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the infallibility thing, surely you need to go to Tosfos on the Gemora of "Ain Tadik Bo-oretz asher yaseh tov ..." In T'filla Zako it is written as "Kimat" ein Tzadik Bo-oretz. The question certainly precedes chassidim and misnagdim, let alone lubavitchers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. isaac balbin said...

    On the infallibility thing, surely you need to go to Tosfos on the Gemora of "Ain Tadik Bo-oretz asher yaseh tov ..." In T'filla Zako it is written as "Kimat" ein Tzadik Bo-oretz. The question certainly precedes chassidim and misnagdim, let alone lubavitchers.
    ================
    There are two issues of infallibility 1) regarding sin. The question is can a person be totally free of sin. There is a further assertion that tzadikim are protected from sin - but Tosfos concludes that is only in regard to eating unkosher food - not other areas of sin. Tosfos Chullin 5b. However Ramban(Chullin 7a)says they can also sin with food. [see Daas Torah pages 269-272 2) regarding non-halachic areas. The assertion was made concerning a community issue that the previous rebbe could not make a mistake even in secular matters or areas which are involved in sin but in judgment. Who else claims the infallible judgement of their leader in every aspect of life?

    It would seem from Shabbos 55a that there were very few people who did not sin. I don't have sources for tzadikim not making mistakes (i.e., being infallible)- Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re your story: So there are a handful of people who speak not nicely, etc. Of course it's wrong. Such behaviour is not typical, certainly not in my experience, and it's not fair to present it as such. Every group has people who have personal problems who give the group a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Anyone who lives in Yerushalayim and other places is constantly exposed to ads regarding Moshiach."

    Nu, so what? All Gedolei Yisroel have said that we are in ikvesa diMeshicha. The Rebbe said that the imminence of Moshiach should be publicised, so people will be ready by increasing in maasim tovim. Exactly what is the problem with this?

    As for the na nachman people, you may not agree with it, but they're not violating any halocho, they have their tradition on which they are relying, so they are "Kosher Jews." Just because you don't follow something yourself, and you sometimes come across Jews with ideas different from yours, that doesn't mean you should attack them. You need a very strong reason for that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm puzzled. You would agree that according to Tosfos in Shabbos there would appear to be people on a madrega that they did not sin? Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  9. isaac balbin said...

    I'm puzzled. You would agree that according to Tosfos in Shabbos there would appear to be people on a madrega that they did not sin? Is that correct?
    ==============================
    Shabbos(55b):An objection is raised: Four died through the serpent's machinations,5 viz., Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Caleb the son of David. Now, all are known by tradition, save Jesse the father of David, in whose case the Writ gives an explicit intimation. For it is written, And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.6 Now, was she the daughter of Nahash? Surely she was the daughter of Jesse, for it is written, and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail?7 Hence it must mean, the daughter of one who died through the machinations of the nahash [serpent].8 Who is [the author of this]? Shall we say, the Tanna [who taught] about the ministering angels? — Surely there were Moses and Aaron too! Hence it must surely be R. Simeon b. Eleazar, which proves that there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity. Thus the refutation of R. Ammi is [indeed] a refutation.
    ================
    The above shows that there were four people in Jewish history who apparently did not sin and thus did not die because of their sin.

    Tosfos (Shabbos 55) asks "but this seems to contradict the verse that there is no tzadik who doesn't sin" and concludes the majority sin but there is a minority which doesn't sin.

    Again this doesn't mean they were infallible in everything they do. Making a mistake is not a sin.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay, now that we have seen this Tosfos, it's surely only a short walk to conclude that of those who do not sin, some also do not err. This could even be a fortiori if you will. My point has been that such an argument can be mounted and that it precedes Chabad.

    Do misnagdim believe that the Gadol Hador sins + makes mistakes ... if so ... we could have 2 versions of daas (sic) torah

    ReplyDelete
  11. isaac balbin said...

    Okay, now that we have seen this Tosfos, it's surely only a short walk to conclude that of those who do not sin, some also do not err. This could even be a fortiori if you will. My point has been that such an argument can be mounted and that it precedes Chabad.

    Do misnagdim believe that the Gadol Hador sins + makes mistakes ... if so ... we could have 2 versions of daas (sic) torah
    =================
    You are ignoring the sources.
    The gemora in Shabbos (55b) does not say it is characteristic of tzadikim but only four people in Jewish history were without sin. This does not included the Avos or Moshe. As I cited Daas Torah does not mean that the gadol hador does not sin or does not err. Remember the Eglei Tal I cited
    Even though you keep insisting that there is such a view - please produce a single source in chazal or rishonim which claims infallibility - no error?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your quote of the Gemora is frozen! It assumes the Gemora says these and only these four died without sin. Is that indeed the case forever and a day?

    If the answer is possibly not, then we possibly have others who did not ever sin. You would think that those people were on a very high level, no? At least according to the Sochatchover it's because of the Torah they learned. Indeed the Loshon in T'filla Zakoh would seem to indicate that Tosfos' view was normative.
    Have you seen the Meiri on that piece as well?

    Would there be an issur if someone held that another person who they had observed and about whom they (and many others felt they) had never sinned? If you believe there is such an Issur, then I'd appreciate your mekoros.

    The person, or even a community of people could be wrong; only Hashem knows, but as long as they don't see such a person as Hashem himself, then the infallibility issue seems to me to be parenthetical.

    I'm not sure why you keep coming back to the Eglei Tal. In fact, he quotes the Gemorah I mentioned. Furthermore, if you go according to Tosfos and you follow the Eglei Tal's extension of infallibility to dying without sin, then in fact the Eglei Tal supports my assertion.

    [Disclaimer: I have got no idea who has/has not sinned and I don't really care! It's as relevant to me as the identity of the Moshiach---again something which is not a matter of faith at all!]

    ReplyDelete
  13. Would there be an issur if someone held that another person who they had observed and about whom they (and many others felt they) had never sinned? If you believe there is such an Issur, then I'd appreciate your mekoros.
    ================
    I am not asserting that saying a person has never sinned or is infallible is a sin. I am saying no one seems to ever made such a calim about gedolim prior to the claim that the Lubavitcher Rebbe makes about his father in law. Saying something is theotically permitted - but if in fact nobody ever said such a thing - it is a wakeup call.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So if I understand it correctly, you are not concerned about claims of infallibility except where these are precedent setting?

    Did the Gaon sin?

    Is Calev greater than Moshe because the former did not sin and the latter did?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I am saying no one seems to ever made such a claim about gedolim prior to the claim that the Lubavitcher Rebbe makes about his father in law"

    I'm surprised you write this; it makes me doubt that I'm being listened to.

    If you had read the sources quoted on my blog that you referred to ( http://tzaddikim.blogspot.com/ ) you would have seen that the story upon which this concept is based took place with the fifth Chabad Rebbe, the Rebbe Rashab, not with the Rebbe Rayatz. The story was first told by the Rebbe Rayatz, then repeated and further explained by the Rebbe.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Somewhere along the line I missed this discussion.

    Just to throw in a couple of points.

    "Sinning" and "making mistakes" are fundamentally. "Sinning" implies a degree of culpability. You should have known better (otherwise its an ones, which isn't a sin). Making mistakes is inevitable as a human being. A person does the best he can with the knowledge he as, but sometimes he messes up.

    The perfect example is Yishai. We are taught that Yishai never sinned. Yet, he was clearly mistaken in his judgement of his youngest son, Dovid.

    Amram, as well, never sinned, yet he was corrected for a misjudgement by his daughter Miriam.

    Infallibility requires much more than sinlessness. It is literally beyond human ability.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.