I don't see how that's materially different from what the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself wrote about his already-deceased father-in-law:
“Even now, the rebbe stands and guides all matters.” - "Beis Chelakim from hisvaadus” (12 Tammuz, 5711)
and here: "...how he is constantly with his mekusharim and how he leads them through every step." "the…Rebbe, who stands by you and leads you on the right path" - Igros Kodesh vol. 3, pages 419-420
א בימי אנוש טעו בני האדם טעות גדולה, ונבערה עצת חכמי אותו הדור; ואנוש עצמו, מן הטועים. וזו הייתה טעותם: אמרו הואיל והאל ברא כוכבים אלו וגלגלים אלו להנהיג את העולם, ונתנם במרום, וחלק להם כבוד, והם שמשים המשמשים לפניו--ראויים הם לשבחם ולפארם, ולחלוק להם כבוד. וזה הוא רצון האל ברוך הוא, לגדל ולכבד מי שגידלו וכיבדו, כמו שהמלך רוצה לכבד עבדיו והעומדים לפניו, וזה הוא כיבודו של מלך.
ב כיון שעלה דבר זה על ליבם, התחילו לבנות לכוכבים היכלות, ולהקריב להם קרבנות, ולשבחם ולפארם בדברים, ולהשתחוות למולן--כדי להשיג רצון הבורא, בדעתם הרעה. וזה, היה עיקר עבודה זרה.
ג וכך הם אומרים עובדיה היודעים עיקרה, לא שהם אומרים שאין שם אלוה אלא כוכב זה. הוא שירמיהו אומר "מי לא ייראך מלך הגויים, כי לך יאתה . . ." (ירמיהו י,ז-ח)--כלומר, הכול יודעין שאתה הוא האל לבדך; אבל טעותם וכסילותם, שמדמין שזה ההבל רצונך הוא.
ד [ב] ואחר שארכו הימים, עמדו בבני אדם נביאי שקר, ואמרו שהאל ציווה להם ואמר להם: עבדו כוכב פלוני, או כל הכוכבים, והקריבו לו ונסכו לו כך וכך, ובנו לו היכל ועשו צורתו כדי להשתחוות לה--כל העם הנשים והקטנים ושאר עם הארץ. ומודיע להם צורה שבדה מליבו, ואומר זו היא צורת הכוכב הפלוני שהודיעוהו בנבואתו.
ה והתחילו על דרך זו לעשות צורות בהיכלות ותחת האילנות ובראשי ההרים ועל הגבעות, ומתקבצים ומשתחווים להם; ואומרין לכל העם שזו הצורה מטיבה ומריעה, וראוי לעובדה וליראה ממנה. והכומרין אומרין להם שבעבודה זו, תרבו ותצליחו; ועשו כך וכך, ואל תעשו כך וכך.
ו והתחילו כוזבים אחרים, לעמוד ולומר שהכוכב עצמו או הגלגל עצמו או המלאך דיבר עימהם ואמר להם, עבדוני בכך וכך, והודיע להם דרך עבודתו, ועשו כך, ואל תעשו כך. ופשט דבר זה בכל העולם, לעבוד את הצורות בעבודות משונות זו מזו, ולהקריב להן, ולהשתחוות.
ז וכיון שארכו הימים, נשתקע השם הנכבד והנורא מפי כל היקום ומדעתם, ולא הכירוהו: ונמצאו כל עם הארץ והנשים והקטנים, אינן יודעין אלא הצורה של עץ ואבן וההיכל של בניין, שנתחנכו מקטנותן להשתחוות להן ולעובדן, ולהישבע בשמן.
ח והחכמים שהיו בהן כגון הכומרין וכיוצא בהן, מדמין שאין שם אלוה אלא הכוכבים והגלגלים שנעשו הצורות האלו בגללן ולדמותן. אבל צור העולמים, לא היה שם מכירו ולא יודעו, אלא יחידים בעולם, כגון חנוך ומתושלח ונוח ושם ועבר. ועל דרך זו, היה העולם מתגלגל והולך, עד שנולד עמודו של עולם, שהוא אברהם אבינו עליו השלום.
"I don't see how that's materially different from what the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself wrote about his already-deceased father-in-law:
“Even now, the rebbe stands and guides all matters.” - "Beis Chelakim from hisvaadus” (12 Tammuz, 5711)
and here: "...how he is constantly with his mekusharim and how he leads them through every step." "the…Rebbe, who stands by you and leads you on the right path" - Igros Kodesh vol. 3, pages 419-420"
It is a huge difference and one that L chassiim and their mashpiim have to be careful not to confuse "omed umeshamesh" with "RUNNING THE WORLD!":
A tzadik serves his flock by serving Hashem and being a conduit to bring the flow OF HASHEM SO THAT *HASHEM* RUNS THE WORLD!
IT is time that LC start using their Chabad to understand the logical and common sense difference between a tzadik being battel to Hashem so that everyone can reach *Hashem* and between making the Tzadik the ultimate Hashem (C"V).
All of the above is plain and simple and it is a shame that we have come to such situation where such simple and basic concepts have to be explained and a shame that lubavitch mashpiim have led their pupils to beleive in narishkeyten.
Well, I guess that when debating the issue of Hashgacha protis vs hashgocha Klolis as it applies to the world in general, we now have a third option on the table, previously unconsidered.
I guess, Rav Daniel, you're going to have to update your sourcebook now (that is, if you can find a source).
Moshe wrote: > ...a tzadik being battel to Hashem so that everyone can reach *Hashem*
That makes it better?!? You should really read up on the Rambam's 13 principles. Number five states that
“it is not appropriate to serve (angels, stars etc.,) in order that they should be intermediaries to bring (people) closer to Him...”
using a human being as a mechanism to bring you closer to G-d is full heresy (minus) according to Rambam! And it can't hurt to remember what Dovid Hamelech said in Ashrei:
I understand the sentiments found in the above linked video can be shocking. However, I am forced to ask what is Chidush here that it needs to be revisited. R' David Berger has already written a well researched book on this phenomenon within Chabad/Lubavitch. HaRav Shach Z"L spoke about this and wrote about this. It has been less than a decade since this luminary left us, I am amazed that we have so quickly forgotten his warnings in this area. Yes there is a segment of Chabad/Lubavitch that deifies the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. The size of that sect and the prevalence of those beliefs are a matter of dispute, however it exists, its existence has been well documented before this. In fact it was even referenced in previous blogs, or at least the comments, on this blog. So I am curious as to why suddenly the desire to make the topic a main post?
Mekubal wrote: > So I am curious as to why suddenly the desire to make the topic a main post?
Perhaps it's because of your own last words:
> It has been less than a decade since this luminary left us, I am amazed that we have so quickly forgotten his warnings in this area.
As long as so many frum publications, spokesmen and even blogs continue to tacitly accept Chabad ideology and those educators who espouse it and treat their outreach workers and kashrus professionals as mainstream Orthodox, Prof. Berger's and R' Shach's warnings will have served no function.
The truth is that Chabad/Lubavitch, like it or not, is a dynamic force within the greater Jewish public. For many many Jews, the local Chabad shliach is their only experience of Orthodoxy of any sort. For an incredibly large number Chabad is the entranceway into the frum world, as it was for me.
On the other side, you have sentiments like those expressed in the video above. Which, in my estimation, do put at least those that espouse such beliefs outside of mainstream Judaism, possibly in the in same category as Christians. However, I am unconvinced that the entire movement should be considered not mainstream.
With rare few exceptions in the Chassidic enclaves the Rebbe is seen as God's spokesperson. The one who achieves devekut for everyone else and thus acts as a middleman for his people. I know that this sounds problematic and from a simple read of the Shulchan Aruch you are right, thus the objections of the Vilna and the Mitnagdim. Judaism is however a living thing, it grows and adapts, it changes, and even the Shulchan Aruch cannot always be taken at face value, but rather it is interpreted through our gedolim and poskim today. Our Gedolim today see Chassidut as very mainstream within Orthodoxy. Even Rav Shach, while having problems with Chabad, embraced Belz and Gur, both of which hold their Rebbeim in such high esteem.
So really where does that leave us with Chabad/Lubavitch as a whole. Yes there is a Mashiachist sect that is very problematic and possibly heretical. However, there is also a "mainstream" sect that while differing from Litvak expressions of Judaism, are definitely within the general bounds of mainstream. Do we cast all out because of the sins of a few(or even many)? Do we want witch hunts within our midst?
So yes I am forced to question this post. Why this as a main post? The blog owner, like myself, lives in Jerusalem. Does he not see the flyers and business cards and other things from Mashiachists that have much more blatant heresies than the obviously emotional and enigmatic statement in the video above. Look at the kippas and flyers of the Chabad stand on Ben Yehuda street. Notice that in the Yehi they substitute Boreinu for Rabbeinu(Hashem deliver us).
To be honest I have a much easier time overlooking the statement made in the video. It was obviously an emotional time for Jews around the world, let alone Chabad Shlichim. It is possible that he simply mis-spoke. However, when you look at the printed materials, that takes forethought and planning. That takes editors, and typesetters, and numerous other steps to deliver it into the hands of the masses. That is thought out... it is premeditated. It is not a possible misstatement and jumbling words in the heat of emotion and the moment, it is a reflection of true beliefs.
Essentially if one wants to tackle this topic as a main post, there are much better, or at least more enlightening, resources that can be called upon. Why as a main post at all, and then if the desire really is to deal with this as a main topic, why this for the opener of the discussion?
To be honest I have a much easier time overlooking the statement made in the video. It was obviously an emotional time for Jews around the world, let alone Chabad Shlichim. It is possible that he simply mis-spoke. However, when you look at the printed materials, that takes forethought and planning. That takes editors, and typesetters, and numerous other steps to deliver it into the hands of the masses. That is thought out... it is premeditated. It is not a possible misstatement and jumbling words in the heat of emotion and the moment, it is a reflection of true beliefs. ============== I think you are being very naive. What a person says in the moment of distress is reflective of his true feelings - the typical defenses and concern for being p.c. are down.
The fact - as I have been told by Chabad rabbis in the know - Chabad is very very careful as to what they put in print. You said it yourself. The differnce is that these rabbis acknowledged that what is in print can be strongly inconsistent with the oral Torah of Chabad. In other words it is not simply an act of irrationality because of stress. It is a statement of truth because of distress - as anyone who has been following the discussion of Chabad is well aware.
The importance of the video is that here we have an akcnowledged leader within Chabad - making a statement which made most of us gasp. It did not cause a moment's notice within Chabad circles - until it was criticized.
This is clear evidence - something which can not be rationalized and twisted to mean the opposite of what was said.
If you wish to write a post regarding those things which you view as more substantive issues - please send it to me. That does not negate the obvious significance of this video.
Mekubal: I sympathize with your thoughts, but I disagree on several points:
> The truth is that Chabad/Lubavitch, like it or not, is a dynamic force within the greater Jewish public.
That might well be true, but then, the Conservatives are also still fairly "dynamic" but that doesn't mean we can give them full and equal religious standing - Rav Hirsch was insistance on differentiating between the love and camaraderie we feel for all of our brother Jews and the fact that we deny full religious membership in the Torah community to those who have abandoned Torah faith.
> Which, in my estimation, do put at least those that espouse such beliefs outside of mainstream Judaism, possibly in the in same category as Christians. However, I am unconvinced that the entire movement should be considered not mainstream
I am not alone in the belief that you can't hang all this on Rabbi Cunin: he was simply, for all intents and purposes, repeating what he'd been taught from his youth (see my quotations from above). There migth well be individual Lubavitchers who truly don't believe all this, but to do that, they would have to reject their own rebbe's teachings!
>Judaism is however a living thing, it grows and adapts, it changes
If you want to say that in context of our core beliefs in the unity of G-d and other 13 principles, you have entered very dangerous territory! I am of the impression that the Kotzker Rebbe burned a lot of the early theological errors of Chassidus from the movement and most of them (especially the Polish chassidus and, of course, Satmar) fell in line.
> Our Gedolim today see Chassidut as very mainstream within Orthodoxy.
I'm not sure which gedolim you're referring to. But the ones with whom I've discussed this matter think very differently. They don't see Chabad as mainstream at all - or kosher. The only debate I've seen is over which is the best practical response (see the recent Mishpacha interviews with R' Shlomo Miller and R' Yisroel Belsky for examples).
> However, there is also a "mainstream" sect that while differing from Litvak expressions of Judaism, are definitely within the general bounds of mainstream.
You need to re-read what I wrote. The fact is that Chabad mashiachists have put much worse into print. See online Beis Mashiach magainzine for instance, where in times past they have defended claims of divinity and encouraged people to pray to the Rebbe. That is why I said that it would be better to deal with then a comment that could be argued was a slip.
Next Guy,
First again please read by previous comment again. I said that Gedolim have accepted Chassidut as mainstream, I did not say Chabad. R' S.Z. Auerbach, was a Chasid, widely hailed as the Gadol HaDor with a close personal relationship with R' M. Feinstein. R' Shach and R' Eliashiv both have had close ties with the Rebbes of Belz and Gur. Eidit Chareidit is under the auspices of the Satmar Rebbe, and most Chareidim won't eat any other hechsher. Bobov is also considered mainstream. Together these sects(non of which have any ties to Chabad, but are all Chassidic) make up well over a million Jews and thus in my mind represent Chassidut.
When I said that Judaism is a living thing that adapts and changes. Yes this does include the 13 principles. I am not saying that our fundamental views on God will change, or the 13 principles themselves, however our interpretation of them may. For instance the GR"A based on his interepretation of the 13 principles saw fit to fight whole heartedly against Chassidut in any form. This has obviously been later revised. As R' Shach saw fit to become very close with the Belzer and Gurer Rebbes. You can make the claim that the Kotzker Rebbe had some sort of influence that swayed things, however, I would argue that after WWII that all changed. Belzer Chassidim today essentially are the same as the Belzer Chassidim that the GR"A had such an issue with. They consider their Rebbe to be THE Gadol HaDor, and Mashiach. However, it is not the Rebbe promoting this, thus it is allowed to continue and they are considered mainstream. Who knows he may be Mashiach.
Chabad as far as I know has no real kesher with any of the Gedolim. Hence the visit from R' Kaduri is still so played upon in the Chabad world. He was certainly a Gadol, and he visited the Rebbe(as well as numerous other Rebbeim and Rabbanim in the US). But I would not call that visit support. Having had a personal kesher with R' Kaduri I would not say that he supported them at all, he was just being courteous and visiting the important Rabbanim in the city as his own Rav the Ben Ish Hai taught him.
I will politely disagree with you that there is at least a portion of Chabad that should be considered mainstream. That comes from me being as far inside Chabad as it is really possible to get. Oh and being paid to rip down Mashiach posters.
However, I do agree that this is a topic that needs to be discussed, but I still think there are better sources out there for the opening discussion, and for an ongoing discussion and I would like to see some of that brought into play and made a main post.
As an addendum. I would love to do a full out on Chabad Messianism, however, as I am preparing for a trip to America, and trying to nail down the kavanot of Hanukah, so I am a little busy right now. However, I would like to put this blog forward. My reason is I believe that is presents all of the areas of Kefirah with Chabad in a concise and well researched way, putting forth ample sources from various Chabad literature. With the added bonus that it is written by someone who actually believes it within Chabad.
> First again please read by previous comment again. I said that Gedolim have accepted Chassidut as mainstream,
You are correct. In my reply I was only referring to Chabad being considered at the fringe (at best), not chassidim in general. I re-read your words almost immediately and realized what you had meant but assumed that readers would realize we weren't arguing on that point. I would argue that our current comfort with chassidim in general is because - for whatever reason - the early excesses of the movement no longer play a role. Therefore, since they are such wonderful bnei Torah, why shouldn't we enjoy their company? The very fact that R' Shach and other gedolim were and are so close to many rebbes is, to me, circumstantial evidence that their beliefs aren't those which are problematic. All of which isn't relevant to Chabad.
look Mekubal, while abstaining from any comments on you personally, as a Bochur in Yeshivas Oholei Torah, the biggest and most prestigious Beis Medrash for english speaking Chabad Bochurim, I can assure you that:
a) None of them believe, neither openly or secretly, that "G-d created the world clothed in the Rebbe King Moshiach's body while dressed in the silk kapotah and gartle". This idea has never occurred to any of them, and they would all instantly declare that as Kefira mamash.
b) None of them "pray to G-d imagining G-d in the Rebbe King Moshiach's image" neither openly or secretly, and that is an idea that has never even occurred to them.
c) None of them think that the Rebbe (or anyone else) should or ever will be called "G-d" or that "visiting him on Peisach Shvuos and Sukos fulfills seeing face of the Lord your G-d three times a year which originally meant going up to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem".
d) None of them worship the Rebbe (or anyone else) in any way whatsoever, "nullified" or not.
e) None of them "see G-d in revealed thru the Rebbe King Moshiach Shlit"a - Hashem Tsidkeinu". Or have considered that "option".
f) they all find this statement:
"The expression Yechi Hashem Tsidkeinu! follows from the statement in Yeremia discussed in the Talmud and quoted and explained by the Rebbe King Moshiach that Moshiach will be called "Hashem Tsidkeinu!"-"Hashem (G-d) our righteous One! The purpose of saying it is to reinforce within each of us and spread to the whole world the reality that the presence of G-d has been revealed here on earth-dirah leHashem be'tachtonim- dwelling for G-d in the lower worlds in the image of Rebbe King Moshiach Shlit"a"
to be a string of silly yet disgusting gibberish which are never even mentioned due their inherent stupidity.
Additionally, I'll note that none of the "ample sources" promised are to be found.
P.S. 4 years ago, Ariel Sokolovsky visited our Mesivta; he was cornered, harassed and mocked, and then bodily evicted from the building by the Bochurim present.
We had never heard of him or his ilk before, and we found his very presence revolting. There was even talk that he (the admin of a blog on Pilagshim!!) was planning on marrying a prostitute he had encountered in a brothel, with the "Rebbe" being the "mesader kiddushin"...
So I see that my comment didn't go up (while others in separate threads did). Is it inconvenient...? ========================= Haven't received your comment. Please try sending it again and make sure you get confirmation
Please re-read the entire thread, I have been the one arguing for the possibility of a mainstream element of Chabad. However, if you want to pick a fight here are some short and quick responses: First as far as sources from the above posted blog:
If you follow through his blog, I believe that you will find many more such documented sources.
Now if you want to say that this Rabbi is a Daas Yachid, again I would have to disagree, here are some memorable quotes taken from this: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201070776122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
article by R' David Berger: 1. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Ginsberg (written after the Rebbe's passing): Yes, the Rebbe's body is composed of flesh and blood, but as far as he's concerned he is not compelled or limited by anything - not by physical limitations nor by spiritual limitations. He "is what he is." [This refers, of course, to the divine name in Exodus 3:14.] Even as he is enclothed in a physical body, he remains limited by nothing whatsoever and he has the ability to do everything and be everything in an unlimited manner.
2. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Ginsberg (written after the Rebbe's passing): The Rebbe is the "master of the house" with respect to all that happens to him and all that happens in the world. Without his agreement no event can take place, and if it is his will, he can bring about anything, "and who can tell him what to do" ….In him the Holy One Blessed be He rests in all His force just as He is (because of his complete self-nullification to God, so that this becomes his entire essence).
3. Rabbi Sholom Charitonow, asserting that the Rebbe manifests the Essence of the unlimited God and explaining why it follows that even his physical body remains alive in the deepest sense: Interruptions can only apply where there are borders and limitations (as opposed to Essence), which have been utilized to a maximum, making it necessary to proceed to new borders and limitations. Concerning the Essence, however, in relation to which borders and forms do not conceal at all - on the contrary, they actually become united with the Essence - all causes of interruption do not apply. In other words - not only is the interruption unnecessary, it is in fact impossible. This can apply to something which has a form (whether of a physical or a spiritual nature); it cannot, however, apply to something that is eternal by nature, having no form whatsoever.
4. Rabbi Yashovam Segal (written in 2003):
We Lubavitch hassidim believe that the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [i.e., 770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the Covenant standing on the Foundation Rock in which [referring to the Rebbe/ark] the divine Being and Essence rests.
There is also this interesting debate to be found on the Failed Messiah website(which I do NOT at all endorse) http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/01/chbad-messianis.html
Finally if you are willing to give a point by point rebuttal of the many different documents and sources found in Berger's book, I would be happy to hear it.
Otherwise I am afraid that overall as it stands, the vast majority of evidence shows that while there may yet be a mainstream(or at least I hope there is) element of Chabad, the Mashiachist element is a significant and troubling part, as their theology crosses the line into what is definitely Christian, as the above posted video of R' Cunin alone points out.
How long have you been there? I know three people that people that came out of there in the last decade, Baruch Hecht, Yisroel Lew, and Shaya Freedman. All of them were Mashiachists. Shaya was certainly of the same ilk as the the above mentioned blog. Don't mean to poke wholes in your little bubble, but I don't buy it.
Mekubal, the sources provided (on the blog) state nothing controversial at all. I also wonder why you insist on quoting someone who (honestly, not just insultingly) has an obvious psychiatric disorder, as is clear to all who encounter him.
Now, all this has nothing to do with "Mochichisten" who subscribe to none of Sokolovsky's crazed rants, which I enumerated. My point was that in fact there are a number of "Mochichisten" in Oholei Torah, yet they have nothing in common with Sokolovsky at all. To consider Sokolovsky and his ilk as a "stream within Chabad" is insulting and denigrating.
I like to explain the difference between "Mochichisten" and "Elokisten" in the following manner: there are some who are crazy because of their beliefs, and then there are some who believe because they are crazy. Almost any "Mochichist" you will meet will subscribe to beliefs that are (in my view) tenable with Judaism, and any perceived extremism or strangeness derive from their beliefs, which may or may not be correct.
Yet there is another category of people who could absolutely never adhere to any normal belief. They are intrinsically crazy. And their beliefs are only a manifestation of that. If Sokolovsky wasn't an "Elokist", he'd be a Moonie, or a member of Jews for J., or he'd subscribe to any other senseless belief which he'd dream up. Because he can't do otherwise. Because he's crazy. The same goes for all of his ilk. Case closed.
Now for Berger's quotes, I have to insist that they bear nothing in common to Sokolovsky's "ideas". None of those cited (some of whom I know personally, as they teach at Oholei Torah), believe the Rebbe is G-d, pray to him, worship him, or maintain any other such idea.
I'll address those quotes separately, time allowing.
As to the alumni of Oholei Torah, I don't know the individuals you mentioned, but either they are 'normative' "Moshichisten" which certainly still exist in Oholei Torah, or perhaps they were indeed one of those transient nuts, who's itinerary included a stop at Oholei Torah, but while there were certainly pariahs, and regarded as hopelessly lost.
Suffice it to mention that I've read Berger's book, and I've found it to be brimming with distortions, half-truths, or innuendo.
Just for instance, in the quote provided, Berger quotes Ginsberg as saying: "He "is what he is." [This refers, of course, to the divine name in Exodus 3:14.].
This is silly and ignorant, Ginsberg would never consider calling the Rebbe by G-d's divine name, because he doesn't consider the Rebbe to be G-d. The reference is not to אהי'ה אשר אהי'ה, but rather to אנכי מי שאנכי, and he is merely repeating what is stated countless times in Kabbala and Chassidus:
look Mekubal, while abstaining from any comments on you personally, as a Bochur in Yeshivas Oholei Torah, the biggest and most prestigious Beis Medrash for english speaking Chabad Bochurim, I can assure you that:
============================ Since you are clearly in the Chabad world - could you please give a cogent explanation for R' Cunin remarks on the video? I gather that the average Chabad chasid finds nothing shocking about them while the rest of us clearly reacted differently.
In fact I am willing to make your comments a regular post.
Let's be clear you state that Sokolovsky is a nut, yet he and others like him act as Rabbis and run Chabad houses all over the world. As far as those that I mentioned, Yisroel is the son of R' Shmuel Lew from London, and Baruch is the son of Avraham Hecht from brooklyn, both big Chabad families. I wouldn't call them nuts.
Your attempt to defend problematic beliefs within Chabad with Chabad literature, is no different then when a Christian Missionary tries to defend their beliefs with their literature. If you want to prove to me that any of the statements that R' Berger quotes fit with what could be called normative Judaism, please bring me Jewish sources other than Chabad.
As someone who has studied Kabbalah in major Kabbalistic Yeshivot with the likes of R' Kaduri, R' Darzi and many others, please do not try to lecture me on what Kabbalah says. I once put the shaila to R' Kaduri as to whether I should read Tanya, as I had had a background in it and thought it might help, his answer, "Flee from the unclean as if fleeing for your life." I took that as a no. Many other major Rabbanim, such as R' Darzi and R' Hillel when I questioned them about it and R' Kaduri's strong reaction they all said that the Baal HaTanya made the same mistake as Shabtai Tzvi, he attempted to learn without a qualified Rav and thus learned inaccurately.
Possibly it could have been said that he was only mechadesh, however, seeing now the fruit of Tanya and all literature that is based upon it, I see that they were right, it is a poisoned vine.
Take your own stance. You claim that the mashiachist movement is somehow normative and within the bounds of Jewish belief. However it is precisely this that lead Gedolim such as R' Shach to say, "Chabad is the religion that most closely resembles Judaism." Say what you will in its defense, however there are no Gedolim of past or present that consider Mashiachists to be within the bounds of normative Judaism.
You flipantly put off R' Berger's objections by calling them distortions, and using, what I would agree, of all of his quotes, is the weakest. However, I am not willing to take your word for it that R' Ginsberg would never say or consider something like that. Again I get the same feeling as when Christian missionaries are trying to tell me that Tanach doesn't say what Rashi says it does, because that would put them outside of normative and acceptable. You need to bring stronger proof.
Personally I agree with R' Eidensohn. Please write a cogent defense of R' Cunin's comments. I would like to add that I would also like to see a cogent response to all of the above mentioned quotes from R' Berger, as well as a teshuva as to why R' Shach reacted so negatively to the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and Chabad in general.
a) I have never heard of a single Shliach anywhere in the world who sympathizes with any idea advanced by Sokolovsky. You've got Sokolovsky, Milchtein (or whatever), and maybe Frommer, they are all considered unanimously (by every single individual without a a diagnosable condition) to be truly crazy, and therefore aren't treated seriously. You are merely repeatedly projecting Sokolovsky on "Moshichisten". That is unwarranted and I think sufficiently debunked by now.
b) you haven't stated Lew and Hecht's beliefs. If they are that the Rebbe is Moshiach, well, then I agree that is still widely believed, even in Oholei Torah. But then I could, (and have successfully (even in online debates with Berger himself, where he was left without an answer, contrary to any other instance that I know of)) maintain that that belief is permissible and even normative within Judaism.
c) You are extremely unique in refusing to accept sources, even from the Baal HaTanya himself. Your attitude is unparalleled and strange. I find no need to respond to your revolting words regarding the Baal HaTanya, as his fame and stature infinitely surpasses that of your teachers and comrades. You might find this surprising, but you seem to be completely out of step with the normative and popular השקפה ושיטה on the matters of early Chassidus and Chabad, and your words merely take on a hollow, slanderous tone.
Since I truly don't want to insult you, I will stop here, for I believe everyone else would agree with me on this.
d) regarding אנכי מי שאנכי specifically, the Zohar states that this is בחינת הכתר. Have you ever learned that certain deeds etc. could reach כתר? Well, אברהם was a מרכבה to ספירת החסד and acquired its properties, יצחק was a מרכבה to גבורה, and משה on הר סיני encountered and approached the דרגא of אנכי, אנכי מי שאנכי, and the אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא have maintained that דרגא. So Ginsberg is saying that while physically, the Rebbe is flesh and blood, spiritually, he has attained the דרגא of כתר and its properties. ודי בזה.
e) This may come as a surprise, but Chabad doesn't have to feel threatened by and have to respond to Rav Shach. I won't focus on the Rav Shach end (although I will mention that his contemporary Roshei Yeshiva both in and out of Ponovezh, did not think very highly of his agendas), I'll just inform you that many would agree that לכל הפחות, the Rebbe doesn't have to answer to Rav Shach anymore than he would have to answer to the Rebbe. Outside of perhaps Bnei Brak, Rav Shach isn't the barometer by which everything is measured.
f) As an equal resident of this universe, I maintain the right to inform you what Lubavitchers worship and what they don't. You have no right however to assert what you maintain Ginsberg must believe, and expect me to have to dance to your tune (a theme which I sadly see runs through everything that you write). As the one in the know, I'll kindly inform you, that neither I, nor R. Nachman Shapiro, nor R. Shalom Charitonow, nor R. L.Y. Ginsberg consider the Rebbe G-d or pray to or worship him. If you think their words imply otherwise, know then that you have not understood them. וחסל.
>please give a cogent explanation for R' Cunin remarks
The short answer is, that R. Kunin's words are in fact the Rebbe's words, verbatim (for instance here):
כיון ש"צדיקא דאתפטר אשתכח בכולהו עלמין יתיר מבחיוהי" [זח"ג עא, ב. הובא ונת' בתניא אגה"ק ביאור לסי' ז"ך], "שגם בזה העולם המעשה אשתכח יתיר" [ראה תניא שם] – בודאי שהרבי מנהיג את העולם כולו, ואנ"ש בפרט, ומעורר רחמים רבים וכו', כמו שהי' עד עתה, ואדרבה, ביתר שאת וביתר עוז.
וכשם שעד עתה הי' מונח ("אָפּגעלייגט") אצל כאו"א מאתנו שהרבי יוליכנו לקראת משיח צדקנו – צריך להיות מונח כן גם עתה.
--משיחת ש"פ תרומה, פ' זכור, ח' אדר, ה'שי"ת
Since the Rebbe was someone who authored a prolific amount on the topic of Achdus Hashem, and since the Rebbe is familiar with more philosophic Kabbala than the rest of us, that alone is enough for R. Shlomo Kunin, and that is why that isn't shocking.
---
The long answer is that Kabbala has all sorts of forces "running the world", with the innovative distinction that they are b'achdus with Hashem; this is in fact what Kabbala is mostly here to accomplish: to define the status of the ייחוד various עולמות and ספירות. There are some who lose sight of the point, and get involved in lengthy pilpulim on the exact "direction" זרועות דאריך אנפין are facing; that may have importance, but the essential point of Kabbala remains the gauging of the increasing unity of the material and then spiritual forces the closer G-d is approached.
But while that certainly suffices for someone who is familiar with Kabbala and it's ideas (and not only strictly it's technicalities), I'll note for now an explicit source which deals specifically with people running the world. It is from a famous letter penned by a leading disciple of the Maggid of Mezerich, R. Mendel of Vitepsk.
At the moment I don't have a copy of the entire letter, but I'll provide that as soon as I get a copy of Pri Ha'aretz.
R. Mendel had received a letter requesting that he bestow the author with children. R. Mendel replied that he doesn't control the world, although the Baal Shem Tov did:
בושת פני כסתני, כי התחת אלקים אני – היו היה דבר ה' ביד הבעל שם, ויגזור אומר ויקם. אחד היה, ומהקדמונים לא קם כמוהו, ואחריו לעפר מי יקום.
that translates roughly, "I am throughly embarrassed because I cannot stand in G-d's stead. The Baal Shem [could, for he] had the word of G-d in his power, and he would decree and it would be. He was unique, since the ancient there were none like him, and who could be after him?"
So R. Mendel has stated that the Baal Shem is תחת אלקים and can control the world. This actually is alluded to in the Yerushalmi (תענית פ"ג ה"י):
ותגזר אומר ויקם לך, אפילו הוא אומר הכין ואת אמר הכין, דידך קיימא דידי לא קיימא
Furthermore, the reference to דבר ה' is in fact to the עשרה מאמרות which are Kabbalistically the spiritual force upon which all existence exists. So R. Mendel has stated that the Besht's powers derived from the fact that he could manipulate the very core of existence.
While it is impossible to teach these extremely detailed concepts in the comments to a blog, I'll suffice by explaining that all normative Jewish though and philosophy is seen by Kabbala to apply only within the סדר השתלשלות העולמות which begins with the עשר ספירות דאצילות. Whereas what is higher, for instance בחינת הכתר, has complete power of veto over any "worldly" notion.
Kabbala and Chassidus entertain the possibility of man "reaching" that level, and then they indeed may "control the world". That is peshat in the Yerushalmi.
P.S. there are more sources on the topic of התחת אלקים אני which I'll hopefully post soon.
Ah Bochur said... d) regarding אנכי מי שאנכי d) regarding אנכי מי שאנכי specifically, the Zohar states that this is בחינת הכתר. Have you ever learned that certain deeds etc. could reach כתר? Well, אברהם was a מרכבה to ספירת החסד and acquired its properties, יצחק was a מרכבה to גבורה, and משה on הר סיני encountered and approached the דרגא of אנכי, אנכי מי שאנכי, and the אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא have maintained that דרגא. So Ginsberg is saying that while physically, the Rebbe is flesh and blood, spiritually, he has attained the דרגא of כתר and its properties. ודי בזה. ==============================
The Zohar you quote, according the Ari, as found in Shaar Maamrei D'Rashbi, as well as Eitz Haim Shaar A"K, is referring to the Keter of A"K which is the Keter of Atzilut.
However in Shaar Ruach HaKodesh, Drush Alef, states that Moshe Rabbeinu only acheived the Gevurah and Hod of Zeir Anpin, of Beriah as it was clothed in the Tiferet of Z"A of Yetzirah.
Quite literally you are talking worlds apart. If you are going to tell me that Rebbe arrived at the Keter of A"K you are telling me, in essence, that he has surpassed Moshe Rabbeinu. I am sorry but I see this as a problematic statement. I am left with three possible conclusions: 1) You have misunderstood something vital and key within the Rebbe's words. 2) The Rebbe misunderstood something vital key within the words of Kabbalah. 3) The Rebbe, as unfortunate this may be, claimed an aspect of divinity as that is ultimately what the Keter of A"K is.
In either case the statement applying this to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, at least in the light of the Kabbalah of the AriZ"L very problematic. If you want to tell me that Chabad has in some way developed their own Kabbalah apart from the teachings of the AriZ"L and the Zohar that is fine. However then you need to explain exactly what this statement means in regards to a Chabad understanding.
Personally I find it sad that you feel the need to degredate and defame Gedolei HaTorah and Gedolei HaDor such as R' Kaduri, R' Darzi, R' Mordechai Sharabi, R' Yaakov Hillel, and R' Haddayya. You do realize that R' Kaduri was a student of the Ben Ish Hai, and all that he taught he received from the Ben Ish Hai, including his views on Tanya.
You Said... c) You are extremely unique in refusing to accept sources, even from the Baal HaTanya himself. Your attitude is unparalleled and strange. I find no need to respond to your revolting words regarding the Baal HaTanya, as his fame and stature infinitely surpasses that of your teachers and comrades. ============================
Actually these are not very unique views. These are the views that I have received from my teachers within Kabbalistic Yeshivot. For instance I heard it from the lips of the Rosh Yeshiva of Beit E-l(the oldest Kabbalistic Yeshiva in the World with an unbroken tradition from the RaShaSh, the gilgul of the Holy Ari), "We have never allowed Tanya within the walls of our Yeshiva, because the Baal HaTanya did not understand what he read, and it would only lead those who read his work astray."
I make my apologies if it discomforts you that a large number of mekubalim do not see emet within the pages of Tanya, but that is the tradition that I have received. As far as the Baal HaTanya's fame surpassing that of my teachers, I am sure that it does. My teachers are Mekubalim, they believe in highest levels of tzniut and humility, they would appalled if they were widely known. As far as their stature... that becomes more a matter of opinion. Personally I would put the Ben Ish Hai, R' M. Sharabi, and R' Kaduri well above the Baal HaTanya. Considering that in his own life R' Kaduri was considered to have surpassed the Holy RaShaSh, the most pre-eminent mekubal since the Ari, I believe that it is a fair statement. However, my loyalty is to my Rabbanim just as your loyalty is to your Rebbeim in the end it is a matter of opinion.
So far you have tried to make the case that Chabad at large does not view the Rebbe as a form of divinity, and I would only be happy to accept that. However, statements such as these:
"The Rebbe is the "master of the house" with respect to all that happens to him and all that happens in the world. Without his agreement no event can take place, and if it is his will, he can bring about anything, "and who can tell him what to do" ….In him the Holy One Blessed be He rests in all His force just as He is (because of his complete self-nullification to God, so that this becomes his entire essence)." From R' Ginsberg
"We Lubavitch hassidim believe that the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [i.e., 770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the Covenant standing on the Foundation Rock in which [referring to the Rebbe/ark] the divine Being and Essence rests." From Rav Segal
As well as the quote in the video from R' Cunin, seem to imply there is an aspect of divinity.
Ah Bochur said... As an equal resident of this universe, I maintain the right to inform you what Lubavitchers worship and what they don't. You have no right however to assert what you maintain Ginsberg must believe, and expect me to have to dance to your tune (a theme which I sadly see runs through everything that you write). As the one in the know, I'll kindly inform you, that neither I, nor R. Nachman Shapiro, nor R. Shalom Charitonow, nor R. L.Y. Ginsberg consider the Rebbe G-d or pray to or worship him. If you think their words imply otherwise, know then that you have not understood them ===================================
I think you have mistaken me. I am not maintaining what R' Ginsberg or any of the others must believe. Rather I am stating what it sounds to me, and apparently to others as well, that they believe based upon the words they speak/write and the language they choose to use. I hear implied in those words very dangerous thoughts.
I never degraded you as a person, and yes you are an equal member of this universe and one is who probably eminently more qualified to explain their beliefs. However, so simply say, "They don't believe that" is not a valid defense or explanation. I can say that the sky is pink but that does not make it so.
I do have a right to bring what I feel are problematic statements and say something like, "these are the conclusions that I and others draw from them." If you would like to maintain that I have misunderstood them, the burden of proof is upon you, to show me where. That is how honest debate and dialogue work.
Quite honestly a statement such as, If you think their words imply otherwise, know then that you have not understood them, is not honest dialogue or debate. These are statements that cult leaders employ to keep their masses under control when they start asking questions and seeing through the smoke and mirrors. I would like to think that you are above that. In which case why don't you explain to me and the greater reading public, how I have so horribly misunderstood these men.
Someone asked why I didn't condemn it; the answer is that I know that R' Cunin doesn't mean, nor does any Lubavitcher think, what all the misnagdim here are jumping on him and accusing him of saying. They just found a line they can pounce on in their anti-Chabad campaign of gross exaggeration and selective quoting in order to distort and misrepresent. This time, they had a field day.
AH Bochur answered well above, though he neglected to quote the important source of "Tzaddik gozer, v'HKBH mekayeim; HKBH gozer, v'Tzadik mevateil," which the Rebbe cites in explaining this idea.
Such degradation of talmidei chachomim (in this case, the Rebbe) as is seen on this forum is a sign that Moshiach is close, according to the Gemoro in Soito.
I don't see how that's materially different from what the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself wrote about his already-deceased father-in-law:
ReplyDelete“Even now, the rebbe stands and guides all matters.”
- "Beis Chelakim from hisvaadus” (12 Tammuz, 5711)
and here:
"...how he is constantly with his mekusharim and how he leads them through every step."
"the…Rebbe, who stands by you and leads you on the right path"
- Igros Kodesh vol. 3, pages 419-420
א בימי אנוש טעו בני האדם טעות גדולה, ונבערה עצת חכמי אותו הדור; ואנוש עצמו, מן הטועים. וזו הייתה טעותם: אמרו הואיל והאל ברא כוכבים אלו וגלגלים אלו להנהיג את העולם, ונתנם במרום, וחלק להם כבוד, והם שמשים המשמשים לפניו--ראויים הם לשבחם ולפארם, ולחלוק להם כבוד. וזה הוא רצון האל ברוך הוא, לגדל ולכבד מי שגידלו וכיבדו, כמו שהמלך רוצה לכבד עבדיו והעומדים לפניו, וזה הוא כיבודו של מלך.
ReplyDeleteב כיון שעלה דבר זה על ליבם, התחילו לבנות לכוכבים היכלות, ולהקריב להם קרבנות, ולשבחם ולפארם בדברים, ולהשתחוות למולן--כדי להשיג רצון הבורא, בדעתם הרעה. וזה, היה עיקר עבודה זרה.
ג וכך הם אומרים עובדיה היודעים עיקרה, לא שהם אומרים שאין שם אלוה אלא כוכב זה. הוא שירמיהו אומר "מי לא ייראך מלך הגויים, כי לך יאתה . . ." (ירמיהו י,ז-ח)--כלומר, הכול יודעין שאתה הוא האל לבדך; אבל טעותם וכסילותם, שמדמין שזה ההבל רצונך הוא.
ד [ב] ואחר שארכו הימים, עמדו בבני אדם נביאי שקר, ואמרו שהאל ציווה להם ואמר להם: עבדו כוכב פלוני, או כל הכוכבים, והקריבו לו ונסכו לו כך וכך, ובנו לו היכל ועשו צורתו כדי להשתחוות לה--כל העם הנשים והקטנים ושאר עם הארץ. ומודיע להם צורה שבדה מליבו, ואומר זו היא צורת הכוכב הפלוני שהודיעוהו בנבואתו.
ה והתחילו על דרך זו לעשות צורות בהיכלות ותחת האילנות ובראשי ההרים ועל הגבעות, ומתקבצים ומשתחווים להם; ואומרין לכל העם שזו הצורה מטיבה ומריעה, וראוי לעובדה וליראה ממנה. והכומרין אומרין להם שבעבודה זו, תרבו ותצליחו; ועשו כך וכך, ואל תעשו כך וכך.
ו והתחילו כוזבים אחרים, לעמוד ולומר שהכוכב עצמו או הגלגל עצמו או המלאך דיבר עימהם ואמר להם, עבדוני בכך וכך, והודיע להם דרך עבודתו, ועשו כך, ואל תעשו כך. ופשט דבר זה בכל העולם, לעבוד את הצורות בעבודות משונות זו מזו, ולהקריב להן, ולהשתחוות.
ז וכיון שארכו הימים, נשתקע השם הנכבד והנורא מפי כל היקום ומדעתם, ולא הכירוהו: ונמצאו כל עם הארץ והנשים והקטנים, אינן יודעין אלא הצורה של עץ ואבן וההיכל של בניין, שנתחנכו מקטנותן להשתחוות להן ולעובדן, ולהישבע בשמן.
ח והחכמים שהיו בהן כגון הכומרין וכיוצא בהן, מדמין שאין שם אלוה אלא הכוכבים והגלגלים שנעשו הצורות האלו בגללן ולדמותן. אבל צור העולמים, לא היה שם מכירו ולא יודעו, אלא יחידים בעולם, כגון חנוך ומתושלח ונוח ושם ועבר. ועל דרך זו, היה העולם מתגלגל והולך, עד שנולד עמודו של עולם, שהוא אברהם אבינו עליו השלום.
I don't see any video in the link.
ReplyDeleteYehoishophot Oliver said...
ReplyDeleteI don't see any video in the link.
===============
just checked it and there are several videos.
try using a different browser
it is the video of Rav Shlomo Cunin and it is stored on Youtube
Next guy writes:
ReplyDelete"I don't see how that's materially different from what the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself wrote about his already-deceased father-in-law:
“Even now, the rebbe stands and guides all matters.”
- "Beis Chelakim from hisvaadus” (12 Tammuz, 5711)
and here:
"...how he is constantly with his mekusharim and how he leads them through every step."
"the…Rebbe, who stands by you and leads you on the right path"
- Igros Kodesh vol. 3, pages 419-420"
It is a huge difference and one that L chassiim and their mashpiim have to be careful not to confuse "omed umeshamesh" with "RUNNING THE WORLD!":
A tzadik serves his flock by serving Hashem and being a conduit to bring the flow OF HASHEM SO THAT *HASHEM* RUNS THE WORLD!
IT is time that LC start using their Chabad to understand the logical and common sense difference between a tzadik being battel to Hashem so that everyone can reach *Hashem* and between making the Tzadik the ultimate Hashem (C"V).
All of the above is plain and simple and it is a shame that we have come to such situation where such simple and basic concepts have to be explained and a shame that lubavitch mashpiim have led their pupils to beleive in narishkeyten.
Well, I guess that when debating the issue of Hashgacha protis vs hashgocha Klolis as it applies to the world in general, we now have a third option on the table, previously unconsidered.
ReplyDeleteI guess, Rav Daniel, you're going to have to update your sourcebook now (that is, if you can find a source).
Moshe wrote:
ReplyDelete> ...a tzadik being battel to Hashem so that everyone can reach *Hashem*
That makes it better?!?
You should really read up on the Rambam's 13 principles. Number five states that
“it is not appropriate to serve (angels, stars etc.,) in order that
they should be intermediaries to bring (people) closer to Him...”
using a human being as a mechanism to bring you closer to G-d is full heresy (minus) according to Rambam!
And it can't hurt to remember what Dovid Hamelech said in Ashrei:
קרוב ה', לכל קראיו לכל אשר יקראהו באמת.
We don't need anyone to bring us to G-d!
I understand the sentiments found in the above linked video can be shocking. However, I am forced to ask what is Chidush here that it needs to be revisited. R' David Berger has already written a well researched book on this phenomenon within Chabad/Lubavitch. HaRav Shach Z"L spoke about this and wrote about this. It has been less than a decade since this luminary left us, I am amazed that we have so quickly forgotten his warnings in this area.
ReplyDeleteYes there is a segment of Chabad/Lubavitch that deifies the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. The size of that sect and the prevalence of those beliefs are a matter of dispute, however it exists, its existence has been well documented before this. In fact it was even referenced in previous blogs, or at least the comments, on this blog. So I am curious as to why suddenly the desire to make the topic a main post?
Mekubal wrote:
ReplyDelete> So I am curious as to why suddenly the desire to make the topic a main post?
Perhaps it's because of your own last words:
> It has been less than a decade since this luminary left us, I am amazed that we have so quickly forgotten his warnings in this area.
As long as so many frum publications, spokesmen and even blogs continue to tacitly accept Chabad ideology and those educators who espouse it and treat their outreach workers and kashrus professionals as mainstream Orthodox, Prof. Berger's and R' Shach's warnings will have served no function.
Why am I not surprised at the lack of condemnation by Rabbi Oliver??
ReplyDeleteHas it got anything to do with the fact that both are Lubavitchers??
Next Guy,
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that Chabad/Lubavitch, like it or not, is a dynamic force within the greater Jewish public. For many many Jews, the local Chabad shliach is their only experience of Orthodoxy of any sort. For an incredibly large number Chabad is the entranceway into the frum world, as it was for me.
On the other side, you have sentiments like those expressed in the video above. Which, in my estimation, do put at least those that espouse such beliefs outside of mainstream Judaism, possibly in the in same category as Christians. However, I am unconvinced that the entire movement should be considered not mainstream.
With rare few exceptions in the Chassidic enclaves the Rebbe is seen as God's spokesperson. The one who achieves devekut for everyone else and thus acts as a middleman for his people. I know that this sounds problematic and from a simple read of the Shulchan Aruch you are right, thus the objections of the Vilna and the Mitnagdim. Judaism is however a living thing, it grows and adapts, it changes, and even the Shulchan Aruch cannot always be taken at face value, but rather it is interpreted through our gedolim and poskim today. Our Gedolim today see Chassidut as very mainstream within Orthodoxy. Even Rav Shach, while having problems with Chabad, embraced Belz and Gur, both of which hold their Rebbeim in such high esteem.
So really where does that leave us with Chabad/Lubavitch as a whole. Yes there is a Mashiachist sect that is very problematic and possibly heretical. However, there is also a "mainstream" sect that while differing from Litvak expressions of Judaism, are definitely within the general bounds of mainstream. Do we cast all out because of the sins of a few(or even many)? Do we want witch hunts within our midst?
So yes I am forced to question this post. Why this as a main post? The blog owner, like myself, lives in Jerusalem. Does he not see the flyers and business cards and other things from Mashiachists that have much more blatant heresies than the obviously emotional and enigmatic statement in the video above. Look at the kippas and flyers of the Chabad stand on Ben Yehuda street. Notice that in the Yehi they substitute Boreinu for Rabbeinu(Hashem deliver us).
To be honest I have a much easier time overlooking the statement made in the video. It was obviously an emotional time for Jews around the world, let alone Chabad Shlichim. It is possible that he simply mis-spoke. However, when you look at the printed materials, that takes forethought and planning. That takes editors, and typesetters, and numerous other steps to deliver it into the hands of the masses. That is thought out... it is premeditated. It is not a possible misstatement and jumbling words in the heat of emotion and the moment, it is a reflection of true beliefs.
Essentially if one wants to tackle this topic as a main post, there are much better, or at least more enlightening, resources that can be called upon. Why as a main post at all, and then if the desire really is to deal with this as a main topic, why this for the opener of the discussion?
To be honest I have a much easier time overlooking the statement made in the video. It was obviously an emotional time for Jews around the world, let alone Chabad Shlichim. It is possible that he simply mis-spoke. However, when you look at the printed materials, that takes forethought and planning. That takes editors, and typesetters, and numerous other steps to deliver it into the hands of the masses. That is thought out... it is premeditated. It is not a possible misstatement and jumbling words in the heat of emotion and the moment, it is a reflection of true beliefs.
ReplyDelete==============
I think you are being very naive.
What a person says in the moment of distress is reflective of his true feelings - the typical defenses and concern for being p.c. are down.
The fact - as I have been told by Chabad rabbis in the know - Chabad is very very careful as to what they put in print. You said it yourself. The differnce is that these rabbis acknowledged that what is in print can be strongly inconsistent with the oral Torah of Chabad. In other words it is not simply an act of irrationality because of stress. It is a statement of truth because of distress - as anyone who has been following the discussion of Chabad is well aware.
The importance of the video is that here we have an akcnowledged leader within Chabad - making a statement which made most of us gasp. It did not cause a moment's notice within Chabad circles - until it was criticized.
This is clear evidence - something which can not be rationalized and twisted to mean the opposite of what was said.
If you wish to write a post regarding those things which you view as more substantive issues - please send it to me. That does not negate the obvious significance of this video.
Mekubal:
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with your thoughts, but I disagree on several points:
> The truth is that Chabad/Lubavitch, like it or not, is a dynamic force within the greater Jewish public.
That might well be true, but then, the Conservatives are also still fairly "dynamic" but that doesn't mean we can give them full and equal religious standing - Rav Hirsch was insistance on differentiating between the love and camaraderie we feel for all of our brother Jews and the fact that we deny full religious membership in the Torah community to those who have abandoned Torah faith.
> Which, in my estimation, do put at least those that espouse such beliefs outside of mainstream Judaism, possibly in the in same category as Christians. However, I am unconvinced that the entire movement should be considered not mainstream
I am not alone in the belief that you can't hang all this on Rabbi Cunin: he was simply, for all intents and purposes, repeating what he'd been taught from his youth (see my quotations from above). There migth well be individual Lubavitchers who truly don't believe all this, but to do that, they would have to reject their own rebbe's teachings!
>Judaism is however a living thing, it grows and adapts, it changes
If you want to say that in context of our core beliefs in the unity of G-d and other 13 principles, you have entered very dangerous territory! I am of the impression that the Kotzker Rebbe burned a lot of the early theological errors of Chassidus from the movement and most of them (especially the Polish chassidus and, of course, Satmar) fell in line.
> Our Gedolim today see Chassidut as very mainstream within Orthodoxy.
I'm not sure which gedolim you're referring to. But the ones with whom I've discussed this matter think very differently. They don't see Chabad as mainstream at all - or kosher. The only debate I've seen is over which is the best practical response (see the recent Mishpacha interviews with R' Shlomo Miller and R' Yisroel Belsky for examples).
> However, there is also a "mainstream" sect that while differing from Litvak expressions of Judaism, are definitely within the general bounds of mainstream.
I completely disagree. See this for many more details.
Please see the shocking video, the original was pulled...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfvqmCANF-c
Mekubal Said(as you used no other name),
ReplyDeleteYou need to re-read what I wrote. The fact is that Chabad mashiachists have put much worse into print. See online Beis Mashiach magainzine for instance, where in times past they have defended claims of divinity and encouraged people to pray to the Rebbe. That is why I said that it would be better to deal with then a comment that could be argued was a slip.
Next Guy,
First again please read by previous comment again. I said that Gedolim have accepted Chassidut as mainstream, I did not say Chabad. R' S.Z. Auerbach, was a Chasid, widely hailed as the Gadol HaDor with a close personal relationship with R' M. Feinstein. R' Shach and R' Eliashiv both have had close ties with the Rebbes of Belz and Gur. Eidit Chareidit is under the auspices of the Satmar Rebbe, and most Chareidim won't eat any other hechsher. Bobov is also considered mainstream. Together these sects(non of which have any ties to Chabad, but are all Chassidic) make up well over a million Jews and thus in my mind represent Chassidut.
When I said that Judaism is a living thing that adapts and changes. Yes this does include the 13 principles. I am not saying that our fundamental views on God will change, or the 13 principles themselves, however our interpretation of them may. For instance the GR"A based on his interepretation of the 13 principles saw fit to fight whole heartedly against Chassidut in any form. This has obviously been later revised. As R' Shach saw fit to become very close with the Belzer and Gurer Rebbes. You can make the claim that the Kotzker Rebbe had some sort of influence that swayed things, however, I would argue that after WWII that all changed. Belzer Chassidim today essentially are the same as the Belzer Chassidim that the GR"A had such an issue with. They consider their Rebbe to be THE Gadol HaDor, and Mashiach. However, it is not the Rebbe promoting this, thus it is allowed to continue and they are considered mainstream. Who knows he may be Mashiach.
Chabad as far as I know has no real kesher with any of the Gedolim. Hence the visit from R' Kaduri is still so played upon in the Chabad world. He was certainly a Gadol, and he visited the Rebbe(as well as numerous other Rebbeim and Rabbanim in the US). But I would not call that visit support. Having had a personal kesher with R' Kaduri I would not say that he supported them at all, he was just being courteous and visiting the important Rabbanim in the city as his own Rav the Ben Ish Hai taught him.
I will politely disagree with you that there is at least a portion of Chabad that should be considered mainstream. That comes from me being as far inside Chabad as it is really possible to get. Oh and being paid to rip down Mashiach posters.
However, I do agree that this is a topic that needs to be discussed, but I still think there are better sources out there for the opening discussion, and for an ongoing discussion and I would like to see some of that brought into play and made a main post.
As an addendum. I would love to do a full out on Chabad Messianism, however, as I am preparing for a trip to America, and trying to nail down the kavanot of Hanukah, so I am a little busy right now. However, I would like to put this blog forward. My reason is I believe that is presents all of the areas of Kefirah with Chabad in a concise and well researched way, putting forth ample sources from various Chabad literature. With the added bonus that it is written by someone who actually believes it within Chabad.
ReplyDeleteMekubal:
ReplyDelete> First again please read by previous comment again. I said that Gedolim have accepted Chassidut as mainstream,
You are correct. In my reply I was only referring to Chabad being considered at the fringe (at best), not chassidim in general. I re-read your words almost immediately and realized what you had meant but assumed that readers would realize we weren't arguing on that point.
I would argue that our current comfort with chassidim in general is because - for whatever reason - the early excesses of the movement no longer play a role. Therefore, since they are such wonderful bnei Torah, why shouldn't we enjoy their company?
The very fact that R' Shach and other gedolim were and are so close to many rebbes is, to me, circumstantial evidence that their beliefs aren't those which are problematic.
All of which isn't relevant to Chabad.
Sorry here is the link
ReplyDeletehttp://rebbegod.blogspot.com/2006/01/rebbegod-blog-faq.html
look Mekubal, while abstaining from any comments on you personally, as a Bochur in Yeshivas Oholei Torah, the biggest and most prestigious Beis Medrash for english speaking Chabad Bochurim, I can assure you that:
ReplyDeletea) None of them believe, neither openly or secretly, that "G-d created the world clothed in the Rebbe King Moshiach's body while dressed in the silk kapotah and gartle". This idea has never occurred to any of them, and they would all instantly declare that as Kefira mamash.
b) None of them "pray to G-d imagining G-d in the Rebbe King Moshiach's image" neither openly or secretly, and that is an idea that has never even occurred to them.
c) None of them think that the Rebbe (or anyone else) should or ever will be called "G-d" or that "visiting him on Peisach Shvuos and Sukos fulfills seeing face of the Lord your G-d three times a year which originally meant going up to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem".
d) None of them worship the Rebbe (or anyone else) in any way whatsoever, "nullified" or not.
e) None of them "see G-d in revealed thru the Rebbe King Moshiach Shlit"a - Hashem Tsidkeinu". Or have considered that "option".
f) they all find this statement:
"The expression Yechi Hashem Tsidkeinu! follows from the statement in Yeremia discussed in the Talmud and quoted and explained by the Rebbe King Moshiach that Moshiach will be called "Hashem Tsidkeinu!"-"Hashem (G-d) our righteous One! The purpose of saying it is to reinforce within each of us and spread to the whole world the reality that the presence of G-d has been revealed here on earth-dirah leHashem be'tachtonim- dwelling for G-d in the lower worlds in the image of Rebbe King Moshiach Shlit"a"
to be a string of silly yet disgusting gibberish which are never even mentioned due their inherent stupidity.
Additionally, I'll note that none of the "ample sources" promised are to be found.
P.S. 4 years ago, Ariel Sokolovsky visited our Mesivta; he was cornered, harassed and mocked, and then bodily evicted from the building by the Bochurim present.
We had never heard of him or his ilk before, and we found his very presence revolting. There was even talk that he (the admin of a blog on Pilagshim!!) was planning on marrying a prostitute he had encountered in a brothel, with the "Rebbe" being the "mesader kiddushin"...
So I see that my comment didn't go up (while others in separate threads did). Is it inconvenient...?
ReplyDeleteOT Bocher said...
ReplyDeleteSo I see that my comment didn't go up (while others in separate threads did). Is it inconvenient...?
=========================
Haven't received your comment. Please try sending it again and make sure you get confirmation
Ah Bochur,
ReplyDeletePlease re-read the entire thread, I have been the one arguing for the possibility of a mainstream element of Chabad. However, if you want to pick a fight here are some short and quick responses:
First as far as sources from the above posted blog:
http://www.otzar770.com/library/display_page.asp?nBookId=97&nPageNumber=79&cPartLetter=B
http://www.otzar770.com/library/display_page.asp?nBookId=97&nPageNumber=80&cPartLetter=B
Derech Mitzvoisecho Shoresh Mitzvahs haTfliah and Sicha Acharon Shel Pesach 5710
http://video.moshiach.ru/events/yechi3.rm
http://torah.5u.com/Rebbe-King-Moshiach-Shlita-Uncensored-Video-at-Moshiach.tv.html
If you follow through his blog, I believe that you will find many more such documented sources.
Now if you want to say that this Rabbi is a Daas Yachid, again I would have to disagree, here are some memorable quotes taken from this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201070776122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
article by R' David Berger:
1. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Ginsberg (written after the Rebbe's passing): Yes, the Rebbe's body is composed of flesh and blood, but as far as he's concerned he is not compelled or limited by anything - not by physical limitations nor by spiritual limitations. He "is what he is." [This refers, of course, to the divine name in Exodus 3:14.] Even as he is enclothed in a physical body, he remains limited by nothing whatsoever and he has the ability to do everything and be everything in an unlimited manner.
2. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Ginsberg (written after the Rebbe's passing): The Rebbe is the "master of the house" with respect to all that happens to him and all that happens in the world. Without his agreement no event can take place, and if it is his will, he can bring about anything, "and who can tell him what to do" ….In him the Holy One Blessed be He rests in all His force just as He is (because of his complete self-nullification to God, so that this becomes his entire essence).
3. Rabbi Sholom Charitonow, asserting that the Rebbe manifests the Essence of the unlimited God and explaining why it follows that even his physical body remains alive in the deepest sense: Interruptions can only apply where there are borders and limitations (as opposed to Essence), which have been utilized to a maximum, making it necessary to proceed to new borders and limitations. Concerning the Essence, however, in relation to which borders and forms do not conceal at all - on the contrary, they actually become united with the Essence - all causes of interruption do not apply. In other words - not only is the interruption unnecessary, it is in fact impossible. This can apply to something which has a form (whether of a physical or a spiritual nature); it cannot, however, apply to something that is eternal by nature, having no form whatsoever.
4. Rabbi Yashovam Segal (written in 2003):
We Lubavitch hassidim believe that the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [i.e., 770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the Covenant standing on the Foundation Rock in which [referring to the Rebbe/ark] the divine Being and Essence rests.
There is also this interesting debate to be found on the Failed Messiah website(which I do NOT at all endorse)
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/01/chbad-messianis.html
Finally if you are willing to give a point by point rebuttal of the many different documents and sources found in Berger's book, I would be happy to hear it.
Otherwise I am afraid that overall as it stands, the vast majority of evidence shows that while there may yet be a mainstream(or at least I hope there is) element of Chabad, the Mashiachist element is a significant and troubling part, as their theology crosses the line into what is definitely Christian, as the above posted video of R' Cunin alone points out.
PS
ReplyDeleteAh Bochur,
How long have you been there? I know three people that people that came out of there in the last decade, Baruch Hecht, Yisroel Lew, and Shaya Freedman. All of them were Mashiachists. Shaya was certainly of the same ilk as the the above mentioned blog. Don't mean to poke wholes in your little bubble, but I don't buy it.
Mekubal, the sources provided (on the blog) state nothing controversial at all. I also wonder why you insist on quoting someone who (honestly, not just insultingly) has an obvious psychiatric disorder, as is clear to all who encounter him.
ReplyDeleteNow, all this has nothing to do with "Mochichisten" who subscribe to none of Sokolovsky's crazed rants, which I enumerated. My point was that in fact there are a number of "Mochichisten" in Oholei Torah, yet they have nothing in common with Sokolovsky at all. To consider Sokolovsky and his ilk as a "stream within Chabad" is insulting and denigrating.
I like to explain the difference between "Mochichisten" and "Elokisten" in the following manner: there are some who are crazy because of their beliefs, and then there are some who believe because they are crazy. Almost any "Mochichist" you will meet will subscribe to beliefs that are (in my view) tenable with Judaism, and any perceived extremism or strangeness derive from their beliefs, which may or may not be correct.
Yet there is another category of people who could absolutely never adhere to any normal belief. They are intrinsically crazy. And their beliefs are only a manifestation of that. If Sokolovsky wasn't an "Elokist", he'd be a Moonie, or a member of Jews for J., or he'd subscribe to any other senseless belief which he'd dream up. Because he can't do otherwise. Because he's crazy. The same goes for all of his ilk. Case closed.
Now for Berger's quotes, I have to insist that they bear nothing in common to Sokolovsky's "ideas". None of those cited (some of whom I know personally, as they teach at Oholei Torah), believe the Rebbe is G-d, pray to him, worship him, or maintain any other such idea.
I'll address those quotes separately, time allowing.
As to the alumni of Oholei Torah, I don't know the individuals you mentioned, but either they are 'normative' "Moshichisten" which certainly still exist in Oholei Torah, or perhaps they were indeed one of those transient nuts, who's itinerary included a stop at Oholei Torah, but while there were certainly pariahs, and regarded as hopelessly lost.
ReplyDeleteSuffice it to mention that I've read Berger's book, and I've found it to be brimming with distortions, half-truths, or innuendo.
ReplyDeleteJust for instance, in the quote provided, Berger quotes Ginsberg as saying: "He "is what he is." [This refers, of course, to the divine name in Exodus 3:14.].
This is silly and ignorant, Ginsberg would never consider calling the Rebbe by G-d's divine name, because he doesn't consider the Rebbe to be G-d. The reference is not to אהי'ה אשר אהי'ה, but rather to אנכי מי שאנכי, and he is merely repeating what is stated countless times in Kabbala and Chassidus:
here.
Ah Bochur said...
ReplyDeletelook Mekubal, while abstaining from any comments on you personally, as a Bochur in Yeshivas Oholei Torah, the biggest and most prestigious Beis Medrash for english speaking Chabad Bochurim, I can assure you that:
============================
Since you are clearly in the Chabad world - could you please give a cogent explanation for R' Cunin remarks on the video? I gather that the average Chabad chasid finds nothing shocking about them while the rest of us clearly reacted differently.
In fact I am willing to make your comments a regular post.
Bochur,
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear you state that Sokolovsky is a nut, yet he and others like him act as Rabbis and run Chabad houses all over the world. As far as those that I mentioned, Yisroel is the son of R' Shmuel Lew from London, and Baruch is the son of Avraham Hecht from brooklyn, both big Chabad families. I wouldn't call them nuts.
Your attempt to defend problematic beliefs within Chabad with Chabad literature, is no different then when a Christian Missionary tries to defend their beliefs with their literature. If you want to prove to me that any of the statements that R' Berger quotes fit with what could be called normative Judaism, please bring me Jewish sources other than Chabad.
As someone who has studied Kabbalah in major Kabbalistic Yeshivot with the likes of R' Kaduri, R' Darzi and many others, please do not try to lecture me on what Kabbalah says. I once put the shaila to R' Kaduri as to whether I should read Tanya, as I had had a background in it and thought it might help, his answer, "Flee from the unclean as if fleeing for your life." I took that as a no. Many other major Rabbanim, such as R' Darzi and R' Hillel when I questioned them about it and R' Kaduri's strong reaction they all said that the Baal HaTanya made the same mistake as Shabtai Tzvi, he attempted to learn without a qualified Rav and thus learned inaccurately.
Possibly it could have been said that he was only mechadesh, however, seeing now the fruit of Tanya and all literature that is based upon it, I see that they were right, it is a poisoned vine.
Take your own stance. You claim that the mashiachist movement is somehow normative and within the bounds of Jewish belief. However it is precisely this that lead Gedolim such as R' Shach to say, "Chabad is the religion that most closely resembles Judaism." Say what you will in its defense, however there are no Gedolim of past or present that consider Mashiachists to be within the bounds of normative Judaism.
You flipantly put off R' Berger's objections by calling them distortions, and using, what I would agree, of all of his quotes, is the weakest. However, I am not willing to take your word for it that R' Ginsberg would never say or consider something like that. Again I get the same feeling as when Christian missionaries are trying to tell me that Tanach doesn't say what Rashi says it does, because that would put them outside of normative and acceptable. You need to bring stronger proof.
Personally I agree with R' Eidensohn. Please write a cogent defense of R' Cunin's comments. I would like to add that I would also like to see a cogent response to all of the above mentioned quotes from R' Berger, as well as a teshuva as to why R' Shach reacted so negatively to the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and Chabad in general.
Mekubal:
ReplyDeletea) I have never heard of a single Shliach anywhere in the world who sympathizes with any idea advanced by Sokolovsky. You've got Sokolovsky, Milchtein (or whatever), and maybe Frommer, they are all considered unanimously (by every single individual without a a diagnosable condition) to be truly crazy, and therefore aren't treated seriously. You are merely repeatedly projecting Sokolovsky on "Moshichisten". That is unwarranted and I think sufficiently debunked by now.
b) you haven't stated Lew and Hecht's beliefs. If they are that the Rebbe is Moshiach, well, then I agree that is still widely believed, even in Oholei Torah. But then I could, (and have successfully (even in online debates with Berger himself, where he was left without an answer, contrary to any other instance that I know of)) maintain that that belief is permissible and even normative within Judaism.
c) You are extremely unique in refusing to accept sources, even from the Baal HaTanya himself. Your attitude is unparalleled and strange. I find no need to respond to your revolting words regarding the Baal HaTanya, as his fame and stature infinitely surpasses that of your teachers and comrades. You might find this surprising, but you seem to be completely out of step with the normative and popular השקפה ושיטה on the matters of early Chassidus and Chabad, and your words merely take on a hollow, slanderous tone.
Since I truly don't want to insult you, I will stop here, for I believe everyone else would agree with me on this.
d) regarding אנכי מי שאנכי specifically, the Zohar states that this is בחינת הכתר. Have you ever learned that certain deeds etc. could reach כתר? Well, אברהם was a מרכבה to ספירת החסד and acquired its properties, יצחק was a מרכבה to גבורה, and משה on הר סיני encountered and approached the דרגא of אנכי, אנכי מי שאנכי, and the אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא have maintained that דרגא. So Ginsberg is saying that while physically, the Rebbe is flesh and blood, spiritually, he has attained the דרגא of כתר and its properties. ודי בזה.
e) This may come as a surprise, but Chabad doesn't have to feel threatened by and have to respond to Rav Shach. I won't focus on the Rav Shach end (although I will mention that his contemporary Roshei Yeshiva both in and out of Ponovezh, did not think very highly of his agendas), I'll just inform you that many would agree that לכל הפחות, the Rebbe doesn't have to answer to Rav Shach anymore than he would have to answer to the Rebbe. Outside of perhaps Bnei Brak, Rav Shach isn't the barometer by which everything is measured.
f) As an equal resident of this universe, I maintain the right to inform you what Lubavitchers worship and what they don't. You have no right however to assert what you maintain Ginsberg must believe, and expect me to have to dance to your tune (a theme which I sadly see runs through everything that you write). As the one in the know, I'll kindly inform you, that neither I, nor R. Nachman Shapiro, nor R. Shalom Charitonow, nor R. L.Y. Ginsberg consider the Rebbe G-d or pray to or worship him. If you think their words imply otherwise, know then that you have not understood them. וחסל.
>please give a cogent explanation for R' Cunin remarks
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is, that R. Kunin's words are in fact the Rebbe's words, verbatim (for instance here):
כיון ש"צדיקא דאתפטר אשתכח בכולהו עלמין יתיר מבחיוהי" [זח"ג עא, ב. הובא ונת' בתניא אגה"ק ביאור לסי' ז"ך], "שגם בזה העולם המעשה אשתכח יתיר" [ראה תניא שם] – בודאי שהרבי מנהיג את העולם כולו, ואנ"ש בפרט, ומעורר רחמים רבים וכו', כמו שהי' עד עתה, ואדרבה, ביתר שאת וביתר עוז.
וכשם שעד עתה הי' מונח ("אָפּגעלייגט") אצל כאו"א מאתנו שהרבי יוליכנו לקראת משיח צדקנו – צריך להיות מונח כן גם עתה.
--משיחת ש"פ תרומה, פ' זכור, ח' אדר, ה'שי"ת
Since the Rebbe was someone who authored a prolific amount on the topic of Achdus Hashem, and since the Rebbe is familiar with more philosophic Kabbala than the rest of us, that alone is enough for R. Shlomo Kunin, and that is why that isn't shocking.
---
The long answer is that Kabbala has all sorts of forces "running the world", with the innovative distinction that they are b'achdus with Hashem; this is in fact what Kabbala is mostly here to accomplish: to define the status of the ייחוד various עולמות and ספירות. There are some who lose sight of the point, and get involved in lengthy pilpulim on the exact "direction" זרועות דאריך אנפין are facing; that may have importance, but the essential point of Kabbala remains the gauging of the increasing unity of the material and then spiritual forces the closer G-d is approached.
But while that certainly suffices for someone who is familiar with Kabbala and it's ideas (and not only strictly it's technicalities), I'll note for now an explicit source which deals specifically with people running the world. It is from a famous letter penned by a leading disciple of the Maggid of Mezerich, R. Mendel of Vitepsk.
At the moment I don't have a copy of the entire letter, but I'll provide that as soon as I get a copy of Pri Ha'aretz.
R. Mendel had received a letter requesting that he bestow the author with children. R. Mendel replied that he doesn't control the world, although the Baal Shem Tov did:
בושת פני כסתני, כי התחת אלקים אני – היו היה דבר ה' ביד הבעל שם, ויגזור אומר ויקם. אחד היה, ומהקדמונים לא קם כמוהו, ואחריו לעפר מי יקום.
that translates roughly, "I am throughly embarrassed because I cannot stand in G-d's stead. The Baal Shem [could, for he] had the word of G-d in his power, and he would decree and it would be. He was unique, since the ancient there were none like him, and who could be after him?"
So R. Mendel has stated that the Baal Shem is תחת אלקים and can control the world. This actually is alluded to in the Yerushalmi (תענית פ"ג ה"י):
ותגזר אומר ויקם לך, אפילו הוא אומר הכין ואת אמר הכין, דידך קיימא דידי לא קיימא
Furthermore, the reference to דבר ה' is in fact to the עשרה מאמרות which are Kabbalistically the spiritual force upon which all existence exists. So R. Mendel has stated that the Besht's powers derived from the fact that he could manipulate the very core of existence.
While it is impossible to teach these extremely detailed concepts in the comments to a blog, I'll suffice by explaining that all normative Jewish though and philosophy is seen by Kabbala to apply only within the סדר השתלשלות העולמות which begins with the עשר ספירות דאצילות. Whereas what is higher, for instance בחינת הכתר, has complete power of veto over any "worldly" notion.
Kabbala and Chassidus entertain the possibility of man "reaching" that level, and then they indeed may "control the world". That is peshat in the Yerushalmi.
P.S. there are more sources on the topic of התחת אלקים אני which I'll hopefully post soon.
Ah Bochur said...
ReplyDeleted) regarding אנכי מי שאנכי d) regarding אנכי מי שאנכי specifically, the Zohar states that this is בחינת הכתר. Have you ever learned that certain deeds etc. could reach כתר? Well, אברהם was a מרכבה to ספירת החסד and acquired its properties, יצחק was a מרכבה to גבורה, and משה on הר סיני encountered and approached the דרגא of אנכי, אנכי מי שאנכי, and the אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא have maintained that דרגא. So Ginsberg is saying that while physically, the Rebbe is flesh and blood, spiritually, he has attained the דרגא of כתר and its properties. ודי בזה.
==============================
The Zohar you quote, according the Ari, as found in Shaar Maamrei D'Rashbi, as well as Eitz Haim Shaar A"K, is referring to the Keter of A"K which is the Keter of Atzilut.
However in Shaar Ruach HaKodesh, Drush Alef, states that Moshe Rabbeinu only acheived the Gevurah and Hod of Zeir Anpin, of Beriah as it was clothed in the Tiferet of Z"A of Yetzirah.
Quite literally you are talking worlds apart. If you are going to tell me that Rebbe arrived at the Keter of A"K you are telling me, in essence, that he has surpassed Moshe Rabbeinu. I am sorry but I see this as a problematic statement. I am left with three possible conclusions:
1) You have misunderstood something vital and key within the Rebbe's words.
2) The Rebbe misunderstood something vital key within the words of Kabbalah.
3) The Rebbe, as unfortunate this may be, claimed an aspect of divinity as that is ultimately what the Keter of A"K is.
In either case the statement applying this to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, at least in the light of the Kabbalah of the AriZ"L very problematic. If you want to tell me that Chabad has in some way developed their own Kabbalah apart from the teachings of the AriZ"L and the Zohar that is fine. However then you need to explain exactly what this statement means in regards to a Chabad understanding.
Personally I find it sad that you feel the need to degredate and defame Gedolei HaTorah and Gedolei HaDor such as R' Kaduri, R' Darzi, R' Mordechai Sharabi, R' Yaakov Hillel, and R' Haddayya. You do realize that R' Kaduri was a student of the Ben Ish Hai, and all that he taught he received from the Ben Ish Hai, including his views on Tanya.
You Said...
c) You are extremely unique in refusing to accept sources, even from the Baal HaTanya himself. Your attitude is unparalleled and strange. I find no need to respond to your revolting words regarding the Baal HaTanya, as his fame and stature infinitely surpasses that of your teachers and comrades.
============================
Actually these are not very unique views. These are the views that I have received from my teachers within Kabbalistic Yeshivot. For instance I heard it from the lips of the Rosh Yeshiva of Beit E-l(the oldest Kabbalistic Yeshiva in the World with an unbroken tradition from the RaShaSh, the gilgul of the Holy Ari), "We have never allowed Tanya within the walls of our Yeshiva, because the Baal HaTanya did not understand what he read, and it would only lead those who read his work astray."
I make my apologies if it discomforts you that a large number of mekubalim do not see emet within the pages of Tanya, but that is the tradition that I have received. As far as the Baal HaTanya's fame surpassing that of my teachers, I am sure that it does. My teachers are Mekubalim, they believe in highest levels of tzniut and humility, they would appalled if they were widely known. As far as their stature... that becomes more a matter of opinion. Personally I would put the Ben Ish Hai, R' M. Sharabi, and R' Kaduri well above the Baal HaTanya. Considering that in his own life R' Kaduri was considered to have surpassed the Holy RaShaSh, the most pre-eminent mekubal since the Ari, I believe that it is a fair statement. However, my loyalty is to my Rabbanim just as your loyalty is to your Rebbeim in the end it is a matter of opinion.
So far you have tried to make the case that Chabad at large does not view the Rebbe as a form of divinity, and I would only be happy to accept that. However, statements such as these:
"The Rebbe is the "master of the house" with respect to all that happens to him and all that happens in the world. Without his agreement no event can take place, and if it is his will, he can bring about anything, "and who can tell him what to do" ….In him the Holy One Blessed be He rests in all His force just as He is (because of his complete self-nullification to God, so that this becomes his entire essence)." From R' Ginsberg
"We Lubavitch hassidim believe that the House of our Rabbi in Babylonia [i.e., 770 Eastern Parkway] is the Temple, and the Rebbe is the Ark of the Covenant standing on the Foundation Rock in which [referring to the Rebbe/ark] the divine Being and Essence rests." From Rav Segal
As well as the quote in the video from R' Cunin, seem to imply there is an aspect of divinity.
AH Bochur's defense of R' Cunin's statement in the video has been made a separate post
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/12/chabad-rebbe-runs-worldiii-defense.html
Please post your comments on his defense at that post.
Ah Bochur said...
ReplyDeleteAs an equal resident of this universe, I maintain the right to inform you what Lubavitchers worship and what they don't. You have no right however to assert what you maintain Ginsberg must believe, and expect me to have to dance to your tune (a theme which I sadly see runs through everything that you write). As the one in the know, I'll kindly inform you, that neither I, nor R. Nachman Shapiro, nor R. Shalom Charitonow, nor R. L.Y. Ginsberg consider the Rebbe G-d or pray to or worship him. If you think their words imply otherwise, know then that you have not understood them
===================================
I think you have mistaken me. I am not maintaining what R' Ginsberg or any of the others must believe. Rather I am stating what it sounds to me, and apparently to others as well, that they believe based upon the words they speak/write and the language they choose to use. I hear implied in those words very dangerous thoughts.
I never degraded you as a person, and yes you are an equal member of this universe and one is who probably eminently more qualified to explain their beliefs. However, so simply say, "They don't believe that" is not a valid defense or explanation. I can say that the sky is pink but that does not make it so.
I do have a right to bring what I feel are problematic statements and say something like, "these are the conclusions that I and others draw from them." If you would like to maintain that I have misunderstood them, the burden of proof is upon you, to show me where. That is how honest debate and dialogue work.
Quite honestly a statement such as, If you think their words imply otherwise, know then that you have not understood them, is not honest dialogue or debate. These are statements that cult leaders employ to keep their masses under control when they start asking questions and seeing through the smoke and mirrors. I would like to think that you are above that. In which case why don't you explain to me and the greater reading public, how I have so horribly misunderstood these men.
Someone asked why I didn't condemn it; the answer is that I know that R' Cunin doesn't mean, nor does any Lubavitcher think, what all the misnagdim here are jumping on him and accusing him of saying. They just found a line they can pounce on in their anti-Chabad campaign of gross exaggeration and selective quoting in order to distort and misrepresent. This time, they had a field day.
ReplyDeleteAH Bochur answered well above, though he neglected to quote the important source of "Tzaddik gozer, v'HKBH mekayeim; HKBH gozer, v'Tzadik mevateil," which the Rebbe cites in explaining this idea.
Such degradation of talmidei chachomim (in this case, the Rebbe) as is seen on this forum is a sign that Moshiach is close, according to the Gemoro in Soito.