Devarim II - Moshe said it on his own

This is the beginning of the presentation of sources regarding who wrote Devarim. The most important text is the following gemora in Megilla which makes a halachic distinction between Devarim and Vayikra. The Malbim cited offers a solution as to how the whole Torah is Divine i Moshe wrote part of it.

Megila(31b): On fast days the portion of blessings and curses is read and there must not be any break in the reading of the curses. What is source of this rule? R’ Chiya ben Gamda said in the name of R’ Assi said that it is because it says “My son, don’t despise G‑d’s chastisement” – so don’t act as if you don’t want to continue with the reading. Reish Lakish said it is because the beracha on the Torah should not be said on misfortune. So what is the Torah reader to do? A Tanna taught that when the reader starts he should begin the reading with a verse before the curses and when he finishes he should end with a verse after the curses. Abaye said that this rule of not interrupting the reading of the curses only applies to the curses found in Vayikra. However it is permitted to interrupt the reading of the curses found in Devarim. What is the reason for this distinction? Concerning the curses in Vayikra, the Jewish people are addressed in the plural form and Moshe said them at G‑d’s command. In contrast the curses said in Devarim are expressed in the singular form and Moshe said them on his own initiative. Levi bar Buti was once reading the curses in Devarim in a hesitating manner in the presence of R’ Huna. Rav Huna said to him that he could interrupt if he wanted. He explained that the prohibition of interrupting the reading only applied to the curses in Vayikra while it is permitted to interrupt for the curses in Devarim.

Malbim(Devarim 1:3): And it was in the fortieth year – In other words these are matters which Moshe spoke on his own initiative on various occasions in the manner of a preacher who gives chastisement. However he did not have permission to write these words in a sefer and even if he had written them in a sefer they would not have had the sanctity of a Torah scroll. Rather they would be simply considered a collection of his sermons that he said based on his human understanding or as words spoke by a man with ruach hakodesh. However after 40 years G‑d commanded that they be said again to the Jewish people as specific command from G‑d. That is why the verse say, G‑d commanded Moshe to speak to the Jewish people saying.” Similarly G‑d commanded him to writes these words in a sefer at the command of G‑d. Furthermore G‑d said that they should be said and written in a different order than they were originally said in the 11 places but rather in the order that G‑d commanded…. Thus all of Moshe’s words were written by G‑d’s command and he didn’t write them on his own initiative even the point of the smallest letter. Consequently since all the words in Devarim were written at G‑d’s command they have the same halachic status as the rest of the Torah which was written from G‑d’s mouth…

Chabad - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad II - The apologetics arent' satisfying":

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
"...it is indeed true that based on a clear sicha of the Rebbe, I believe him to have the status of a prophet. Indeed, someone who learns that sicha inside (Shoftim 5750) will see that the Rebbe says that all the Rebbeim of Chabad had that status (I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to others too), because they gave advice in matters of gashmiyus, as based on the Rebbe's explanation of Tanya p. 267."

Actually, the LLR goes a bit further in the sicha (which can be found at ).

He refers to himself as "the leader of our generation -- the judge, adviser and prophet of our generation" and "G-d has chosen and appointed a person who of himself is far greater than the people of his generation, to serve as a judge, adviser, and prophet to the generation."

And, for clarification, he wasn't engaging in hyperbole, he was explicitly claiming the full halachic status of a navi whose word is binding on all Jews.

As I explained in a previous comment, his halachic justification [seems problematic].

To repeat the essence of my previous comment:

The LLR's claim is based on the halacha that if an established prophet testifies that another individual is a prophet, that second individual is immediately muchzak as a navi and requires no testing.

The assumption in the LLR's sicha is that, at some point in time, an established navi testified that the previous rebbe was a navi, and then the previous rebbe testified that "his disciples" were neviim.

Ok, so what are we left with? An individual claims to be a prophet. Now, normally, a prophet needs to be tested. Nope! Because, he tells us, another individual, who never publicly claimed to be a prophet, testified (in front of whom?) that he is a prophet! Did anyone hear this testimony? In fact, did anyone know that the first one was a prophet? Who established him?

All of the sudden we have a whole history of "hidden prophets" (an oxymoron - people with the halachic status of prophets are, by definition, publicly known) that we must accept because this person tells us to.

Ultimately, we have nothing to support any of this except [his assertion][...]

R' Oliver states additionally that the LLR's claim was "because they gave advice in matters of gashmiyus, as based on the Rebbe's explanation of Tanya p. 267." I don't see anything on this matter in the sicha. Perhaps the LLR said it elsewhere.

In any event, the claim is based on a statement by the Baal HaTanya (Igeres Hakodesh ch. 22) to the effect that it has never been the practice to ask for advice on material matters, for only prophets can give such advice. Even Torah scholars can only advise on matters of Torah. (Some Modern Orthodox have used this passage to claim that the Baal Hatanya rejected the concept of Daas Torah. This is incorrect, but not for now.)

It is clearly a difficult passage (apparently ruling out getting financial advice from your accountant among other things), and one is tempted to argue that it was stated somewhat hyperbolicly, in that it was clearly intended as an expression of humility before the Baal HaTanya proceeds to give mussar to his followers on matters associated with material affairs.

In any event, the Baal HaTanya is clearly not claiming in this passage to be a prophet. It is clear that he is giving his advice despite the fact that he is not a prophet, as evidenced by his following statement:

אך האמת אגיד לשומעים לי כי האהבה מקלקת השורה

"However, I shall tell the truth to those who listen to me for love destroys the measure"
In other words, "Even though, according to what I just said, I have no place giving such advice, I shall anyways because I love you so much."

To use this passage as a basis for a halachic claim of prophecy is [very problematic].

I also want to reiterate what I said previously on this topic. When R' Oliver first mentioned this sicha, I went to look it up. I did not expect to find anything as shocking as I found. I thought I would find something that had been distorted by over-eager talmidim. Sadly, this sicha has convinced me that the late Lubavitcher rebbe was personally engaged in a deliberate campaign [...]

Chabad III - Messianics/Everyone is today?

eliyahu's follow up comment to "Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!":

I am glad to see that my words were read, and being that a few important point were raised I would like to address them:

1)it was mentioned a few times what I wrote about the meshechistim being a minority & to this people responded that beis moshiach is read just as much as kfar chabad etc. those who read my words carefully would have noticed that I stressed a number of times that in CHUTZ LAORETZ they are a minority. Unfortunately in Ey they are about half of chabad (or at least what is called chabad – I however do not consider the extreme meshchistem who make the iker of there avoidas hashem publicizing their mistaken beliefs, to be chabad at all. The avoidas hashem of a true chabad chossid is learning chasidus in depth, davening beavoida & having mesirus nefesh for kiyum hatorah vehamitzvos by trying to bring each & every jew closer to it). Another important point: the mishechistim (at least the Israely one's) are like a cult. Therefore each & every one of them see it as a choiv kadosh to read there party's newspaper, come to their gatherings etc., a regular anti meshechist on the other hand, unless he is interested, does not feel any specific need to buy kfar chabad. Another important point: beis moshiach has an english section thus making it more popular.

2)Someone commented on my usage of language “does not CONTINUE to be mashiach”, i'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant to say will not be the moshiach (the “continue” was referring to the fact that before his histalkus it was verry probable that the rebbe zy”a was moshiach, ma shein kein now).

3) A point was made about the kfar chabad magazine not ever writing clearly that the rebbe is not moshiach. This point is something which bothers me very much too, unfortunately the kfar chabad magazine is headed by people who just as much interested in making money as publicizing the true chabad viewpoint – therefore because they want to also attract non extreme meshechist readers they are carefull never to write that the rebbe is not moshiach. I would also like to point out that, contrary to what the kfar chabad write themselves, what is written in their magazine dos in no way represent the veiw points of the rabonim & mashpiem. I myself heard from R' Yoel Kahn Shlit”a that he is very upset about the way the Kfar chabad magazine works that there are no rabbonim who check over what is written there etc.

4)A point was raised about how come the rabbonim don't publicize enough their views about the rebbe not being moshiach. First of all it is important to point out that there was a publication called koivetz moshiach ugeula which gave out a few issues, and the view of many was expressed there (such as R' berell levin, R' baruch obulender rav of chabad in budepest, R' SB weinberg one the prominent shluchim and more) that the rebbe is not moshiach. Nevertheless I do agree agree that the rabonim should be doing more to spread their views. However 2 possible reasons can be made why they are not doing so: a) they feel that the ikar is to stop the people who are making a big deal of the rebbe being moshiach thus forming themselves into a new religion (as explained in my previous post), and it less important to stop people from making a stupid mistake, therefore they feel that by not so much stressing the issue of the rebbe being moshiach they will have a greater hashpoa on the people who are making a big deal of the rebbe being moshiach trying to get them out of there dangerous derech. b) in some cases there are people that will lose there jobs because of the influence of extreme meshechistim if they publicly & repeatability state that the rebbe is not moshiach (an example of this is R' Shmuel Zayintz who now works as a Magid shiur in the chabad yeshiva in morristown, who lost his job in another yeshiva because of certain meshistim who had an strong influence & were upset about him trying to convince certain bocharim that the rebbe is not moshiach).
Some writers questioned some of the names I brought of rabonim who don't believe that the rebbe is moshiach. I would like to respond to these Tanos:

A) R' berell levin: it was mentioned that since he published his view a few years ago he hasn't done so since. Is it a chiyuv for him to repeat his views every day? His views are already known & he obviously sees no reason to repeat them.
B) R' Leibell shapiro – when I wrote that I heard this from R' chaim Shapiro himself I meant that I also heard about his fathers views from him. With regard to him making his views public, it should be pointed out that even before I heard from R' chaim about his fathers views I already heard from a number of people about R' Leibl's views therefore it must be that he publicly has stated his views before.
C) R' chaim shapiro – it is true that he has not publicly stated his views, but he is not the type to make nay public statements. Anyone who wants however can speak to him himself & he will gladly tell you his views.
D) R' Yosef heller – it is true that his view has never been formally recorded but it is very well known & he has told it to many people & i'm sure if you contact him he'll tell it to you to.
E) R' Yechezkell Sofer – someone wrote that although it is true ehat I wrote about him but he is considered a koifer in the whole lubavitch. This is mamesh a lye, he is asked to farbreng in all none meshechist yeshivos. Just last year he farbregnd as a guest of the Va'ad talmidei hatmimim haoylomy in crown heights for all israely bocharim who were in new york for chidesh tishrei. He was recently interviewed in Kfar chabad magezine etc.
F) R' Chaim rapeport - “You are confusing the people: He does not write that the Rebbe is not the mashiach or that he may not the mashiach. He most importantly argues against david berger and also argues aganst stating that the Rebbe is mashiach presently”, if you'll take a close look at the beginning of his book that he writes quite clearly that his personal belief is that the rebbe will NOT BE MOSHIACH.

Boruch hahsem I was not challenged with regard to R' Ezra Shochat Shlit”a.

5)It was mentioned that what I wrote about the rebbe being moshiach not being an ikar by the anti meshechistim isn't true etc. a cannot help but just repeat what I wrote that I myself learnt in lubavitcher yeshivos, i'll add: most of my chaveirim are lubavitchers, and what I write is poshut what I see as the metzius.

Rav Shach & Prof. Marc Shapiro

A very negative essay about Rav Shach was posted on this blog by shloimie with the assertion that what it says must be true because the author is the well known academic Prof. Marc Shapiro whose erudition is acknowledged by all. Obviously whatever he wrote must be true. Yonah L. responded that the essay could not have been written by Prof. Shapiro because it was replete with so many errors and uncharacteristic intemperate language. Prof. Shapiro would never be guilty of such writing.

The fact is that you are both right. The essay was in fact written by Prof. Marc Shapiro and posted to Mail Jewish in 1993 (Vol 10 #93). It aroused great offense - even amongst the Modern Orthodox participants of that forum despite its ostensibly defense of Rav Soloveitchik against Rav Shach's criticism [Mail Jewish( Vol 10 #95).

For example Mail Jewish (vol 10 #98):

On the other hand, Marc takes Rav Shach to task for various statements and perhaps crosses the line into disrespect. His defense is that Rav Shach, by his behavior, has demonstrated that he is not worthy of Marc's respect. While I do believe that such a line exists (a line beyond which a person is no longer worthy of respect), it seems to me worthwhile to err on the side of caution until it has been authoritatively determined that such a line has been crossed; does Marc have any personal dealing with Rav Shach in which he has been insulted or offended? In the end, Marc sounds as shrill as the statements attributed to Rav Shach and any impact he hopes to
have on the "non-converted" is minimal. Perhaps Marc's point would be underscored by choosing the "derech shalom" instead on engaging in the same level of anger against which he is protesting. Aside from this purely functional aspect of maintaining kavod, this is perhaps a worthwhile halacha to choose to go "l'chumra" with. Marc is unhappy with Rav Shach's attacks on Lubavitch -- but isn't Rav Shach applying the same standard to Chabad that Marc is applying to him? If Rav Shach feels that a person or a movement is heretical, then he should speak out, and in strong terms, as Marc has spoken out against Rav Shach. Whether his assessment of Chabad is correct is another matter entirely.

Another comments was:

(If I showed my father, a Rosh Yeshiva in Torah Vodaath, my husband who is presently learning in Lakewood, or my father-in-law who is a retired YU physics professor who learns in Bais Hatalmud, Marc Shaprio's post, they would all probably tell me to stop reading such nonsense.) Marc tells us to listen to Rav Auerbach or Rav Yosef rather than Rav Shach. I wonder what those gedolim would think of his post. Are they some of the Rabbis he consulted before he submitted his post

See also Mail Jewish (vol 10 #100) where Prof. Shapiro acknowledges that he is basically just reporting the views of some people he respects and thus giving voice to an anonymous group of critics of Rav Shach.

I would like to clarify my posting about Rav Shach. In fact I actually hinted to this in my first sentence (if I remember correctly). What I wrote does not actually reflect my personal feelings. That is, I really don't get upset at what Rav Shach says because a lot of people say things I disagree with and it doesn't pay to always get angry. However,
what I posted is a reflection of the anger I have heard from a number of people including some well known rabbis whose names many people on this list would recognize. Since messages are not sent in anonymously I chose to have my name appear and represent all of the people who feel this way. In fact, all of the private mail I received was supportive, although I don't know how many of them are from Lubavitchers.

Finally I contacted Prof. Shapiro himself regarding the article. He was embarrassed to hear that it still existed and acknowledged that it was not something he was proud of. The following is the exchange of emails.

He also acknowledged that he erred in saying that Rav Shach said the Rebbe was a heretic. After careful research he could find not a single quote to that effect.
===================
I wrote:

can I post your response. there were some commentators who
couldn't believe you made such a statement and therefore questioned the integrity of the one who posted it? BTW I just found it in the Mail Jewish archives from 1993 #93,95, 100 where you also retract your tone.

It was bizarre also that you acknowledge that it is not your view but
that you were presenting the view of those who were upset with Rav Shach.
It is so different than all the thoughtful and well researched material which is your hallmark.

Prof. Shapiro said:

You can post if you want (but use the expanded quote below, where I add a few things. You can also mention that as I pointed out, I wanted to see how the community of Mail Jewish readers would respond to what were common sentiments (but never actually formulated in writing -- one exception being the journal Ha-Maor), so the post was a bit of a gambit, which now comes back to haunt me.

My thoughts on R. Shakh are actually found in the Torah in Motion lectures referred to below

"Yes -- when I was much younger and more foolish. In those days
the internet didn't exist and we didn't realize that everything we
wrote would be around until the end of times, to embarrass us . . .

But I have subsequently, in both writing and in speaking said that R. Shach understood some aspects of Chabad a lot better than the rest of us. Now I certainly can criticize much else he said, including some of what he wrote about Chabad, but it would be done with more tact and respect. I never expected this e-mail to live on."

I have three lectures on R. Shakh at

http://www.torahinmotion.org/store/prod_search.asp

My thoughts on him are found there and I don't think even his biggest fans will find much to criticize in them.

Chabad - Some people just don't get it

s. klimowitzer's comment to "Chabad - G-d focused or Rebbe focused?":

Daniel Eidensohn is nothing more than a partisan rosho masquerading as an honest researcher. His carefully framed 'innocent questions' remind one of the "keitzad measrin es hateven" style research. I thought it fair to give the man a chance to show his colors, and he has. He'll print any and every unsubstantiated lie about Chabad and / or the Rebbe, but he will refuse to post simple comments or refutations to the lies he promotes. I seriously doubt whether a dishonest wannabe like Eidensohn will last very long in the blogsphere - too many people will see him for the dreck he is much sooner than he thinks. Some free advive to you, Dannyboy, go back to the yeshiva/hate factory you came from, the limelight is not for you.

Chabad - G-d focused or Rebbe focused?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I'm sorry, I missed Shloime's response. Now it seems that Shloime has clarified that he, like myself, does not approve of the idea of transforming one's rebbe into one's primary focus.

In his earlier response he did NOT deny this, on the contrary, he appeared to defend it, citing sources in its favor. Moreover, other pro-Chabad commenters still appear to support it. This has muddied the waters a great deal.

The fact that Shloime, thus far, appears incapable of carrying on a conversation without insulting those he disagrees with has, of course, not improved matters.

In any case, at this point it seems that we can agree that making one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus is wrong and is not supported by any traditional sources, even within the chassidic world.

This brings us to the widespread perception and criticism of current Chabad that they have done just this.

The radio advertisements announcing that the Lubavitcher rebbe says that Jews should keep various mitzvos are an obvious case in point. The Lubavitcher rebbe is not the reason Jews should do mitzvos!

The widely publicized declarations that the LLR was a prophet whose words are binding on all Jews, and that he is moshiach, are similar obvious examples.

It is well-known examples like these (accompanied by innumerable private such encounters throughout the Jewish world) that have created the, in my opinion convincing, perception that current Chabad has moved from a God-centered religion to Rebbe-centered religion.

I have yet to hear anything from the defenders of Chabad to convince me that this perception is wrong.

As for my demands for proof, I have two brief responses:

A) The main issue for which I was seeking proof was the claim that it is proper to make your rebbe into your primary spiritual focus. My demand for proof in this was justified, as such a claim flies in the face of traditional Torah thought. Now it seems that this claim has been abandoned and proof for it is no longer needed.

B) Being that the concerns being expressed here are widespread throughout the Torah world, it would seem to me that defenders of Chabad would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their falsity. Unfortunately, it seems that some of these concerns are all too justified. (Thus, thanks to R' Oliver's earnest efforts, I have become convinced that the LLR did indeed claim to be a navi without any halachic justification.)

LazerA's comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I would like to add one personal note on why I am personally convinced that current Chabad has placed the Rebbe as their primary spiritual focus.

I attended a Camp Gan Yisrael (Midwest) when I was a kid in the very early '80s. (So much for my family's antagonism to Chabad, huh?)

I remember the entire camp singing "leshana haba be770" and "u'va'u haovdim... v'hishtachavu lashem behar hakodesh b'770 - 770 - 770 etc."

We also saluted the rebbe every morning after davening. There was a picture of the rebbe in every bunk's room and we were told by the counselors that the rebbe could see through his pictures.

There was no question in my mind then, and I didn't even realize there was anything wrong with it yet, that this was a religion of the Rebbe.

Another personal tidbit (not entirely relevant but interesting) is that I actually have a personal debt of gratitue to the LLR.

When my father was in Telz yeshiva, he was a beginning student (he didn't come from a Torah background). While in Telz he got involved with a secret Chabad "kiruv" program that was trying to save the poor deluded yeshiva bochurim from their false religion.

At one point my father went to Crown Heights and had yechidus with the rebbe. My father told the rebbe that he wanted to leave Telz and go to a Chabad yeshiva so he could learn chasidus. The rebbe told him to stay in Telz and learn normal Torah.

Most Lubavitcher's accuse my father of lying when he says this story. In any case, I have to be grateful to the rebbe, because if it weren't for him I would have been a Lubavitcher. (As it is, my family remained close to Lubavitch and I have many Chabad minhagim, not the least being the siddur.)

Sinas Chinom - the danger of unexpressed hatred

Anonymous said...

Very appropriate that I came across this blog on tisha BAv. The question I have for you is when you will face Hashem will Hashem say you helped Moshiach come sooner or you were part of the Tishah BAv problem of sinas chinom etc. and delayed the Geula. In your heart I hope you have an honest answer and you will close down this hateful site before it is too late to fix the damage you are doing.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment that this is adding to sinas chinom and machlokos. I urge the blogger of "Daas Torah" to realize that this blog is against "Daas Torah".

The above comments need to be addressed. They are accusing me of producing sinas chinom and increasing machlokess. Both of them presuppose that if I didn't have this discussion on my blog there would be more peace and ahavas Yisroel in the world. That Lubavitchers and non-Lubavitchers would have greater love for each other if they didn't communicate with each other.

I strongly disagree with that assertion. In fact it is obvious from the strong feelings on both sides of the this dispute that I did not create any anger - but rather I am allowing the feelings to be expressed.

Is there anything to be gained by allowing feelings to be expressed? Perhaps it is best to keep the disputing parties separate and not encourage communication? From what I have seen on the many posts, I personally feel I have a much greater understanding of the issues than when I started. There have been some truly deep and insightful comments - even in those posts with hostile language.

There seems to be a built in assumption of many in Chabad that there is a genetic predisposition of the rest of us to hate them. They perceive any criticism as proof that they are being hated. What I hope has become obvious is that there is a sincere desire to hear justification for what they are doing. I have detected some awareness of the Chabad posters that they do in fact realize the need to do outreach to their fellow Orthodox Jews and that they are in fact viewed as acting or thinking in ways that arouse fears and concerns. I also hear that some Chabad posters are not fully convinced about the wisdom of the path that the organization has taken.

Finally regarding the accusation that I am not following Daas Torah. What Daas Torah am I not following? The Chofetz Chaim makes an insightful comment concerning the Torah command of not hating your brother in your heart (Vayikra 19:17) which he says is the prohibition of sinas chinom. Hatred which is kept in one's heart because it is not expressed - destroys and ruins the essence of a person. Hitting another effects primarily the external limbs of a person. It is better to express the anger and communicate to the other person that you feel he is doing something wrong.

If these discussion are creating more hatred and upset than existed previously than in fact they are problematic. While some have asserted that any criticism or questioning of their practices is proof of hatred, I hope at this point such an attitude has been attenuated in at least some of the participants. In short, there is a Torah obligation to give tochacha to those we feel are doing something wrong. This forum provides a controlled environment for both sides to fulfill this Torah obligation - and hopefully both sides will be improved by the experience.

ספר אהבת ישראל - פרק א
בו יבואר גודל העון של שנאת חנם:
כתבו הפוסקים על לאו דלא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך וז"ל ספר מצות השם, לאוין קמ"ב - מצות לא תעשה, שלא לשנוא אדם כשר מישראל, שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. ולא הזהירה תורה בלאו זה אלא על שנאה שבלב, אבל המכה את חבירו, ומחרפו, אינו עובר בלאו זה וכו'. וכשיחטא איש לאיש, לא ישטמנו בלב וישתוק, אלא מצוה עליו להודיעו ולומר לו (בלשון רכה) למה עשית לי כך וכך, וימחה הדבר מלבו. ונוהג בכל מקום ובכל זמן עכ"ל:
והנה בכלל אחיך, הוא כל אדם מישראל, וכדאיתא באבות דרבי נתן (פרק ט"ז) אאל תאמר לזה ישראל אני אוהב ולזה אני שונא, לאהוב את החכמים ולשנא את עמי הארץ, אלא אהוב את כולם ושנא את המינים, וכן דוד הוא אומר (תהלים קל"ט) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא וגו'. ומין נקרא, הכופר בתורת ה' ובהשגחתו:
וכאשר נתבונן היטב ונעמיק לחקור תוצאות העון הזה, נראה שהאדם ממשיך על ידי עון זה רוח טומאה על עצמו. דהנה ידוע דכל אבר ואבר שנעשה על ידו איזה מצוה, שורה עליו רוח קדושה, וממילא ע"י קיום כל המצות נתקדש כל גופו של אדם, כדכתיב (במדבר ט"ו) למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדושים לאלקיכם. ולהפך, ע"י עשיית העבירות נמשכת רוח הטומאה על אותו אבר, וכמו שאחז"ל (כתובות ה' ע"ב) אל ישמיע אדם לאזנו דברים בטלים מפני שהם נכוים תחלה לאיברים, שכונתם, ע"י שמיעתו דברים האסורים ממשיך על' אזניו רוח טומאה ועתידים להיות נכוים תחלה לאיברים, וכן כל אבר ואבר שנעשה על ידו איזה עבירה נמשכת רוח טומאה על אותו האבר, ואין כאן מקום להאריך. לבאר שמצינו ענין זה על כל אברי האדם:

לשנוא אדם כשר מישראל, שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. ולא הזהירה תורה בלאו זה אלא על שנאה שבלב,
והנה חוץ מזה שהוא עונש רוחני על האדם, עוד מעותד האדם לבוא ח"ו ע"י עון זה לעונשים גדולים בעולם הזה, כדאיתא בשבת (ל"ב), בעון שנאת חנם, מריבה רבה בתוך ביתו של אדם, ואשתו מפלת נפלים, ובניו ובנותיו מתים כשהם קטנים, הרי רואים אנו כמה רעות גורם האדם לעצמו ע"י העון המר הזה:
והנה אילו יפגע אדם אחד בבנו הקטן להכותו, הלא יתקוטט ויריב עמו וישנאהו שנאת מות, ואילו הוא עצמו שגורם להם סיבת מות אינו חושש לזה כלל, ואינו מתבונן עד היכן עונו מגיע. אוי לו ואוי לנפשו, איה שכלו ואיה דעתו שבעצמו גורם לכל זה:
ועל כן מאד מאד צריך האדם להזהר מעון זה, ובכל רוחו ונפשו יתרחק מעון זה, ויהיה לו טוב בזה ובבא

Chabad II - Messianics - Everyone is today!

Anonymous' comment to "Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!":

Arthur,

It's not an assumption. I know them first hand.

I am offering you a kind of illustration and proof. Which has a greater readership Beis Mashiach or Kfar Chabad? If the "majority" would be counter to Yechi they would not have that number of readership (which perhaps surpasses that of the KF). Why is paying for a magazine with what he could have been "koneh chayey nafshoy" not a proof where his "nefesh" is?

The meshichisten are not only the most vocal and make the most noise but they are the power that controls what is holiest to chabad: 770! If the majority would real anti meshichist they would not allow them to take control.

In Erets Yisroel they manage to gather thousands of chassidim in the stadiums for 3 tammuz when they deny the histalkus! This shows further how there is a large number that aligns themselves in beleieving the Rebbe was not nistalek. (I"ll grant that this is NOT the majority of Lubavitchers who do hold that there some kind of histalkus).

And why not base from the fact that Kfar Chabad has not produced in the past 14 years ONE article explaining that it is legitimate (not even to say with definite certainty) to beleive that the Rebbe is not mashiach? Being that it is a very important issue and that the meshichistim are loud and they educate masses it is only logical that those who believe otherwise would write articles explaining how their position is wrong? After all Kfar Chabad writes about numerous issues in which they differ with the Bais Mashiach.

A while back Rabbi Brod of KC had articles explaining how some of the BM make a chilul Hashem and that we do not have to publicize etc. but never does he explain that perhaps the whole idea is not true!

In another post someone stated that Rav Ezra Shochat holds that the Rebbe is not mashiach. Kfar Chabad had recently an interview with him. They spoke about Mashiach etc. but they did not mention that in his opinion this is not the proper belief.

Let's take another example: They do write articles negating the idea that the Rebbe is here physically. Why have they not written such articles about the Rebbe not being mashiach?

Furthermore: You had a few years back a group of people Mashpiim and others getting together and writing a book how to believe that the rebbe was not nistalek is wrong. You had people like Reb Yoel and others. But you cannot have them getting together to write about the Rebbe not being mashiach! You know why....

Chabad - Rav Schach/Disputing attack on him

The following is a refutation of the criticism of Rav Shach. I have edited some of the angry language to make it more acceptable. I personally agree with most of what is expressed here.

===========================
Yonah L has left a new comment on your post "Chabad - Rav Schach & Lubavitcher Rebbe":

Shlomie's post serves as an excellent example of the kinds of [misinformation] Chabad has perpetrated in its attack against Rav Schach. Failing to mention that Rav Schach's views were also the views of many other major rabbonim and also having utter disregard for facts.

I will illustrate a few of the misrepresentations he made. Incidentally, some one else claimed that R' Nochum Partzovits (this was heard from"reliable sources") claimed that he was fond of the Rebbe's depth(!). There is no end to the errors.

>>Unfortunately, the post and some of the articles linked therin contain some rather absurd fallacies. It is, however, important to remember that Rav Shach represented a very extreme view that was not shared by most gedolim, and that was often simply wrong.

Rav Schach's views were in fact shared by almost everyone of significance. And your opinion as to whether it was wrong is meaningless. It was their opinion.

>>It is easy to call anybody we disagree with 'apikorus', but that doesn't make it so.

And yet the Rebbe called people who did not agree with him messengers of the Samach Mem, and accused them of wearing possult tefilin.

>>Here is an article from awhile ago, making some very valid points:

These are not valid points.

>>There has been a lot of talk about gedolim and especially about Rav Shach. Before people make any judgements I think it is important to know something about the man and his teachings. If what I say appears harsh, let me assure the readers that I have said the same things to many rabbis and they have agreed with me. Since the views I will be expressing are also those of numerous others it would be best for the moderator not to censor it. I realize that others are afraid to speak out so I will say what everyone else is thinking. Needless to say, the Lubavitchers have spoken out and been a great deal harsher than I will be but that is for good reason. Rav Shach has branded the rebbe a heretic.

[...]

>>>>Furthermore, he has branded the entire movement as heretical.

Those who believe the Rebbe is God are heretics.

>>Most people respond harshly when they have been called heretics, Especially since the other gedolim seem to have no great problem with Habad.

Like whom? The Brisker Rav, Rav Hutner, Rav Ruderman, R' Yaakov and Rav Shach obviously had a problem with him. So did Rav Yaakov Weinberg and Rav Ahron Soleveitchik. Even today, Rav Ahron Feldman, Rav Zev Leff, and even more modern orthodox Rabbis like Norman Lamm and David Berger have a problem with Chabad and its Rebbe. The list is actually significantly longer. So, exactly what do you mean by "the other gedolim" who don't have a problem with Chabad?

>>They don't support everything Habad does but you don't have other gedolim using the inflammatory rhetoric of R. Shach.

Inflammatory rhetoric was the problem? I thought the problem was how they viewed Chabad. Its not that they don't support what Chabad has done--they think its "repugnant," "misse", and not in accord with the mesorah. This is not inflammatory language, perhaps, but they certainly condemn their behavior.

>>In fact he is very inconsistent

In your ignorant mind, that is.

>>He mocks the Lubavithcher rebbe's Rambam learning program saying that people knew about the Rambabm before Lubavitch came around and that no one should follow Habad's program and it is forbidden to innovate

This is not the real reason. Please read the Michtav.

>>and yet he praises Daf Yomi.

Not quite, either.

>>Well, people knew about learning Talmud before R. Meir Shapiro. The difference is that when Rav Shach likes something, when it comes from his circles, then it is ok. However if an innovation, no matter how good, comes from another circle then he viciosly attacks it.

This is not true at all. You have not read your sources and you have made a false and ignorant conclusion. Pathetic.

>>In general, everything that comes out of his mouth is criticism.

I don't know what you mean by this. Have you learned by him? Have you talked with him for many years? How do you know this? Perhaps you meant his writings? Well, you have demonstrated so far that you have not actually read them. Otherwise, aside from having a strange agenda and no problems with misrepresenting the facts, you are doing fine.

>>He does not believe in building but in destroying.

What a generalization. There are so many yeshivos and institutions, so many seforim and talmidim, so many shuls and battei medrashim, which attribute their success and methods to him. The only one being destructive here is you.

>>All of his volumes of letters are attacks against everything from Lubavitch, to religious Zionism, to Hesder yeshivot, to Rav Goreh (who has no yirat shamayim according to Shach), to R. Steinsaltz (another heretic).

You did not know who Rav Goren is? This is obviously a made up essay from an otherwise knowledgable scholar. There is no way he could have made such a mistake. But I would add that Rav Yoel, Rav Reuven Grozovksy, Rav Baruch Ber, Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chofetz Chaim and many others had far stronger views against Religious Zionists. Rav Goren's shiur in YU was STRONGLY argued with by the Rav himself. And his extremely bizarre and controversial rulings have been assaulted by everyone as being shallow. The fact that he made such concessions in halacha would lead anyone to think he had little yiras shomayim. None of the gedolei yisroel in Amercia--at least the Charedim--held of him at all. He loved Chacham Ovadia, though. As for Rav Steinzaltz, R' Moshe and the Tzitz Eliezer also places his books on cherem. So, again, Rav Shach was hardly ever alone on any of these issues. You can only be willfully ignorant about this. Anyone who did ANY research on these issues would know better.

>>When the rest of he Jewish world was celebrating the Entebbe raid and R. Moshe said it was an open miracle Shach gave a talk saying that what the Government did was forbidden.

[...]

>>This is exactly what the Satmar rebbe said! He gave his famous talk last year viciously attacking the kibbutzim. Why? We all know that they don't keep kosher there but why attack them.

This is just a strange argument. Then you admit Rav Shach was not alone on this position, either. . . In your opinion, it is muttar to attack Rav Shach but not muttar to attack people who know better but refuse to keep halacha--people who are kofrim biikkar?

>>Is this the way to bring people together and bring them to Yiddishkeit?

Is that what this article is aiming to do?

>>Is this love?

I ask the same question back to you. I personally think that it is love to instruct followers the difference between right and wrong. YOu obviously need a lesson on this important distinction.

>>Lubavitch knows how to be mekarev, they do it through love.

This is completely untrue. Chabad has refused to do kiruv work to those who won't be Chabad. And they are turning people into mindness messiah worshipping ignoramouses. Aish does Kiruv. So does Ohr Someach. Their people did not turn out that way. Chabad does it because they think it will make their Rebbe the moshiach. That is not love of kiruv; it is the product of indoctrination.

>>Shack simply attacks.

[...] And what is this generalization? Do you not know how the Rebbe attacked the Chazon Ish for not learning Tanya? He had no idea whether he did not or not. And yet, a young man who spent 15 years aimlessly in Europe on community funds had the nerve to unilatterally attack an undisputed gadol hador of an earlier generation!! What do you call that?

>>And then he attacked President Herzog for no reason. Herzog did more for religious Jewry than any president and he is a fine man but Shach viciously attacks him just like he attacks the kibbutzniks who have laid down their lives so that he could live in peace.

This makes no sense. Explain exactly how kibbutzniks laid down their lives so that Rav Shach could live in peace? Do you have any legitamite yiras shomayim at all?

>>And he expects the secularists to keep subsidizing the yeshivot at the massive rate they have been?

The Rebbe lived off community funds for 15 years doing nothing in Europe. Ask his people how he can do that.

>>Rav Shach has no value in his life other than that of learning Torah. People can't feel good about anything other than learning Torah.

This is actually a legitimate Torah approach--one the Rebbe attempted to replicate.

>>There is no value to the State of Israel other than that it enables us to learn Torah and its destruction would be no great tragedy if Torah continued to be learnt.

This is the view of pretty much every gadol in the Charedi world before him.

>> He opposed the annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan because it will get the goyim mad. He doesn't recognize the concept that Jews should see something positive in annexing our capital-- East Jerusalem.

Actually he does, but he ruled differently.

>>He also speaks of not provoking the Gentiles, a concept which has no validity when Jews have a state, although he thinks that the State is just as much a galut as N. Y. and London.

It is. Read the news. Did you forget that thousands of people were kicked out of their homes by their own government? WE ARE IN GOLUS. Get it through your head.

>>He says that Jews in Israel should act as if they were dancing before the Polish nobleman. In other words, the fact that Jews now have a state means nothing about how they relate to the world.

This is the view of every religious charedi. This is a criticsm? This only indicts your ignorance!

>>They still must have this inferiority comples. There is something wrong with having pride and holding one's head up.

Yes there is, actually. [...]

>>His views have infected the Haredi community. We all know that
they dodge the draft but it is even worse. They refuse to say a mi
shebarakh for IDF even though the latter protect them from the Arabs.

And Chabad refuses to say a mishaberach, as well. They were also deeply anti zionist--did you ever know this?

>>They refuse to say a prayer for the government which gives them millions of dollars. In the diaspora they alwasy said a prayer for the government but not in Israel.

So now its not a Jewish state? I am sorry, but YOU are inconsistent.

>>In the Diaspora they always acted patriotic and if there was a moment of silence for war dead they wouldn't dream of breaking with the practice.

Its a non Jewish concept. Did you ever learn anything?

>>However in Israel while everyone stands at attention on Yom Hashoah they go about their business.

They do other things lizecher nishmas the kedoshim who were killed. And far more meaningful things than the evil michallei shabbos who have instituted these goyish practices.

>>Do they realize how much of a hillul hashem this is and how it hurts the feelings of others who are remembering loved ones.

Everyone knows that learning lizecher nishmas the kedoshim means more. Except goyim.

>>Of course they know but they don't care. Unlike Lubavitch they enjoy confrontation.

There is no faction in the entire jewish community which does not ENJOY confrontation more than Chabad. They have the most fights. They have the most machlomes. Even according to their own spin story, the greatest messhugennim have taken over 770? How? By hostile force? And what do they fight over, a zatzal? And now you are writing out against the entire charedi community? What do you know about these issues? You obviously know nothing about them, what they practice, what they do and feel.

>>For R. Shach there is only one truth.

Mr. Olver said the same thing about the Rebbe. So, why is this a problem. In the end, there really is only one truth!!!

>> He has no conception of Jewsh history and doesn't realize that there can be disputes in matters of hashkafah,

COMPLETELY untrue. You have never read his works.

>>as long as we all accept Torah and halakhhah.

The problem he has with those who criticizes is that they do not accept Torah and Halacha. See above.

>>Thus when R. Ovadiah decided to join the government he threatened to ban all of the latter's books

No other? Are you sure? Do you know Chabad has banned Rav Shach books? Did you know they banned Rav Kotler's books?

>>No other gadol has ever made such irresponsible statements and acted in such a dictatorial manner.

Rav Shach did not make any irresponsible comments. You never read anything he ever wrote. As was mentioned above, everything he said was in keeping with traditional charedi--frum and ehrlich Jewish--hashkafa and was backed by nearly if not everyone in his camp. The Rebbe on the other hand was a dictator. He demanded the greatest level of respect, called those against him messengers of Satan or wearing non kosher tefillin.

>>Everything I have described so far is written in his books.

You have some nerve. You have never read his books!!! That much is clear from his post.

>>I have not made any of it up

As was demosntrated this whole thing was made up.

>>and if gets you mad hearing what he believes trust me that this is only the tip of the iceberg and there is no way that anyone who reads this line should regard him as an important gadol

He was regarded as a gadol hador by every gadol in his time, save [...] the Rebbe.

>>since everything most of us view as important he mocks (he even says its forbidden to form rabbinic organizations).

The Rebbe mocked many things I hold important--mitzvos, for example, learning, another. But his mocking what is important to me is not what makes him not a gadol. It is what he mocked which renders him possul.

>>To give one final example of this let me refer to Rav Shach's attack on R. Soloveitchik in vol. 4of his letters. As everyone knows, there were always disputes in hashkafah between the Rav and other gedolim. However this never stopped the Lubvavitcher rebbe or R. Moshe or R. Aharon Kotler from being on close personal terms with the Rav and respecting his gadlus.

Hillarious. Read Larger than Life. The Rebbe was not at all close to the Rav. In fact, the Rav visited him once in 40 years--and they lived in the same city!!! If that does not show you enough, read the book. R' Ahron held the Rav was responsible for half the tumah in America. Other than that, sure, they respected his gadlus as a genius lamdan.

>>Obviously R. Moshe and the Lubavticher Rebbe, as well as the Rav, believed that their own approach was correct and the others were wrong.

This is not true. R' Moshe saw the good in every Jew and Jewish path. The Rebbe HATED anyone who was did not learn Tanya. And this we know from what he wrote about the Chazon Ish even when the Rebbe was a relative kid.

>>But they never said that the approach of the other's was forbidden.

The Rebbe held that Chabad is the most superior. He was the greatest ethnocentrist in the world. [...] with the silly notion that Chabad is the center of yiddishkeit and that the Beis Hamikdosh would be build in 770.

>>It was just misguided.

The rebbe, you mean. . .

>> similarly, the Rav never said that everyone had to learn secular studies, that other aproaches were invalid.

But his talmidim did. Read Rav Lichtenstein's essays on this topic.

>>Rather, only that his approach was also legitimate.

Everyone believes this. Except for the Rebbe.

>>Rav Shach has a different approach, one which shows all of his feeling of knowing everything and his belief that he, and only he, knows the truth, the one and only truth.

Mr. Oliver said that the Rebbe saw truth, and this is why he was unequivocal about this. Why is Rav Shach held to a different standsrd?

>>In discussing the Rav's book Hamesh Derashot he doesn't say that we have a different view or that the Rav is wrong. No, what he says is that it is forbidden to listen to what the Rav says. Forbidden. the Rav goes against Daat Torah and the Rav has completely distorted Daas Torah (one wonders whose Daas Torah. Doesn't the Rav have his own Daas Torah?)

No, he does not. Because he and his talmidim to not BELIEVE in daas torah.

>>Since anyone who goes against Daas Torah speaks heresy it is forbidden to listen to what the Rav says!

This was the opinion of many on him. Rav Hutner did not allow his talmidim to go to the Rav's yartzei shiur for relatively smaller reasons.

>>Does he realize who is talking about? This is not some Mizrachi functionary he is mocking (not that this is forgivable either). He is speaking about R. Soloveitchik, whom R. Tendler called the greatest Rosh Yeshivah of our generation, whom the Lubavitcher rebbe stood up for etc. etc.

And you are not writing a hatchet job on just anyone--not that THAT would be forgivable--but against an undispute gadol hador that eeryone from Rav PAler to Rav Mosdhe Shmuel Shapiro, from Rav Shmuiel Barenboum to Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, from Rav Moshe Feinstein to Rav Isser Zalman, from Rav Ahron KOtler to the Brisker Rav--had the GREATEST respect for!!! And that means a lot more than what Rav Tendler, a relative novice in learning, held of the Rav. I would say the Rav was the real deal and that would mean more. Rabbi Tendler wrote, said, and did a lot of crazy things in the past. He is not someone I would bring up. Even in his letter "defending" the Rav, he disorted things--claiming the Rav was the greatest Rosh Yeshiva in his generation--a generation where Rav Chaim SHmuelevitz and Rav Shmuel Rozovsky--separately--had more talmidim both in theiy shiur and more who learned their seforim. The fact the Rebbe stood for him means nothing. No one cares about the Rebbe's empty gestures. He was greatful someone showed him respect after 40 years.

>>May God forgive him for degrading our teacher!

[...]

>>Furthermore, R. Shach continues, it is the Rav's secular studies which are responsible for these distortions. Woe are the ears which hear such nonsense.

Nonsense? This is the view of just about every gadol preceding Rav Shach's generation. You may not like it or have another view, which is something you would claim to respect. But Rav Shach's views are nonsense? HYPOCRITE.

>>What chutzpah, to say that secular studies distorted the Rav's Torah!

But this is another view. . . does this not mean that you are. . .not respecting . . .another person's views? That is terribly inconsistent.

>>Rav Shach goes on for a few pages without any respect for the fact that the Rav was a gadol and he is entitled to have different hashkafah

But you just did that!!!

>>also throwing in some irrelevancies about how Hesder yeshivot have destroyed
any notion of striving for greatness in Torah learning.

Mark his words: there will never be a gadol produced by a hesder yeshiva.

>>(He also hates hesder because their students actually get a job. For R. Shach, and Israeli Haredim, as oposed to American haradim, there is something negative about actually working for a living. There is no concept of a Baal ha-Bayit. That is why he put Leo Levi's book Shaare Talmud Torah in Herem, since it advocates a Torah im Derekh Eretz [i. e.earning a living] approach).

This is irrelevant commentary.

>>Shach is also confused how come the rabbis in the U.S. did not protest The Rav's opinions and furthermore that they contributed to the book Kevod ha-Rav .

Its Rav Shach to you. And plenty did not. Most did not, in fact.

>>This is a great hillul hashem since by giving the Rav a book in his honor and praising him the yeshivah students will see this and think that is ok to follow in the Rav's path, God forbid, and will absorb his views which are completely "pasul".

And yet Chabadniks like you can lie about a gadol because you want to emphasize that his views about the rebbe are pasul. And that's ok?

>>I could go on but I think everyone gets the point. When it comes to gedolim we should consult R. Eliashiv, R. Shlomo Zalman, the chief Rabbis, R. Ovadia etc. We should not even take Rav Shach's opinion into consideration. By adopting such a hateful tone and being so opposed to everything we consider decent he is not really different than the Satmar rebbe, who was, as R. Aharon Soloveitchik told me, a great scholar who made a terrible blunder. So too with Rav Shach. He has slandered great gedolim and for his sake we should hope that it was all done le-shem shamayim. When I asked R. Aharon why we don't put him in Herem in accordance with the pesak of the Rambam re. anyone who slanders a gadol all he could say was that we no longer use the Herem. One thing must be said for Lubavitch, even thought R.Shach says they are heretics and that their rebbe is one of the greatest sinners alive, and going straight to gehinnom, they have not lost their cool. I don't think there will be any rejoicing in Crown Heights when he passes away. They realize that this whole affair is very sad. Unfortunately, however, when the rebbe passes away there will be rejoicing in Ponovezh because one is supposed to rejoice at the death of a heretic. What have we come to!

First, since Rav Eliashiv did not pasken the way you wanted him to about Slifkin and others, I am sure you would retract that, too. this is because you don't know what it means to have respect for talmidei chachomim. You only care about them doing what YOU want them to do. No one in Ponoves danced when he died. In fact, Rav Shach davened for him to get better because he was only against his false views, nothing more. But shlomie, Tzig, Albert and others in the blog world have stooped so low in fighting Rav Shachs views that you have shown no respect for yourself. The entire Chabad was giddy with laughter when Rav Shach passed away. They hate him, hate anyone like him, and they hate anyone who is not like them. That is Chabad. That is what you defend.

>>P. S. As I already pointed out, everything I have said in this letter has met with the approval of rabbis, none of whom are in the Lubavitch camp.

This is obviously untrue as no one would endorse lying about Rav Shach.

Chabad - A voice of reason/A chasid needs a living rebbe

Anonymous' comment to "Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack...":

I believe that things got out of hand after the Rebbe's histalkus. While a lot of radical things may have been said (many many times), there was ALWAYS the power of the "brake" which stopped and halted the lunatics from taking things out of hand. For instance, it is known and public record that the Rebbe in public audiences scolded and rebuked chassidim for looking at him during davening. (He did it twice if I'm not mistaking). He spoke at length how this is completely wrong. He told them that next time he would notice that he would give them a Siddur to look inside the siddur during their prayers. He scolded the elders for not telling the youngsters what is right and what is wrong!

This really reflects all your discussions here: All these things said by the Rebbe are found in earlier sources but he said it in a way that purposely remained vague and abstract so that the masses not abuse it and misuse it and so that it is NOT translated in a way that is contrary to the regular belief in Jewish thought. (So the earlier quote was kept in a way that certainly fits let's say the explanation of Rabbi Posner and which actually, as many here have said is extremely consistent with the way these issues are explained in Chabad thought -as Micha acknowledges that with chabad version of tzimzumim he can hear how this is not contrary to general thought- and after all that statement was said to those who were familar with this language. As a matter of fact, later in time when this work was supposed to be reprinted the Rebbe asked that those passages be ommitted).

From the early quote under discussion, and throughout every single issue there was and is a strong even "radical" (akin found in Reshit Chochmah etc. and the like and probably some of these are found in Noam Elimelech etc.) statements but there were always brakes, and if needed in ACTION by the Rebbe to stop the misinterpretation thereof to ways that are contrary to the general thought as beleived by Jewry for millenium.

The same with the primary focus of a Rebbe. While certainly there were strong statements as to the role and position of a Rebbe (and as pointed out, there are extremely strong statements in earlier chassidic writings by tzadikim such as Kedushas Levi and Noam Elimelech etc.) ; nevertheless the focal point by the Rebbe's most of statements were that the Rebbe is merely a Shliach to connect Jews to Hashem and to serve Hashem better was always the bottom line. (One can see this stronger in the Videos of the Sunday Dollars where many came to thank the REbbe for this or that issue and he responded so frequently and with a strong vehemence; that he is only a conduit and messenger and repeating what Hashem says etc.).

What happened was: that after the histalkus the more hothead mashpiim and unfortunately even the level headed and the "thinkers" have lost the cool and the common ground in these matters. They also want to keep the real connection with the Rebe alive. But they misapplied it in practice and were not skillful enough to know how moderate the ideas and to channel these "Radical" ideas in a way that conforms and combines with the normal way Jews thought for centuries. Let us hope their less hotter heads (there are very few of them but there are) and those who are filled with the ideology that anything that is criticized from outside is automatically to be shunned will prevail, for the truth must be told: the ideologies of Chabad and the Rebbe that have so much to contribute to all of Jewry and in so many areas of Jewish life (study and fulfillment of mitzvot and serving the ALmighty) and that we must ultimately meet the final destination that everyone of us is so much awaiting the final redemption where and when we will all dedicate all of our energy to know and serve G-d.

Chabad - Was the Lubavitcher Rebbe infallible?

Rabbi Oliver has 3 posting on his blog asserting that the Rebbe or at least his father-in-law was infallible.

I just contacted an old friend Rabbi Eli Touger who is a well known Lubavitch translator and is accessible on the Chabad website for queries in English.

I wrote the following:

[...] A Chabadnik told me there is a sicha where the Rebbe said he had been fooled by someone - and thus he made a mistake. Do you know where this is?

Rabbi Touger replied

That I don't know, but just recently there was a sichah printed in Dvar Malchus where the Rebbe was explaining why when Rosh Chodesh Av fell on Shabbos, the week before he made a mistake he said טעות היה בידי and read two haftorahs on the previous Shabbos. [...]

Chabad IV - The apologetics aren't satisfying/Lack of sources

LazerA's comment to "Chabad III- The apologetics aren't satisfying":

I have noticed in an interesting repeating pattern in the posts from the defenders of Chabad (asides from the ad hominem attacks that continue unabated). In general, they will make an assertion and then support it with citations without even a brief synopsis of the material. Having looked up a few of these citations, I begin to suspect that this is a strategic approach, being that the material cited is frequently inconvenient for their purposes.

The responses by Shloime is illuminating if only because he apparently acknowledges that current Chabad teaches that one's primary spiritual focus should be one's rebbe. He simply claims that this is not a chiddush, rather it is found is found in earlier chassidic and traditional sources.

If this is found not to be true, then we are left with a serious problem in Chabad.

Unfortunately, I was not able to look up all of the citations (I couldn't find anything in the Tanchuma Kadum that was relevant, but the print I have doesn't have paragraph numbers, and I don't own the Chida's Midbar Kedemos). Nevertheless, the sources I was able to look up did not, in the least, support the idea of making one's rebbe into one's primary spiritual focus.

Midrash Lekach Tov, hak. l'p noach - simply states that there is great benefit in being davuk to tzadikim. This, of course, is not a chiddush. There is a mitzva of being davuk to chachamim, as discussed at length by the Rambam in Deios 6. This does not mean that one should make his rebbe into his primary spiritual focus.

Tzavaas HaRivash par.50 - Simply says that one should not look at the faces of those who thoughts are not always focused on Hashem. However, looking in the face of those who are always thinking of Hashem is beneficial. That's it. Again, this does not constitute making one's rebbe into your main spiritual focus.

Reishis Chochma, shaar hakedusha 8 is a lengthy discussion on taharas einayim. In one paragraph (17 in my print) he states that looking into the face of your rebbe is a mitzva and a tikkun for your eyes. From the context he may even be speaking about during davening. This, clearly, is the most radical statement so far (though the entire perek goes far beyond our normal standards of behavior). Nevertheless, even this does not constitute making your rebbe into your primary spiritual focus.

Maybe others can fill us in on some of the other citations. However, if this is a representative sampling, we are left with only one possible conclusion. Chabad, as acknowledged, sees their rebbe as their primary spiritual focus. They have convinced themselves that this is true for all chassidic groups and is actually a mainstream idea. However, they are wrong.

The rest of Shloime's comment isn't worth responding to.