Chabad - can only be understood from inside by those who accept its beliefs I

One of the critical issues that keeps being brought up in the dispute over Chabad is that which is stated below by Rabbi Oliver - a Chabad teacher. Namely that one can not criticise Chabad because you don't know it. If you knew and understood it you would not criticise it. Also if you look on his blog you will notice that he says that tzadikim are infallible. [See the Chabad forum which discusses this in great detail] Thus it is impossible that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was wrong. Consequently Chabad has an in impregnable defense. If you don't accept these beliefs you can't understand them and thus your criticism is a result of your lack of understanding. If you understood them you would not be criticizing them. Furthermore the tzadik or rebbe simply can't err and to state such means you don't understand what you are talking about.

Regarding the issue of infallibility - while it is true that non chasidim as well as chazal acknowledge the possibility of great people erring - is it really so that all chassidim view their tzadik or rebbe as infallible? I came across the following citation by the Sochachover Rebbe in his classic work Eglei Tal who was in fact a chassidic rebbe - the son in law of the Kotzker Rebbe. He says in no uncertain terms that Jewish authorities are fallible and that is one of the major differences between the Jews who accept that their leaders are fallible and the non-Jews who view their leaders as infallible.

אגלי טל (מעינה של תורה חלק ד' עמוד יז) ד"ה ואלה שמות בני אהרן הבכר נדב...אלה שמות בני אהרן הכהנים המשחים (ג- ב,ג) כפילת לשון זו למה? ברם, בידוע שכהני הדתות של אומות העולם נחשבים לברואים על אנושיים, שלעולם אינם עלולים לבוא לידי טעות. לפיכך משמתמנה אדם מהם לכהונה, מיד נותנים לו שם אחר, להודיע בזה שכלל איננו אותו אדם שמלפני כן וכי ניתן לו עתה גוף אחר לגמרי, ואילו אצל בני ישראל שונה הדבר תכלית שינוי, אפילו האדם היותר גדול נחשב בם הוא לבשר ודם העלול לבא לידי טעות, "אין אדם צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא" וכן: "הן בקדושיו לא יאמין". אף כי מחוייבים אנו לנהוג כבוד בתלמידי חכמים, הרי זה רק בזכות התורה שהם לומדים ומקיימים, כשם שאנו נוהגים כבוד רב בספר התורה, אף על פי שאין היא אלא קלף רגיל, מפני שעל הקלף הזה כתובים דברי התורה הקדושה: אולם אין אנו גורסים כל עיקר כי החומר גופו שונה מהחומר של שאר בני אדם. הילכך, אחר שמנה כבר הכתוב את שמותיהם של בני אהרן, הריהו חוזר ואומר: אלה בני אהרן הכהנים המשוחים" - שאפילו אחרי המשחם ככהנים לא ניתנו להם שמות אחרים, כי אם נחשבו לנבי אדם כמקודם...

==========================================

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver comments to "Chabad III - R' Belsky vs R' Miller & R Heineman/M...":

The idea of emphasising the emunah in the Tzaddik in a way outsiders might think is exaggerated is not unique to Chabad, but is found in the entire derech of Chassidus (and in many respects, it is found in non-Chabad circles to an even greater extent).

In the Chabad approach this belief has taken on a specific form by Chabad Chassidim all based on explicit statements of the Rebbe himself concerning his holy father-in-law, in which he modelled for his Chassidim the proper approach of emunas Tzaddikim that is expected toward a Chabad Rebbe.

Those who are not chassidim altogether who blithely criticise from the outside simply demonstrate their ignorance on the subject at hand and their failure to study relevant sources concerning emunas Tzadikim in general, and the Rebbe's words concerning the proper emunah expected of a Chabad Chossid in particular. Don't condemn what you don't know.

Chabad - Lubavitcher Rebbe & Rav Moshe Feinstein

There was a good relationship between Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The following teshuva regarding the obligation to wear Rabbeinu Tam tefilin is printed in the Igros Moshe (O.C. 4:9). It is addressed to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and expresses appreciation for the assistance obtaining Rabbeinu Tam tefilin that met his standards.

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן ט

בעניין הנחת תפילין של ר"ת בע"ה עש"ק שקלים תש"מ מע"כ הוד כ"ק הגאון הצדיק מוהרמ"מ שליט"א שניאורסאן האדמו"ר מליובאוויטש. שלום וברכה לעולם.

כאשר הודיעו לי בדבר שהוכ"ק גאונו מתענין בדבר קיום מצות תפילין אליבא דר"ת שעלי מצאתי לנחוץ לכתוב תודתי וגם טעמי ונמוקי.

הנה בהיותי בליובאן היו לי תפילין דר"ת מהודרין אשר נהגתי ללובשן אחר התפלה אבל התנתי בלא נדר, וכן כאשר באתי לכאן ברחמי שמים לבשתי הרבה שנים כשמצאתי טובים לפי דעתי. והענין הוא דיש חלוק גדול בין תפילין דרש"י שמחוייבין שאף שצריך להדר ביותר שיהיו מהודרין, הא כשליכא אלא תפילין כשרין ואף רק בדוחק מחוייבין ללובשן, ולכן במשך הזמן שהרבה הרפתקאות עדו עלן בעוה"ר וגם נתמעטו סופרים ואח"כ הרבה שנים לא היו כלל סופרין וגם לא קלף כשר והוצרכו לקיים מצות תפילין רק באלו שכבר היו משנים הרבה, אף שכבר גם המהודרין ביותר נתקלקלו ויש שהיו עלייהו שאלות קיימו באלו שהיו. אבל תפילין דר"ת מאחר שליכא חיוב אף דספק כלל, דהא נפסק כרש"י וליכא בעלמא שום מקום דיסתפקו לדינא זה איזו מאות בשנים שאף שהיו חולקין בתחלה הודו לבסוף הם או תלמידיהם, ואף אלו שלא ידעו מתחלה שאיכא כלל שיטה כזו דרש"י, שהוא הר"י אברצלוני שהיה מרבותינו הראשונים כתב על מה שאיתא בשמושא רבא כשיטת רש"י כדהביאו התוס' מנחות דף ל"ד בד"ה והקורא בסופו, דהוא טעותא שמצינו בהאי שימושא שמזה הוכיח שאין לסמוך עליו כלל, ואילו ידע משיטה זו דרש"י שסבר כן בפשיטות שודאי הוא משום שכן סברו גם רבותיו ועוד הרבה לא היה כותב בשביל שהוא חולק ע"ז שהוא טעות, הרי ג"כ ודאי שתלמידיו במשך הזמן הודו, וכבר העיד הכ"מ דכבר פשט המנהג בכל מקום אשר שמענו שמעם כדברי רבינו ורש"י בסדר הפרשיות. ורק שמ"מ כיון שהיו סוברין כן ר"ת והרבה מרבותינו הקדמונים, וגם סברו שכן סובר ר' האי גאון שכן הא כותב הראב"ד בהשגתו רבינו האי ז"ל אינו אומר כן וכן כתבו חכמי לוניל קבלנו מרבותינו שקבלו מהגאונים ורבינו האי בראשם דבעינן הויות באמצע, עד שהרמב"ם כתב בתשובתו להם שאינו כן ותפילין של רבינו האי גאון היו כסדר הרמב"ם ורש"י, וכתב שכן הרבה גאונים סוברין וכל אנשי ארץ הצבי הקדמונים חולקים ע"ז, שלכן כיון שהיו מתחלה הרבה מקומות שעשו כר"ת וגם מקומו של הרמב"ם נהגו כן תחלה, טוב לצאת גם שיטת ר"ת אף שכבר נפסק ונתפשט דלא כמותו, שלפי הגמ' דיבמות דף ק"ב אף אם יבא אליהו ויאמר דישנו לעשות כר"ת לא ישמעו לו בין לרבה בין לר' יוסף, (ורק ב"ד הגדול של ע"א סנהדרין בלשכת הגזית אם יסברו כר"ת מסתבר שיוכלו למיפלג ולפסוק כר"ת), שלכן ניחא מה שלשאר השיטות דאיתא בתפילין לא חששו משום דמעולם היו רק יחידים שחלקו ואף למדת חסידות ליכא מעלה להתנהג גם לצאת כל השיטות אף של היחידים, אבל כשיטת ר"ת שנהגו למעשה הרבה קהלות גדולות טוב להתנהג לצאת גם ידי שיטתם, וכיון שהוא שלא מצד חיוב דספק ואיזו חומרא מדינא לא נהגתי אלא כשהיו התפילין ברור בכשרותם ובהדורם, אבל כשנעשו עלייהו חששות שלא ברור שאקיים בהו גם לר"ת לא נהגתי, שלכן מאחר שכבר נעשו חששות עלייהו לא הטרחתי להוציאם ממקומי מליובאן שהיה דבר קשה מאד והוכרחתי להניח שם עוד הרבה ספרים שלא הניחו ליקח עמי וגם כתבים שלי לא יכולתי להוציאם משם עמי.

וכשבאתי לכאן לא השגתי תפילין דר"ת מאלו המצוין שיהיו לפי דעתי אלא פעם אחד נזדמן לי להשיג תפילין דר"ת ישנים אבל טובים שלבשתים הרבה שנים עד שהוצרכתי לגונזם, ותפילין דרש"י המחוייבים השגתי שני פעמים ע"י אחד בא"י כפי מה שאמרתי שיעשו, אבל לא הטרחתי כל כך בשביל תפילין דר"ת דליכא חיוב ממש וגם לא חיוב דמנהג אף שאבא מארי זצ"ל הניח כל ימיו אבל לא נהג באופן שיתחייבו גם בניו מדין מנהג, וגם בשביל הוצאה גדולה כשכותבין ביחוד שבהרבה פעמים לא היה זה דבר נקל, וכיון שאינו חיוב בעצם וגם התנתי בלא נדר לא דחקתי עצמי בזה. [...]

ועתה כאשר הודיעו לי בשם כ"ק הו"ג שליט"א שיש סופר מובהק אצלו שנכון לשלחו אלי ולצוותו שיכתוב עבורי פרשיות דתפילין דר"ת כרצוני הוא דבר גדול מאד, לבד מה שאוכל לקיים גם מצות הנחת תפילין דר"ת כפי מה שנהגתי, וענין הממון ב"ה שעזרני ויעזרני לשלם להסופר כפי אשר יבקש וישיג הסופר בתים טובים. ובודאי הסופר יכתוב גם ככתב הב"י, שאף שבארתי שבעצם כל הכתבים שאיכא הרבה שכותבין סת"מ שאיכא אצלינו שלש כתבים כולם הם מסיני, ורק א"א לכתוב פרשיות דתפילין ומזוזה אלא בכתב אחד משום שיהיה פסול מדין מנומר, אבל מ"מ אנו נוהגין שהכל יהיה בכתב הב"י בין מזוזות ותפילין ובין ס"ת בביהכ"נ שאני רגיל להתפלל, ויהיה כתבו נאה. משה פיינשטיין

Chabad III - R' Belsky vs R' Miller & R Heineman/Mishpacha Magazine

Further support for my assertion - that the issue is not whether it is prohibited to view the Lubavitsher Rebbe as Moshiach - is the well known interview in Mishpacha in which Rav Belsky, shilta strongly criticises Chabad for their cult of personality.

Chabad - Messianic fervor is not the problem II

Let me explain my previous post. I don't think that believing that the Lubavitcher Rebbe will be Moshiach is inherently a violation of Jewish law or hashkofa [See R' Gil Student for a more nuanced discussion of this issue]. Rav Noach Weinberg ,shlita once remarked to me that if Moshiach is coming from the dead then we can do better than the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Chabad has every right to disagree with Rav Weinberg.

Dr. Berger's point that even though there is a source in the gemora for this attitude but since it was rejected for hundreds of years in debates with Christians it is not acceptable - is itself problematic. Ironically Dr. Berger's view is logically no different than the view that the rejection of the modern majority of certain hashkofa principles held by Chazal, Rishonim and modern achronim - makes these views kefira - a view that Dr. Berger himself rejects.

My point is that the main problem is that the attitude of Chabad towards Judaism and halacha is diverging from the mainstream of Orthodoxy. Dr. Schick's article is just the tip of the iceberg. I am not minimizing the bizarreness of Chabad behavior regarding whether the Rebbe is dead. See the following photos and video from Chabad website regarding kos shel beracha of the dead Rebbe. But they are not the ikkar but are symptoms of this larger pattern of deviation.

R' Micha also raises the question of problematic hashkofa attitudes - some of which have been discussed by Rav Shochet in a previous posting.

Doesn't the problem of determining the halachic state of Lubavitch Jews begin well before the issue of messianism, back when the rav who would be the next and last Lubavitcher rebbe declared the rebbe to be "Atzmus uMahus melubach beguf -- Divine Essence and Substance clothed in a body"?

Lubavitch Messianism took a figure who was already in Buddha's role and added a messianic component. But the Lubavitch position since 1951 has been violating the 5th ikkar emunah as many poseqim would define it.

Chabad - Messianic fervor is not the problem

A partial rebuttal to Dr. Schick's criticism below and that of Reform Rabbi Yoffie is provided by Dr. Chana Silberstein on a Chabad website

Chabad - Where is it heading?
Jan. 9, 2006
Marvin Schick, Jerusalem Post

Chabad, the Lubavitch movement, is the Walmart of Jewish life, a mega-phenomenon that keeps growing at a remarkable rate by entering new and underserved areas, and by exploiting the vulnerability of existing service providers.

Growth provides the impetus and resources for additional growth. Walmart uses loss leaders to attract customers, the aim being to get them to buy profitable items and to further weaken and dishearten the competition. In Chabad there is the perhaps unintended defining of Judaism downward, the aim being to attract participants and to maintain for them at least a tenuous connection with Jewish life. In the process, there is often the further weakening of existing religious institutions as well as the acceptance - it is more than tolerance - of what should not be accepted in Orthodox Jewish life.

This aspect of Chabad was displayed recently at the annual gathering in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn of several thousand shlichim (the movement's field workers), an event for which the description "impressive" is greatly inadequate.

The keynote speaker was Alan Dershowitz, a choice that accords with the familiar societal instinct to idolize celebrityship. This choice was also antithetical to what Chabad should stand for. My point is not about Dershowitz, who can say and believe whatever he wants. It's for history to decide whether his extended 15 minutes of fleeting fame will leave even faint fingerprints on law, society or Jewish life.

IT IS WRONG and hypocritical for Chabad to highlight a person who has written nastily about Orthodox Jews, who has welcomed intermarriage in his family, and who has exalted marrying out. Any attempt to justify what was shameless is no more than sophistry, although it will further the process of self-deception that has already gone too far.

If this were an isolated incident it could be excused, though not defended, as a lapse in judgment. But Chabad is on a roll and, like with others on a roll, there is scant incentive for self-reflection, for a pause to consider where the movement is heading.

Chabad telethons and fundraising, and the acceptance of severe anti-halachic behavior in too many situations, add to the concern. Too much of what now has the Chabad imprimatur bears little resemblance to how the movement once operated.

Chabad is today world Jewry's largest organization, probably by a wide margin. In its ranks are people of intellectual weight, yet it is hard to find an internal discussion of the implications of the direction being taken, or the implications of the changed and highly-assimilated American Jewish landscape. There is no discussion of whether there are limits to permitting Chabad synagogue regulars to drive to shul on Shabbat, or of how to deal with the intermarried and their spouses and family members.

Why are these issues less relevant to Chabad than they are to the rest of American Jewry? Why is the issue of standards alive everywhere else in Jewish religious life, but not within Chabad?

MY HOPE is to encourage Lubavitchers to think about these questions. They must be asked and discussed, especially because so much about Chabad is meritorious. There are countless acts of kindness, as well as vital services provided to Jews across the religious spectrum who have nowhere else to turn. Chabad is rightly praised for its multitude of good deeds.

But if Judaism was merely a good-deeds religion there would be nothing to differentiate us from many secularists and people of other faiths. For all of Chabad's kindnesses, this is not what Judaism is primarily about. Our religion is about Torah and mitzvot, about obedience and limitations, and about maintaining our laws and traditions today so that they will be transmitted to the next generations.

As it grows, Chabad's options are in a sense limited by certain realities, primarily the wholesale Judaic abandonment that we are witness to, and which is accelerating. Increasingly, the movement operates in a framework of postdenominational Judaism. For the Orthodox, who - except when they travel or in special situations - are not the primary Chabad participants, denomination matters.

For Conservative and Reform Jews, affiliation now refers overwhelmingly more to a social rather than religious connection. Huge numbers of Jews identified by demographers as Reform or Conservative rarely show up in synagogue and their affiliation provides few clues to their religious practices and beliefs. In a word, denomination has lost much of its relevance.

CHABAD FLOURISHES in this environment by providing a low-cost brand of Judaism. It is low-cost in financial terms, which is another meritorious aspect. It is also, however, low-cost in Jewish expectations.

Participants in Chabad can observe very little and have no interest in adding to their performance of mitzvot. This may seem unfair, yet the attitude being conveyed by Chabad to a great number of its participants bears a resemblance to Reconstructionism. There are, of course, conventional Chabad synagogues and day schools, and they must not be discounted because they often fill gaps in our community's ability to adequately provide religious services.

Yet there is a vast network of institutions and programs that require little of participants and where deviance from Halacha is evident.

A Conservative leader once remarked to me that his movement made a mistake in the 1950s when it sanctioned driving to the synagogue on Shabbat. He said it should have emulated Chabad and allowed people to drive without giving formal approval.

Population shifts and the continued weakening of Jewish institutional life will give Chabad an abundant supply of new areas to penetrate. There is also an abundant supply of shlichim-in-waiting. I was recently told that there are more than 300 young men waiting for their opportunity to go into the field.

When that opportunity comes they will be faced with the collateral opportunity to define Judaism downward, to embrace the prevalent attitude of "anything goes" Judaism. They will also have the opportunity to reverse a disturbing trend.

Chabad - Prof. Berger's criticism of Chabad - source material

There is a huge amount of material concerning Prof. Berger's views about Chabad and Chabad's defense of their viewpoint. A starting point is a list complied by Moshiachlisten

Chabad - Rabbi Posner criticizes Prof. Berger's book

Rabbi Posner - a well respected Chabad rabbi - reviews Prof. David Berger's book dealing with the scandal of the messianic movement in Chabad. The article is found in Jewish Action Magazine.

Rabbi Gil Student's response to Rabbi Posner's article can be found in the Spring 5763 issue of Jewish Action.

Acid attack on 14year old girl in Beitar II

Just received the following. Have no way of verifying the information. I would suggest the writer contact Rav Sternbuch directly. However, I have no idea whether he can help. I can be contacted by email at yadmoshe@yahoo.com

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Acid attack on 14year old girl in Beitar Illit - ...":

Blatant Lies! I am a neighbor and friend of this family who's daughter was attacked. I decided to search around on the internet to see what people were saying about this and could not believe what i read here. This was not at all an incident of teenage violence or rival gangs or anything of the sort. This was an organized planned "hit" specifically aimed at this girl (actually her older sister) and her family in order to send shock waves throughout the community especially to its many wayward youth. This is a very complicated story with a history to it, both the individual family and the community at large, involving even corruption within the police and the city council, and i do not have time now to write much more. i am working with the father of this poor girl to put together a written account of events involving his family and many many others who have suffered from discrimination intimidation and humiliation, etc. They are all good people who have suffered greatly and instead of sympathy they receive only scorn for their external actions. I even went to one of the rabbanim of the city recently to ask him to protest what had happened and although he did not explicitly condone it he also clearly was not interested in making any statements. the father also spoke with him and was told basically that his daughters deserved what they got, and if they don't fit in here they should move somewhere else. etc etc there is too much to say here so i will leave it at that. something must be done about this perversion of yiddishkeit that masquerades as the haredi society we live in. if anyone out there knows a good journalist or lawyer or anyone who can help please let me know your email address through this blog and i will contact you. (i am just a 25 year old kollel guy, i feel kind of overwhelmed with this but feel that it is i efshar al yidei acherim and bmakom sheeyn anashim hishtadel lihyos ish)