From Hillel Goldberg’s Between Berlin and Slobodka published 1989
[Page 79]
From Rabbi Schneerson’s arrival in America in 1941 until he became the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1950, he and Rabbi Hutner maintained an intimate havruta, or fixed time for joint study. Decades later, when Rabbi Hutner lay on his deathbed, the Lubavitcher Rebbe had his physician phone from the United States to Israel regularly to inquire about Rabbi Hutner’s condition. But all this could not obscure a clear breach. Rabbi Hutner relentless1y sustained a biting critique of the Lubavitcher movement on a number of grounds. 41
All three prodigies who met in Berlin in 1929-Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Isaac Hutner, Menahem Schneerson-sustained a self-image so powerful and a certitude so unqualified that there could be no room for even delicate criticism among them as they each developed mutually exclusive kingdoms, so to speak: modern, secular-talmudic philosophic synthesis for Rabbi Soloveitchik; a worldwide Hasidic Inovement for the Lubavitcher Rebbe; and an elite, talmudic-pietistic training center for Rabbi Hutner. In their divergence, the larger problem they embody is the elusiveness of an affirmative definition of modern Orthodox Judaism. There was no disagreement, however, on what it was not. Rabbi Hutner demonstrated this most poignantly, going beyond biting disagreement, to definitive rebuke, in his attitude toward Abraham Joshua Heschel.
[page 187.]
41. Rabbi Hutner’s opposition to Lubavitch came to expression with colorful asperity. For example (interview with Saul [pseudonym], January, 1985, Jerusalem):
I was a student at Mesivta Chaim Berlin for only half a year, and had not spoken to Rabbi Hutner in about twenty years. I phoned him in New York, saying only “hello,” to which he responded, “Hello, Saul, how are you?” He knew my voice! He had this habit of making appointments at strange times, so we met at 2:10 p. m., Sunday afternoon. I told him that I had come to New York to pick up my children from a summer camp—a Lubavitch camp. Whereupon he suddenly turned his whole body around in his chair, his back facing me, and just sat there in blazing anger, glaring into space for what seemed to be an eternity. He must have been silent for two minutes. I was dumbfounded. Then he said, “Saul, you come to see me once in twenty years, and all you can tell me is that you send your children to a Lubavitch camp? There aren’t enough other camps? He said that my children would return home saying that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the Messiah, that Lubavitch would ruin my children.
Rabbi Hutner was opposed to the personality cult built up around the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and to the public projection of both the Rebbe and the Lubavitch movement, by the movement, through public media-print and broadcast journalism, books, film, and the like.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Chabad - Lubavitcher Rebbe & Rav Hutner
Chabad - What is a rebbe?
The following translated excerpt from the writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is from Chabad.orgThere are also nesi'im who are channels in several of these areas, or even in all of them.
Such was the nature of the leadership of the nesi'im of Chabad, from the Alter Rebbe to, and including, my father-in-law, who embraced all these categories and areas: they nurtured their chassidim in both the "internal" and the "encompassing" qualities of their souls; in Torah, divine service and good deeds; in spirit and in body. Thus, their bond with those connected with them was in all 613 limbs and organs of their souls and bodies.
Each and every one of us must know--that is, dwell upon and implant the awareness in his or her mind--that the Rebbe is our nassi and head: that he is the source and channel for all our material and spiritual needs, and that it is through our bond with him (and he has already instructed us in his letters how and by what means this is achieved) that we are bound and united with our source, and the source of our source, up to our ultimate source on high.
The following also from Chabad.org explains why the above concept is not a violation of having intermediaries
Israel, too, is comprised of many "organs" and "limbs." There are the great sages of each generation who devote their life to the assimilation of the Divine essence of Torah, whose entire being is permeated with the awareness of G-d's truth. These are the mind of the nation. Israel has a heart, individuals whose lives exemplify compassion and piety; and hands, its great builders and achievers. Each and every individual, from the "Moses of the generation"5 to the ordinary "foot soldier," forms an integral part of the body of G-d's firstborn -- each is equally "the limb of the father."
But as with the physical father-child relationship, it is the mind of the child which facilitates the bond with his father. As long as the many organs and limbs of his body remain a single integrated whole, they are all equally the father's child. The mind is not serving as an "intermediary," G-d forbid -- every part of the body, including the toenail, possesses the self-knowledge that makes the two ostensibly distinct bodies of the father and child a single entity. But it is only by virtue of their connection to their mind that this awareness resides within all the child's parts.
The same applies to the "body" that is Israel. It is our life-bond with our "mind" -- the sages and leaders of Israel -- that both integrates us as a single whole and imbues us with our connection to our Creator and Source.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Chabad - Atzmut was placed in a body III
Rabbi Micha Berger wrote to "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
Yes, the seifer says that Hashem is revealed through the tzadiq. And then, without explaining the jump, he then speaks of the tzadiq's total bittul meaning that only Hashem is there.
The rebbe spoke of Atzmus uMahus, not nevu'ah or even "Shechinah". The language is quite specific and intense, speaking of the Core Self (Atzmus) which in the case of humans he contrasts with any thoughts we might have. He may give sources for saying that person can see G-d through a tzaddiq who acts entirely according to Hashem's Will, but then he does leap (that's the conflation I spoke about yesterday) from there to saying that G-d Himself -- emphasizing through repetition of words for Divine Essence (not Or Ein Sof), Atzmuso uMahuso -- is within the Tzadiq.
You write: "Thus, when the Tzaddik speaks, it is not he who speaks, but Hashem who speaks through him, and this is the same explanation for the pesukim that speak about malachim with shem Hashem..."
(FWIW, the Rambam gives a totally different explanation, since people only communicate with mal'akhim in the body of nevu'ah.)
Notice that your argument leads you to say that a tzadiq speaks in accordance with Hashem's will, "asei Retzono kirtzonkha". And then you leap from their to say it's Hashem doing the talking. It's the same fallacy. And it's not only a flawed argument, it's a theology most rabbanim would label apiqursus.
Chabad - Disturbing videos
Here is another showing the Nashei of Chabad giving him signatures on a petition proclaiming him Moshiach
There is also an interesting video of 770 of the minyan waiting for the Rebbe's chair being brought in before they start davening. They sing melech hamoshiach until about 2 minutes into the video when the chair is brought in.
Singing Yechi with tefillin on
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=
and:
This one which shows the "Rebbe" in 770 in 2006
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=
Here we have Lubavitchers proselytizing the Rebbe as Moshiach to Israeli Arabs. Note: Naor Zion did NOT make this video:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=
Psak Din of Rebbe Moshiach -Rabbi Axelrod head of the Haifa Rabbinical court reading Rabbinic Ruling that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is Moshiach Recorded in 1998
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=
Chabad - Infallibility/Struggle for the soul of the Jewish people
It is conceivable that some of what they are doing is unacceptable. However as both Rav Sternbuch and Rav Eliashiv replied when I raised this question stated - "bring documentation and witnesses." Without a psak against them from gedolim they are presumed to be kosher Jews doing kosher things The flip side is the need for these groups to be aware of the concerns of outsiders and to either provide justification - which is what is being done - or to modify their activities.
I am not calling for a ban on Chabad or Breslov - even though I am personally very uncomfortable with what they are doing. That is for gedolim to decide not me. I am asking for sources. Interestingly there is a chasidic sefer called Vikuach Rabbah - which is presented as a debate between a Chassid and a student of the Gra. The Misnagid accuses the Chassid of deviating from the Mesorah and the Chassid responds that they are merely returning Yiddishkeit back to the way it used to be.
While there is nothing new under the sun - each generation needs to grapple anew with these issues and the resulting debate usually leads to needed changes on both sides.
It is also very important to understand that my questions - and that of others is -not part of an agressive offensive of Litvaks against Chassidim. The opposite is true. It is in large degree the defense of Litvaks against a massive campaign by Chabad and Breslov to change the nature of Yiddishkeit as we have known it. Anyone who lives in Yerushalayim and other places is constantly exposed to ads regarding Moshiach. Everywhere one finds graffiti regarding na nach.
A few years a psychologist friend of mine was giving a series of lecuures in Kfar Chabad to the teachers. One day he was told by the principal that the day of the next lecture needed to be changed because they needed to dedicate a mikveh on that day .When my friend asked why it was so urgent to dedicate the mikveh on that day - the principal responded, "Why don't you know? That is the day the Rebbe is coming to Kfar Chabad!"Let me close with a personal anecdote concerning my experience with Chabad. [BTW I gave the Rebbe a copy of my Yad Moshe when it first came out and received his beracha in return.]
The event is seared into my memory - even though it took place thirty-five years ago. I was standing in the entrance hallway of 770 talking to a shliach I had known for several years. In the middle of our discussion he turns to me and says in a very serious tone.
"You are an apikorus! While it is true you keep Torah and mitzvos but you refuse to become a Lubavitcher. Everyone knows that in each generation there is one tzadik who has the biggest connection (tzinur) to HaShem. Everyone knows that in our generation it is the Rebbe. Your refusal to accept him as your rebbe shows that you really are not interested in the closest possible connection to HaShem. You are an apikorus!"==================================================
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver commented to "Infallibility - Are our religious leaders infallib...":
"Any discussion with Chabad seems to be predicated on the axiom that they have an infallible doctrine and by definition anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Consequently Chabad does not engage in genuine dialogue but rather views it as an opportunity to educate their opponents of the error of their ways."
Well, you're putting it quite pejoratively, but I would word it like this:
Perspective of a Chosid
A Chossid accepts the words of his Rebbe fully and unconditionally with pure emunas Tzadikim as emes la'amitoi (the absolute truth). If he is indeed a Chossid, he has not the slightest shadow of doubt that what he is told by his Rebbe is Shechina medaberes mi'toch grono of the Rebbe. Does he understand what his Rebbe says? Not necessarily. But his approach is not predicated upon intellect, but upon emunah.
Thus it is out of the question for him to "second-guess" his Rebbe, G-d forbid, and decide that he knows better in some case. Not that he can't try to understand why his Rebbe would have told him as he did; on the contrary, he can and he should. But even if he doesn't understand, he accepts and obeys regardless because of his pure emunah that Hashem is speaking to him through his Rebbe.
This is also an approach that according to various non-Chabad chasidishe stories I've heard is found in all Chasidic groups, and it's one of the main differences between the way that a Chossid looks at his Rebbe and the way a non-Chossid looks at his gadol.
Perspective of a non-Chosid
However, a non-Chossid is not expected to have this degree of reverence (though he should respect him in general, of course), because he hasn't accepted that person as Rebbe. This is perhaps similar to the concept in Chazal that kabolas malchus Shomayim must precede kabolas ol Mitzvos, because a king only has authority over those who have accepted him as such. Members of all countries should accord respect to a king, but only the king's subjects, who have accepted his sovereignty, are expected to obey his every command. Not that a king can't direct himself to those who are not his subjects, but those words are be more properly categorised as suggestions, not commands. You can see the difference in the way the people who went past the Rebbe to receive dollars spoke to the Rebbe and the way the Rebbe spoke to them. It was all very different if it was a non-Chossid.
So, too, here. If the Rebbe taught something that you personally choose not to accept, that's up to you. But the Rebbe was a tremendous talmid chochom and Tzaddik, so at least respect what he said. Don't go around bashing it. Thus if Chassidim do or say things at the Rebbe's instruction, leave them alone.
It should also be noted that whenever the Rebbe came out with an instruction that he encouraged all Jews to follow, which he did on many occasions, he would always explain the necessity for it at length, quoting traditional Torah sources and Rishonim and Achronim. He would respond to those who raised criticism based on halachic claims. These explanations and responses (e.g., concerning Mivtza Tefillin, Mivtza Mezuzah) are printed in Likutei Sichos. The Rebbe wanted his suggestions to klal Yisroel to make sense to them, so they would adopt them willingly and not necessarily out of a sense of obedience, and it appears to me that at least part of the reason for this was precisely because the Rebbe knew that they were not Chassidim.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Child abuse & Lashon HaRah/HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita
English translation
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Chabad - do words have meaning or they mean what I say they mean?
To respond to Rabbi Oliver's puzzlement regarding my turning his comments into a post. It is simply the consequence of his being the only member of Chabad who is willing to try and communicate the Chabad position to non-Chabad Jews in this forum. Most of the forums discussing these issues are amongst people who have already accepted one particular view. Through the greatly appreciated efforts of Rabbi Oliver it is possible to at least attempt some type of dialogue on this significant issue.
BTW Rabbi Berger has in fact read Al Hatzaddikim - the Chabad attempt to show that identifying a person with G-d is found in many mainstream sources and is not an innovation of Chabad as well as Rabbi Posner's efforts to explain how a Lubavitcher understood the words "Atzmut placed in a human body."
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver has left a new comment on your post "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
I find it odd that every post of mine is blown up into a blog post. I responded to this post of micha in the earlier blog post, but I'll repost that response here.R' Micha Berger responded: "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":
micha,
My response was not to your post, but to the post on the blog, so I wasn't responding "off point." I have no clue what you know or don't know. I was commenting on my impression of the bloggers' very meager knowledge of Chabad teachings. As for your post, as soon as I see that you start discussing buddhism, I stopped reading it, being that I don't read avodah zara. The Rebbe never said that a Tzadik is the "embodiment" of G-d, ch"v, that's a gross distortion of what the Rebbe said in the original sicha, quoting sources.
In any case, I wonder how much background you have to the teachings of Chabad, how much in-depth study of Kabbalah and Chassidus (not just controversial excerpts) you've engaged in. I would venture a guess: very little.
Have you studied the book "Al Hatzaddikim," from Reb Avrohom Boruch Pevzner? It quotes extensively from Chazal, Kabbolo, and non-Chabad sources in defense of the Rebbe's sicha.
=======================================
Your guess is wrong. I fancy myself a student of Jewish Philosophies of all (frum) sorts. I'm tired of your assuming that Lubavitch is so obviously right, the only possible reason someone would disagree is ignorance. Instead of just assuming my ignorance, reply to the point! Give a substantive response, or let the world assume that you are stooping to ad hominems because there is none.
I am tempted to post here my warm ties with Lubavitch organizations in practice. Because I know that if I don't write this paragraph, the usual next response is that I hate Lubavitch, always hated Lubavitch, and my opinion is therefore dismissable. Since you're insisting on the ad hominem route, that is your logical next step.
The words "Atzmus uMahus melubash beguf" does literally translate to "a Tzadik is the 'embodiment' of G-d"'s Essence. I fail to see how quoting words and translating them can possibly be "a gross distortion of what the Rebbe said in the original sicha". Is there some magic context in the sichah that turns A into not-A? Not in the copy I read!
Now, had Lubavitch had a more misnagisher version of creation and tzimtzum this would be altogether idolatry.
However, Lubavitch teaches an extreme form of the Chassidic doctrine that tzimtzum is figurative. In fact, that "ein od milvado" and tzimtzum is an illusion. Therefore, everything and everyone is G-d. Panentheism -- that the universe is of G-d, but He is greater than creation.
And therefore, the concept of a tzaddiq being Atzmus isn't as straightforward. Everything is G-d, but the rebbe, the generation's Yechidah Kelalis, who reached full bitul with respect to the Almighty, who is thus aware of that unity with the A-lmighty and pierced the illusion of tzimtzum, is Atzmuso.
This is the point I was making by saying the heresy is closer to Buddhism than trinitarian Xianity. I described a form of Buddhism which is theologically identical to Lubavitch. Replace their jargon for Hebrew and Yiddish, and it would match perfectly.
In sum: When any man says "the rebbe is the Core and Essence of G-d dressed in a body" you can rest assured that the majority of Jews (who are not his followers) will understandably shudder. There is no way to make those words work -- they contradict the most fundamental concept in Judaism.
Chabad - Atzmut was placed in a body/R' Posner explains
As an answer to R' Micha's question regarding the Lubavticher Rebbe statement that Atzumut was placed in a body. I am providing the explanation given by the noted Chabad teacher - Rabbi Zalman Posner
excerpted from "The Splintering of Chabad" Jewish Action Fall 2002.
I had previously cited this article.
===========================================================
How did the deification come about? (Let me emphasize that the deifiers were sharply condemned by Lubavitch rabbanim and their words repudiated. But freedom of speech, here and in Israel, is a reality and all one needs is money to put up billboards or advertise in The New York Times.)
It started with a statement made by the Rebbe. At the yahrtzeit of his father-in-law in 1951, the Rebbe, referring to the Rayatz (Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak) stated, “Atzmut was placed in a body.” Atzmut means “essence,” the irreducible, unvarying core; God Himself, the Rebbe was saying, was “placed” in a human body. Some Mashichists, however, drew an inference, and then proceeded to draw inferences from that, culminating with deification.
The language of the Talmud calls for more than dictionary definitions. To understand Talmudic language, the student must have a background in Talmudic thought, or a teacher to explain the full meaning. Similarly, Chabad’s distinctive language can be misunderstood by the neophyte. This awareness is crucial in understanding what the Rebbe said.
A moment to define “atzmut.” We must be aware of two aspects when discussing man or God: essence and extension. In terms of man, essence is his soul; extension includes his thoughts, words, actions, ideals, etc. The latter is variable, developing, modified, even rejected and replaced. The essence remains constant.
For man, understanding God can mean understanding His thoughts—as expressed in Torah, or His emotions, such as kindness and compassion as manifested in His behavior towards us. But these are not His “essence” which is beyond us; God’s thought and actions are extensions of Him, similar to the rays of the sun being extensions, not the essence, of the sun.
Man’s awareness of self is a barrier between him and God. His acceptance of mitzvot—and the self-discipline involved in that acceptance—is a measure of self-nullification before God, a step closer to Him. The greater his self-nullification, the closer he approaches God, the more he is aware of Him. Ultimately he can reach the state of merkavah, when he becomes a “vehicle” for God. When this state is attained, as it was by the Patriarchs, man has no personal will. Man’s only will is God’s.
When the Rebbe, referring to his father-in-law, stated “Atzmut was placed in his body,” this, I would suggest, is what he had in mind: there was no separation between him and Him, no barrier, not that Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak is God but that he is one with God. However, some tragically concluded that the Rebbe had implied a synonymy between his father-in-law and God. It didn’t take too much for some to then characterize the Rebbe himself in that way.
Not surprisingly, no one is big enough to correct the deifiers, to convince them that they err, even though their view is not part of Chabad teachings. Though they are vocal, the deifiers are small in number and enjoy little respect. They act without the support or approval of any individuals of stature within the Lubavitch community.
A little lesson in Chabad that might further illuminate the issue: The haftarah of the first day of Rosh Hashanah contains three words that demand explanation, “Kel dayot Hashem” (I Shemuel 2:3) roughly translated as, “For God is the God of intelligences.”
Why the plural, dayot? Kabbalah refers to da’at elyon and da’at tachton, supernal intelligence and “lower” intelligence. Two perspectives exist; either God’s view, which is spiritual, or man’s view, which is material. Thus, depending on the perspective, a question may have two responses. For example, if one were to ask, “What is ‘reality?’” the answer may be either the physical (body) or the spiritual (soul).
Da’at tachton—From our view, which is that of the physical universe, the very existence of the Creator is in dispute; we and our universe constitute yesh, existence, tangible, palpable reality, while the spiritual source is perceived as ayin, nothingness. God is hardly imaginable, taxing man’s finite intelligence. Man and his science deal with the observable; Man sees his body, while he can only imagine his soul.
Da’at elyon—The rare individualperceives the Creator, the source of all, the absolutely transcendent, as the true yesh. He sees the physical, the created, as ayin, nothingness, and totally dependent on the Source of all for its existence.
Man, with his almost ineluctable da’at tachton, can appreciate, to some degree, God’s wisdom as expressed through Torah. Through learning Torah at the highest levels, man and God merge; Man’s only thoughts are then God’s, since he is totally immersed in Torah. Another level of unification with God can be attained through man’s awareness of God’s “emotions.” Sensing his own insignificance, his dependence for every breath on God, man may experience his “nothingness” in the presence of greatness. He attains bittul, nullity, but still retains his sense of self, his existence, his physicality. His bittul, nullity, is not total, not absolute.
A few exceptional individuals can attain the highest plane—that of merkavah, becoming a “vehicle” that has no will of its own, an absolute ayin, focusing only on his “driver.” Hillel would apologize to his students when he interrupted learning for a bite of lunch. “I must do a kindness for my poor body,” he would say. Hillel was not his body. His body was simply a container for his soul, the real Hillel. In contrast, at the start of our daily prayers we thank God for the “soul You placed within me.” We identify ourselves primarily as bodies that have souls placed within. We, alas, are not Hillels.
We can now understand what the Rebbe meant. When the Rebbe spoke of “Atzmut placed within a body,” he was implying an incredible unity between God and a human. As stated above, atzmut or etzem, refers to the essence of the subject, not an extension, but the core, irreducible, constant, indivisible. In terms of a human, extensions may include thought, actions, emotions, beliefs, all subject to variation, growth, development, rejection. Core is unvarying, concealed. Etzem, transcending any manifestation of God including thought (as in Torah), refers to God Himself.
We noted earlier that man may attain a degree of bittul, self-negation, yet retain an awareness of self, the bittul being less than absolute. Any degree of bittul is praiseworthy for so few achieve any diminution of ego. Rarely does any man attain total bittul, as did the Patriarchs. Rav Yoseph Yitzchak, his successor asserted, achieved this level of bittul. “Atzmut placed in a human body,”—the physical body of the Rebbe did not conceal God within man. However, the Rebbe’s words were totally misconstrued and the result was—deification! Deification means seeing man as God; the Rebbe, of course never, said or, implied man could be synonymous with God. The distinction is awesomely critical. Unfortunately, there are those who failed to make the distinction and they are embarked on a treacherous path.
Chabad - can only be understood from inside by those who accept its beliefs II
If you re-read what I said [in his original comment] , you'll see that I never said that a non-Chabadnik must accept Chabad beliefs. I referred explicitly to "the proper emunah expected of a Chabad Chossid". I'll restate my points in case they weren't fully clear.====================
1. One who has not thoroughly studied what Chabad sources say from the original should not presume to comment based on 2nd- and 3rd-hand information.
2. The concept of tremendous focus on emunas Tzadikim, and similar concepts such as the revelation of G-dliness in the world through Tzaddikim, are not exclusive to the Chabad approach but are found in all Chasidic groups. See, for example, the classic Chassidic text Noam Elimelech. So the opponent to this belief in Chabad is really opposing the entire derech of Chassidus, and various sources that discuss this concept that predate the advent of Chassidus.
3. One should understand that since the beliefs of Lubavitchers (i.e., 99%, not a handful of crazies; in every group there are crazies) are based solidly on the Rebbe's words, criticism of Chabad is not a criticism of this or that approach of Chassidim, but a criticism and attack upon the Rebbeim of Chabad. One is able to choose to take this approach, obviously, but one should be aware that that is the path one has chosen, and ask oneself first whether this is indeed a wise course of action, considering that these are towering giants of Torah, Tzidkus, and mesiras nefesh.
Rabbi Micha Berger replied [to Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver original statement]:
I notice, though, that R' Oliver does not discuss Atzmus uMahus melubash beguf, and how it doesn't violate traditional understandings of the 5th ikkar emunah.Rabbi Micha Berger added:
Frankly, the only parallel I found to this before the LR's speech of 1951 was in Mahayana Buddhism. All of the world is an illusion, there is only the Absolute One; lehavdil Chabad's very literal take of "ein od milvado" and their whole understanding of yeish mei'Ayin (which by their explanation requires capitalization of the "A").
The bodhisattva, having been able to pierce this illusion, that creation holds distinct items hangs around this world to help others do the same. Compare to the L notion that while everything is G-d, because tzimtzum is taken as metaphoric, and the rebbe, as the yechidah of the national soul, is able to connect to that. HQBH medabeir mitokh gerono shel Moshe - haRebbe bedoro keMoshe bedoro.
The only difference, and it's not a small one, is that in Buddhism, they don't link the one-ness of Buddha nature to a concept of Divine Will, or Divinity altogether.
I find a number of things about your [above] reply interesting.
1- Why do you assume I didn't learn the sources myself? In fact, I learned the Tanya more than once, Liqutei Sichos vol II os 40, pp 510-511, the Igeres of 19 Shevat to R' Yerachmiel Benjaminson, etc...
This kind of ad hominem will lead readership to believe you don't have substantive responses.
2- You answered off point. I said nothing about Emunas Chakhamim. I wrote about the rebbe saying that a rebbe is actually the Essence and Substance of G-d, that that's what it means when one says "G-d speaks from his throat".
The comment to which you're replying is my second attempt to point out that this is uniquely Lubavitch (within Judaism) and thus Lubavitcher Chassidim should be unsurprised that many pasqen it crosses the line into shituf.
3- I explicitly said I'm basing my critique on a position of the last Lubavitcher rebbe when I quoted his words. I agree that I'm not only impugning the messianic and "qever never" crazies.
The rebbe said that a human being is to be obeyed because he is an embodiment of G-d. Are you surprised that to very many rabbanim, such a statement is kefirah?
If you feel it's appropriate for Lubavitcher chassidim to believe such things because their rebbe said so, then you can't be surprised when people who believe (as we've been saying for millenia now) that G-d doesn't dress Himself in bodies - consider you heretics.
Nice guys. Who do a lot of positive, constructive, things. But apiqursim.