Tzimtzum II - Gra vs. Baal HaTanya/Lubavitcher Rebbe's explanation

This a translation of a letter the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote regarding tzimtzum. It was a strong criticism of Rav Dessler's understanding of the doctrine which he learned from a Chabad chasid and which is published in Michtav M'Eliyahu IV page 324. Rav Dessler asserts that there was in fact no disagreement between the Gra and the Baal HaTanyar regarding tzimtzum. For the full letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe click here: See also first posting

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

Number 11

This letter was addressed to Rabbi Yerachmiel Benjaminson, a distinguished Rabbi from London. Reference to it is found in Marbitzei Torah U'Mussar, Vol. III, p. 66.

B"H, 19 Shvat, 5699, Paris

Greetings and blessings,

The letter with the enclosed $28 arrived on time.

With regard to your comments concerning the tzimtzum, [the initial contraction of G-dly light,] and the statement of your acquaintance that all the different approaches [to the concept] flow in a single direction:

I was amazed to hear such a proposition, particularly insomuch as in your letter, you describe that person as one who has studied Kabbalistic texts. Obviously, he does not fit that description at all. Even in the first generation after the AriZal - the one who revealed the secret of the tzimtzum - there were radical differences in opinion among his disciples with regard to the tzimtzum. These are obvious from the texts they composed, and these differences were perpetuated [in the subsequent generations].

The crux of the differences centers around two issues:

1. Should the concept of tzimtzum be understood literally or not, i.e., are we speaking about a withdrawal of the light, or merely its concealment?

2. Did the tzimtzum affect merely G-d's light, or did it affect also the Source of light, [i.e., that He Himself has withdrawn or is hidden from our world]?

[In dealing with these questions,] it is possible to outline four different approaches:

1. the tzimtzum should be interpreted literally, and moreover, that it affected G-d's essence. The proof offered in defense of this theory is that it is impossible for the King to be found in a place of filth, Heaven forbid;

2. the tzimtzum should be interpreted literally, but that it affected only His light;

3. the tzimtzum should not be interpreted literally, but it affected the Source of light as well; and

4. the tzimtzum should not be interpreted literally, and it affected only His light.

As is well known, the misnagdim at the time of the Alter Rebbe followed the first approach mentioned. They explained the expression,[1] "There is no place apart from Him," meaning - apart from His providence.[2] They said, moreover, that the approach which states that G-d's essence is found everywhere contradicts the laws applying to [the restrictions against prayer and Torah study] in places of filth,[3] as reflected in the notices and proclamations which were circulated at the time of the Baal Shem Tov and the Alter Rebbe.

See also the references to the issue in Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 7, and Iggeres HaKodesh, the conclusion of Epistle 25. It appears to me that Beis Rebbe also includes a letter from the Alter Rebbe concerning this subject.[4]

[Reb Chayim of Volozin,] the author of Nefesh HaChayim which you mentioned in your letter, follows the third approach mentioned above. In this, he differs from his master, the Gaon, Rav Eliyahu [of Vilna]. In general, it appears that Reb Chayim of Volozin had seen Chabad texts, in particular, the Tanya, and had been influenced by them. I do not, however, have definite proof of this.

[As chassidim,] we follow solely the fourth approach mentioned which explains that the concept of tzimtzum should not be interpreted literally, and that it affects only [G-d's] light, but not the Source of light. [Indeed, within the light,] it affects only the lowest level of the light which existed before the tzimtzum, as explained in the texts and manuscripts of Chabad [teachings].

Breslov V - R' Nachman's self-glorification/Significance?

I had previously posted some quotes from Rebbe Nachman posted on a Breslov website in which he describes his greatness. I received a notification of a posting by Rabbi Dovid Sears Director of the Breslov Center for Spirituality and Inner Growth, which addresses the startling self-praise. The posting is on the A Simple Jew blog

Rabbi Dovid Sears wrote:

Rabbi Nachman's "Self-Praise"

Question:

In Chayei Moharan 241-290, Rabbi Nachman indicates that he reached a level above that of the Tannaim, and speaks about his uniqueness as being beyond compare. How does this relate to the concept of "yeridas ha-doros?" To say that he was the greatest tzaddik of his generation (or since) doesn't bother me so much. I simply don't understand how this could be, or how one could surpass the Tannaim. What was the Rebbe's true intention in saying such things, and how is this understood, by knowledgeable Breslover Hasidim?

He also mentions that there were four unique figures: Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the ARI HaKadosh, the Baal Shem Tov, and himself. But that seems to leave out quite a few. What about Moshe Rabbeinu? What about the Patriarchs? There seem to be many others, too, who brought major chiddushim to the world.

I would like to understand how to understand these things in terms of hashkafah, and also to understand the Rebbe's intention in making these statements. Rabbi Chaim Kramer told me the answer in passing: "So we would know what we're dealing with!" I hear that answer, but still feel the need to understand a little more. The advice and derech of the Rebbe have been very healing in my life, and his teachings speak to me in a very profound way. From his Torah, my sense of wonder in life and in the Torah has been restored. I want to go forward, and have actually made some progress. (I have really wrestled greatly with these kinds of things, internal battles about Breslov's legitimacy, etc.). Thank G-d, I have been able to come closer. But I want to be sure that I know why I am doing what I am doing -- "what to answer the apikorus (within me)" -- and that is why I ask these questions.

Answer:[Go to A Simple Jew for the rest of the posting]

Chabad - Tzimtzum - literal or figurative?

The battle between the Gra and the Baal haTanya regarding whether tzimtzum was literal or figurative - still lives on. It is discussed extensively in the writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe See also the website The following is just an excerpt in the name of the Gra

ובספרו של וולנסקי מודפס קטע אפילו יותר חריף בשם הגר"א:

רדו לעמק יהושפט לעומקא דדינא לבער הקוצים מכרם בית ה' צבאות כל בני ישראל להדפם ולרודפם ברדיפות מלאות הזעם להחרימם ולעקור שרשם בנפשם ומאדם, לעקור אותם ולשרש אתהם כדין עבודה זרה. צא תאמר להם. הכנס אל תאמר להם, המה הקהל מורידין ולא מעלין לדכאם ולמוגגם כמוץ לפני מים ולהתאמץ להפרידם איש מאחיו לבלי יתחברו ויתקשרו יחד חבר בוגדים ומנגדים נגד דת תוה"ק ובכל מקום שהם מצויים לשלחם מן המחנה כדין צרוע וזב

ואני על משמרתי אעמודה כמאז כן עתה... ועל כל מי אשר בשם ישראל יכונה ואשר נגע יראת ה' בלבבו מוטל עליו להדפם ולרודפם בכל מיני רדיפות ולהכניעם עד שיד ישראל מגעת כי עוונם טמון בחבם וכי קשים המה לישראל כספחת

אמוני בני ישראל החרדים לשמוע בקול דברו. תצא אש קנאתם ומצאו קוצים כסוחים נתנו לאכלה, יכלו אותם מכרם ה' צבאות העם בחר לנחלה לו, אם ללצים יליצו יריצו גולגלותם. מכנים עצמם בשם חסידים, חסד היא. לא יחמול עליהם איש ולא יחנם, ולתת עדת חנף גלמוד, והשומע להם ימתח על העמוד. לבשו קנאת ה' ויצא רשף לרגליכם, מפיהם לפידים יהיו בלהט החרב נוקמת נקם ברית ותורה נוקמת, והנשארים יראו וישמחו, כי שמחה לצדיק עשות משפט ולפועלי אוון מחיתה, ה' יחישנה בעיתה. נאום עורך שוע בצר נפשו, כי רע עליו המעשה, המקנא קנאתו ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו, אלי' במוהר"ר שלמה זלמן זלה"ה

.

Chabad - Understanding Tanya 2 /Soul is part of G-d

Sorry for making this a post but you are the only representative of Chabad on this blog - as well as a very articulate spokesman. I don't want this blog to be a one sided presentation of the issues.

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver commented to "Chabad - Soul is actually a part of G-d/Tanya":

Re Tanya ch. 2: It's a bit hard, but once you learn it several times it becomes more clear. Here is an article that explains it somewhat in Hebrew:

This is the basic pshat as I understand:

The ben comes from the tipa, which comes from moach ha’av. In the ben himself, the division into different limbs comes only from the stay in the womb of the mother. However, that is not the core of the ben; the true core of the ben is the tipa. However, even once born, in the moach ha’ben there is an open revelation of the connection of the ben with its original source, the moach ha’av. Thus, every individual limb of the body, even the toenails, remains connected with its original source, the moach ha’av, through its connection to the moach ha’ben.
The moach ha’av refers to Chochmah of Atzilus, which is the original shoresh of neshomos Yisroel, the ben.

There are many different levels of neshomos, corresponding to the degree that the different neshomos are affected by the worlds (Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah) as they pass through them on their way into their respective bodies in this lowly world.

As is known, the Jewish people correspond to a body. Some Jews are feet, for they excel in good deeds, etc.. All neshomos stem from the head, however. As is known, the heads of the neshomos Yisroel are the tzadikim. In them the shoresh of neshomos Yisroel in Chochmah of Atzilus shines openly (due to their tremendous bittul to rotzon Hashem). Thus, all Jews connect with their source in Chochmah of Atzilus through connecting with the Tzadikim.

This is the deeper meaning of the Ma’amar Chazal “u’ledovko boi,” that through connecting with talmidei Chachomim, one connects to the Shechinah.

Here is a letter of the Rebbe discussing the inyan on a more advanced level:

Chabad - Reality check/Why nothing is happening

Dialogue between critics and Chabad: The dialogue with Chabad - whether on this blog or elsewhere always seems to hit a dead end. The arguments back and forth are cogently presented here.

Chabad says, "You don't accept our beliefs? That is alright because there is a certain degree of leeway in halacha and hashkofa and that what Chabad does and thinks is well within the range of historically accepted Yiddishkeit.

Critics of Chabad say "if you look at what the Rebbe says it is clearly in violation of the fundamentals of halacha and hashkofa, he assumes that he is G-d incarnate and is thus an intermediate no different than Jesus. He is infallible and omniscient and as a minimum an indispensable intermediate between man and G-d."

Chabad responds, "You simply are twisting the words and ignoring the actual context. Normal Chabad chasidim do not understand the Rebbe's words in the heretical fashion that you have twisted them. The Rebbe's sole concern was for the kavod Shamayim and this is well proven by his accomplishments. Granted there are some crazies within Chabad who believe what the critics's claim but they are a decided minority and have been strongly condemned by the mainstream Chabad leadership.

Critics respond, "The aberrant beliefs are not merely that of a few unbalanced individuals but in fact permeate all of Chabad - especially the educational system. The Rebbe has become the focus of Chabad religion and has displaced G-d. Prayers are directed towards the Rebbe, mitzvos are done for the pleasure of the Rebbe, the Rebbe (whether alive or dead) not only knows what is happening to you but will respond to your requests no matter where you are - he is thus omniscient and omnipotent as well as infallible. These attributes have always beeen reserved for G-d alone and now Chabad attributes them to the Rebbe?!"

Dialogue between critics and Gedolim: Interestingly there is also a corresponding dead end when asking why gedolim don't condemn Chabad. The conversation goes like this.

Critics say to the Gadol, "I have shown the Rosh HaYeshiva the assertions of the Lubavitcher rebbe that he or at least his father in law is the atzmus of G-d. c.v. That he insists that chasidim view him as the infallible intermediary with G-d. I have presented irrefutable evidence that the Rebbe viewed himself as Moshiach. That he asserted that he is the dominant human personality of our time and the human being closest to G-d and that he controls and influences all of world events - as if he were G-d. I have presented much testimony that the Chabad educational system has produced a group of Jews who are heretics. I have presented evidence that their goal is to convert all Jews to their beliefs as well as to convert non-Jews to their form of Judaism. They also have a very active program to convince Bnei Noach to accept the Chabad form of Judaism as the only legitimate understanding. Given this overwhelming evidence why aren't gedolim such as the Rosh HaYeshiva screaming from the rooftops that this is heresy that must be dealt with the same as the Messianic Jews or the Karaites or the followers of Shabtsai Tzvi?"

The Gadol responds, "Our Sages tell us, 'The constructive proposals of the young are destructive.' We are dealing with a very significant part of the Orthodox Jews population. These are Jews who are fully committed to Torah and mitzvos with incredible mesiros nefesh and are a dominant presence in kiruv, kashrus, as well as running countless Jewish communities around the world. If they are amputated from the body of Judaism - it will be as a minimum a horrible destruction to all that we have accomplished after the almost fatal losses of the Holocaust. You are not old enough or learned enough to understand that these disputes have been going on since the time of the Gra and the Baal HaTanya. Even within Chassidus - Chabad (as well as Breslov) have always been viewed as deviating from the acceptable norms of Yiddishkeit. Chabad has always been considered by others and also views itself as a tribe of its own. They have never accepted the full legitimacy of other Orthodox Jews - as we have always questioned their legitimacy. However a pragmatic detente has been reached because it is of no advantage to reject them as it is not beneficial for them to reject us. As long as their poisonous hashkofa of believing in the divinity of the Rebbe and that he is Moshiach - does not win any converts from the mainstream Orthodox communities - nothing will be said or done against them. The fact that they are making baalei teshuva with these heretical views is the lesser of two evils. It is better for someone to be shomer Torah and mitzvos as a chabadnik - then to be a secular Jew. We hold by the view of the Raavad that a sincere mistake does not make someone a heretic.
However if their views ever start penetrating the mainstream - then there will be a strong and decisive reaction just as happened recently with Slifkin. Nobody is overly concerned with the crazy beliefs of baalei teshuva - but if they start corrupting unzerer menschen - there will be war without mercy."

Chabad - Why what happens in Chabad should really worry us

The following excerpt raises many points of concern: The entire essay plus additional material is located on the website "Identifying Chabad"

There are many, many worrisome beliefs and practices common to the contemporary Lubavitch community. Some stand in serious conflict with halacha, others are simply odd. However, we're going ignore most of them and focus primarily on the principle of hiskashrus (a Lubavitcher's attachment to his rebbe).
Why? Because hiskashrus isn't just odd or in conflict with any particular halacha, it would, as we shall soon demonstrate, seem to be minus (a corrupted understanding of G-d and His nature which, among other things, renders the believer unfit to provide religious services).
And because hiskashrus is so central a part of modern Chabad, and is a theme so often repeated in their literature at every level, that no one could ever claim "it's just a few crazy people at the fringe of the movement."
Hiskashrus, in fact, is the movement.

Exactly what is hiskashrus and why is it a problem?
Central to the hiskashrus system is the elevation of a "tzadik" to super-human dimensions. If this tzadik somehow possesses powers and holiness that transcend normal human limitations, Lubavitchers are taught, then a Chassid who connects with him can share in, or benefit from those powers.
Here's how the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel (referring to his deceased father-in-law as "the Rebbe") described hiskashrus (you can see copies of the original edition of these pages here and here):
Igros Kodesh vol. 3, pages 419-420
"A person must, from time to time, think about himself and his position and situation, but the rest of the time it's better to think about the Rebbe, how he is constantly with his mekusharim and how he leads them through every step.
"And this thought alone, even without any especially deep thought, should strengthen all one's kochos ha'nefesh so that they are used in accordance with the will of the Rebbe...
"And lest thoughts that are opposite to this occur to you, you need to know that this is the atzas ha'yetzer who seeks various ways to confuse you from (learning and performing) Torah and avoda.
"From this it is apparent that you must be strong in your trust in the brachos of the tzadik, the Rebbe, who stands by you and leads you on the right path ...and the main thing is that it should be absolute and obvious that the Rebbe is with you, and you can rely on him that everything will be good, because atzmus u'mehus ein sof boruch hu is the ultimate good, and the Rebbe is the memutza ha'mechaber with atzmus u'mehus ein sof boruch hu, and firt durch dem ratzon so it will all be good and ultimately it should be (a) visible and revealed good ..."

So hiskashrus allows (or even requires) that a chossid think constantly about his rebbe - even a rebbe who has already died - and, from those thoughts, he can be confident that this dead rebbe can both guide him and ensure that everything will be fine.
Does this belief lead to any practical applications? The Rebbe's defining sicha from the last day of Pesach, 5710 (printed in Likutei Sichos volume two, pages 510-511 - see it here and here) seems to indicate that there are.
The Rebbe asked the following question: "How can one (make a) request (of) ["betten"] a rebbe; isn't that (a problem of speaking to HaShem through) an intermediary?"
With the word "intermediary", he was acknowledging the Rambam's fifth category of minus (see Hilchos Teshuva, 3; 7). After a number of explanatory paragraphs, the sicha confirms that it is indeed permitted to "betten" a rebbe, and that "one can't ask a question from the problem of intermediary, since this is the essence and existence (of HaShem that HaShem has) enveloped in a body." ["Atzmus u'mehus alein vi er hat zich areingeshtalt in a guf"]
Later, the sicha claims that "the rebbe" (meaning the previous rebbe, who had recently died) "is with us still as before, he is in this room just as before and he hears what we are farbrangen here Once, the rebbe switched on the microphone in his room and heard us farbrangen here. Now, it is the same, only much more."

These words reveal a number of beliefs. One, that a chassid may request all manner of assistance from his rebbe (even a rebbe who has died) in a way that Jews have always believed appropriate only from HaShem. Two, that the rebbe can hear these requests, even though he (or his body) is distant from the petitioner (in other words, that he is effectively omniscient). Three, that the rebbe is able to respond to these requests (in other words, that he is omnipotent - why should anyone daven to someone who can't help?).
It must be noted that the above sicha was delivered in the period between the death of the previous rebbe (the Riyatz) and the appointment of his successor (Menachem Mendel). There can be no doubt that the leaders and educators of the movement were well aware of these teachings when they offered him the position (over the vigorous candidacy of his brother-in-law) some months later (in Shevat, 5711). One can only conclude that they, too, accepted the legitimacy of "atzmus theology." These leaders and their students have taught and guided the movement for all of the past six decades.

Hiskashrus would seem to be a two-way street: not only should a Lubavitcher develop a strong sense of emotional attachment with his (dead) rebbe, but that attachment will arouse the rebbe to provide the chassid's needs.
Here's what the rebbe wrote in Basi L'gani (10 Shevat, 5711)
"We will merit to have the rebbe (the Riyatz) here, below, in a body, below ten (tefachim) and he will redeem us."
And here, in "Beis Chelakim from hisvaadus" (12 Tammuz, 5711)
"Even now, the rebbe stands and guides all matters."

Now, of course, just demonstrating that the rebbe believed and wrote about these ideas doesn't prove that they are actually taught and practiced among his contemporary followers (which is our true concern). There are, however, some readily available samples that should give us some indication.
Here's a brief excerpt taken from a teaching resource (aimed at first to fourth grade children) published by the well-known Chabad educational organization, Tzivos Hashem. The pamphlet is imaginatively entitled "The Rebbe":
"…Whenever we learn a Sicha or a Maamar we become very close and connected to our Rebbe."

Beis Moshiach Magazine
In general, it must be acknowledged that the Chabad magazine, Beis Moshiach, has been widely and publicly criticized (and even banned) by some Lubavitch rabbis. Nevertheless, it's rare to see or hear Lubavitchers disagreeing with the actual beliefs the editors promote; just with their decision to publish in such a public forum. More importantly, many of the magazine's writers hold positions of great influence in Chabad educational establishments. After all, if a community hires and supports such people as educators of their children, one should assume that the community is comfortable with their basic beliefs.

Beis Moshiach, Issue 299
From an article entitled "Wisdom From Our Mashpiim" by Shmuel Alexander (quoting) Rabbi Levi Yitzchok Ginsberg, mashpia, Tomchei Tmimim, Kfar Chabad:
When you relate to the Rebbe as someone from the past, he becomes, r'l, part of history. The difference between the Rebbe and other tzaddikim, especially the other Rebbeim, becomes blurred. The miracles the Rebbe continues to perform, etc., alone do not sufficiently underscore the fact that the Rebbe is our Nasi, now as before.

Beis Moshiach, Issue 320
From the article "Our Generation: What Makes Us Different"
Rabbi Sholom Charitonov, Mashpia in Oholei Torah:
In order to daven, the person has to be infused with the concept that the Rebbe is the one who is the 'connecting intermediary.'

Beis Moshiach Issue 379
From an article entitled "We Can Still Turn to the Rebbe" by Rabbi Aviad Disraeli
I felt the Rebbe's presence not only then, but all along the way. I felt that not only was the Rebbe guiding me, but that he was making it all happen.

What about Chabad summer camps?
Here's something from an individual who was a counselor and teacher at Camp Gan Yisroel of Montreal, Camp Gan Yisroel of Parksville, NY and Camp Gan Yisroel of Los Angeles:

"There is a song that we would sing with the kids every day, here is the chorus:

"The Rebbe is,
The Rebbe lives,
The Rebbe cares,
The Rebbe hears,
The Rebbes sees,
The Rebbe leads,
He is concerned for all our needs.

The Rebbe is,
The Rebbe gives,
The Rebbe sees,
The Rebbe speaks,
The Rebbe smiles..."

"Horizons magazine" - Winter '97-'98, Number 15, page 131
A description by Leah Lipszyc (the wife of a prominent Chabad shaliach) of her experience facing the extended armed robbery of her home in Ukraine.
"Rebbe," I thought. "I know you're here with us. I know you help people in difficult situations. I think this fits the criteria - please help us now. And do it quickly, please, before one of these guys snaps and decides to shoot."
By the way, we are still dismayed that a mainstream Orthodox magazine like Horizons would publish, without comment, this autobiographical account of a woman actually davening to her dead rebbe.

So the rebbe wrote and spoke about it and, for the past fifty years, there have been teachers and mashpiim faithfully transmitting it. But has the message of hiskashrus been picked up by their students? Yes. Without a doubt. It would simply be unthinkable for any Lubavitcher to reject any of his rebbe's established teachings.
It could, perhaps, be argued that, since the rebbe published so many volumes of writings, many people might simply be unaware of this particular thought (perhaps it was "lost in the crowd"). Perhaps such a thing could be argued, but it's just not true. As we said above, hiskashrus is universally known and is inseparable from modern Chabad.

Here's an example from a Chabad-dominated online forum based in Montreal. The question starting off this particular thread was "What do you do to instill hiskashrus to the Rebbe in your children?"
Here are some of the responses; each set of "advice" is from a single poster. (And remember: this is one of the smaller online forums where Lubavitchers "meet" - there are many more just like it.)

We have a picture of the Rebbe in every room of the house. And we point at it and ask "Who is that?" often.
Pictures of the Rebbetzin and the Rebbe's parents abound as well as posters of the previous Rabbeim.
We discuss sichos at every shabbos and YT meal, and specify that it is a teaching of the Rebbe.
We tell our children YOU are the Rebbe's children.
We show videos of the Rebbe (in Oholei Torah they have a vcr in the front entrance with streaming videos, no sound, of the Rebbe walking to his car, talking to people at dollars, davening etc!!! I wish they sold it.)
We have books for children about the Rebbe, and various formats of 'the Rebbe speaks to children'.
We tell our children that they are in the Rebbe's moisad.
Basically, we include the Rebbe and Rabbeim in every day conversation, the way we talk about family members.
[]
i have only one young baby, but this is what i do/think/expect to happen as my family grows:
1) i think it is important to speak to the children in yiddish to give them a basis for further yiddish learning ie. if they go to a school where they teitch the chumash into yiddish, in many mesivtas and zals the mashpiim and teachers hold classes in yiddish, and last but not least, when they hear their Rebbe talking to them in Yiddish (on a tape, video, i"yh Moshiach...) they will be able to understand the Rebbe clearly and straight with out having to wait for translation (like i have to...)
2) pictures of Rebbeim in the house and in their room so that they become familiar faces.
3) the chassidishe yamim tovim are a special day in my house, not like any other day. whether its a treat, a special story or nigun,... these days will stand out amongst others in my children's minds.
4)to name the children after the Rebbeim/ Rebbetzins or great chassidim, so they feel a basic connection already.
5)of course, sfarim for children and adults, minhagim of the Rebbeim, stories and dvar torahs,...
there are probably more but this is what i can think if now.
in some families each child has a "Rebbe album" of their own. i am still thinking about this one...[...]

Chabad - Atzmut/Meant literally?

Rabbi Micha Berger has left a new comment on your post "Chabad - can only be understood from inside by tho...":

R' Oliver,

You leave me in an odd situation.

I'm convinced that you're wrong, that R' MM Shneerson did identify being a vehicle for Hashem's presence with embodying God himself. It seems self-evident from the words "Atzmus uMahus", as well as the rest of the ma'amar after that sentence. I really believe I showed this with selected quotes in an earlier comment.

However, I can't possibly argue that point. Because if I "win" that debate, all I succeeded in doing is giving people reason to believe in heresy.

And so, I must bow out.

I am perfectly happy leaving you a non-heretic due to your refusal to take the rebbe's words as saying what they say.

Chabad - Soul is actually a part of G-d/Tanya

Is the assertion of Atzmut placed in the body simply a paraphrase of what is stated in the beginning of the Second Chapter of Tanya? I listened to Rabbi Manis Friedman's shiur on the matter - I don't see the connection with what it says in Tanya. Even if you want to assert that a tzadik's soul is less transformed and is thus closer to G-d, it doesn't follow that the previous Rebbe should be described as Atzmut placed in a body - more than any other tzadik. I also don't understand the explanation about brain versus toes and connection to parents. At this point none of this computes - but I'll keep trying.

========================================================
Rael Levinsohn comment to "Chabad - Atzmut was placed in a body III":

For those who want an english version of the sicha see

I am confused why everyone is harping on this sicha, when in fact the original source for this idea is in the Tanya itself. Likutei Amarim Chapter 2:

See here:

Key line: "The second, uniquely Jewish, soul is truly “a part of G-d above,

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

ונפש השנית בישראל היא חלק אלו-ה ממעל ממש

The second, uniquely Jewish, soul is truly “a part of G-d above,”

----

“A part of G-d above” is a quotation from Scripture (Iyov 31:2). The Alter Rebbe adds the word “truly” to stress the literal meaning of these words. For, as is known, some verses employ hyperbolic language. For example, the verse describing “great and fortified cities reaching into the heavens” is clearly meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. In order that we should not interpret the phrase “a part of G-d above” in a similar manner, the Alter Rebbe adds the word “truly”, thus emphasizing that the Jewish soul is quite literally a part of G-d above.

Chabad - Rav Shochet criticizes Prof. Berger's book

Rael Levinsohn commented to "Chabad - Atzmut was placed in a body III": Another important source regarding this topic is this article by Rabbi Immanuel Schochet.

"When you hear something unseemly about another, be deeply grieved. For if the report is true, the one spoken about is not good. If the report is false, the one speaking is not good." (Baal Shem Tov) This maxim comes to mind when reading Prof. David Berger's recent book in which he accuses a prominent Jewish religious movement, Chabad-Lubavitch, of distorting Jewish tradition, false messianism, adopting Christian doctrines, and indicts its followers as heretics and idolaters.

Key quote:

The "controversial" phrase in its full context makes it crystal clear, beyond any shadow of doubt, that a rebbe is not, Heaven forbid, identified with the Godhead. God, rebbe and hasidim are incontrovertibly distinguished one from another. In sound Talmudic-Midrashic tradition, the tzadik (saint) stands above the people and serves at best as in intermediary to bring the latter to a bond with God. The concept of intermediary is explicitly qualified to be of supportive nature ("an intermediary who joins together"), as opposed to, Heaven forbid, the Christian concept of an indispensable intermediary ("an intermediary who separates") which violates a fundamental principle of the Jewish faith.
The distortion by the lunatic fringe of the messianists and the venomous mitnagdim who reject hasidism a priori, is no more than crude ignorance or pernicious mischief. "Whoever wishes to err, let him err!"
It should be noted, though, that the Rebbe appears to have anticipated this tragic malignity three decades before the birth of the lunatic fringe, and way before the "discovery" of his words by the mitnagdim in the 1980's: in the reprints of this discourse in Kuntres Yud Shvat (published in the 1960's), and in Sefer Hama'amarim Bati Legani (New York 1977, p. 277) he ordered the deletion of the "controversial" phrase!

Chabad - Lubavitcher Rebbe & Rav Hutner

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.

Chabad - What is a rebbe?

The following translated excerpt from the writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is from Chabad.org

There 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.

Chabad - Atzmut was placed in a body III

This is a continuation of the discussion with Rabbi Oliver

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

While we have been have an intellectual discussion of Chabad - we know that a picture is worth a 1000 words. There are many video available on Youtube and other sites regarding these issues.

Perhaps of direct relevance is a video from one of the Chabad sites showing the Rebbe giving out dollars and being given a tamborine stating he is moshiach and the woman giving it to him saying that he is moshiah and he accepts the tamborine.

Here is another showing the Nashei of Chabad giving him signatures on a petition proclaiming him Moshiach

check out 770live.com for many interesting items.

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=NIWwACD9hH8&feature=related

and:

This one which shows the "Rebbe" in 770 in 2006

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hULJGOtnD-U&feature=related

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=hULJGOtnD-U&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YNpe7l_xN6U&feature=related

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=9trQRME1L1c

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is also very important to understand that my questions - and that of others is -not part of an agressive offensive of Litvaks against Chassidim. The opposite is true. It is in large degree the defense of Litvaks against a massive campaign by Chabad and Breslov to change the nature of Yiddishkeit as we have known it. Anyone who lives in Yerushalayim and other places is constantly exposed to ads regarding Moshiach. Everywhere one finds graffiti regarding na nach.

A few years a psychologist friend of mine was giving a series of lecuures in Kfar Chabad to the teachers. One day he was told by the principal that the day of the next lecture needed to be changed because they needed to dedicate a mikveh on that day .When my friend asked why it was so urgent to dedicate the mikveh on that day - the principal responded, "Why don't you know? That is the day the Rebbe is coming to Kfar Chabad!"

Let me close with a personal anecdote concerning my experience with Chabad. [BTW I gave the Rebbe a copy of my Yad Moshe when it first came out and received his beracha in return.]

The event is seared into my memory - even though it took place thirty-five years ago. I was standing in the entrance hallway of 770 talking to a shliach I had known for several years. In the middle of our discussion he turns to me and says in a very serious tone.

"You are an apikorus! While it is true you keep Torah and mitzvos but you refuse to become a Lubavitcher. Everyone knows that in each generation there is one tzadik who has the biggest connection (tzinur) to HaShem. Everyone knows that in our generation it is the Rebbe. Your refusal to accept him as your rebbe shows that you really are not interested in the closest possible connection to HaShem. You are an apikorus!"

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

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver commented to "Infallibility - Are our religious leaders infallib...":

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

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

Perspective of a Chosid

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

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

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

Perspective of a non-Chosid

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

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

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