Devarim - Moshe said it on his own

The Eighth Principle of Faith is that the Torah we have was given by G-d to Moshe at Sinai.

רמב"ם (סנהדרין י:א) והיסוד השמיני הוא תורה מן השמים. והוא, שנאמין שכל התורה הזו הנמצאת בידינו היום הזה היא התורה שניתה למשה, ושהיא כולה מפי הגבורה...

However this principle becomes problematic when we come to the book of Devarim.

The Abarbanel says quite bluntly in his introduction to Devarim that it was written by Moshe and then afterwards G-d agreed to it and had it included in the Torah. While one might respond that the Abarbanel was not main stream and his view can be ignored, this is also the view of the Ohr HaChaim. Despite the Ohr HaChaim's stature in the world of Chassidus - the Munkatcher Rebbe declared this view to be heresy

In short, the first four books of the Torah were given directly by G-d, but the fifth book was composed by a godly man who was able to express G-d's views so perfectly hat his words became Torah. Interestingly the Leshem says something similar concerning the views of Chazal - which seriously blurs the distinction between Torah and Rabbinic mitzvos.

I am not sure the readership of this blog is interested in this topic - which many find very disturbing. But it is directly relevant to the other topic - Chabad/Rebbe - concerning which I have received a number of emails saying that they were tired of hearing about it. If there is interest I will be glad to post more on the topic - otherwise I will move in another direction.

Chabad - Messianics - Everyone is today!

There has been some debate as to whether the Messianic faction or the Anti-Messianic faction is the dominate one among Lubavitchers. This is in fact one of the key concerns of Prof. David Berger in his attack on Chabad.

I recently asked a Chabad friend of mine who is a distinguished talmid chachom, posek and askan about this issue. He said, "There is no one in Chabad today who doesn't think the Rebbe is Moshiach. The only dispute concerns political issues - should this fact be concealed or be revealed to outsiders." Thus the question suggests a false dichotomy which only serves to conceal the truth.

Kiruv XIV - Aish HaTorah - Is there a better way?

Pole's comment to "Kiruv IX - Aish HaTorah as viewed by secular Jewis...":

If Aish is so open minded, how come everyone who is integrated successfully into their stream of Judaism comes out looking the same as all others in it, speaks the same as all others in it, wears a black kippah, swims with the tide of the social norms and is unable to think critically against anything that its rabbi's preach?

Upon attending one of their events in London, I asked a question that went against and challenged the thinking of the lecturer and what she was trying to convince her audience of. When the lecture finished and everyone was givent he opportunity to mingle and socialise with others in the audience, I was taken aside by one of the rabbis so as not to be able to mix and be a 'bad' influence on the others who perhaps may have become drawn to the lecturer's way of thinking. I was shocked.

Although my dislike for Aish is large however, I cannot help but feel my anger should be more aimed at those who should have been providing decent Jewish education to our children in the first place - that being the mainstream Jewish communities that run cheder curriculums and Jewish leadership as a whole. Aish and other kiruv groups like it are simply picking up the shattered pieces of Jewish identity and education which were left lying on the ground by the crappy education these teenagers (mainly referring to the UK) received as children.

It may be too late for there to be a solution to this organisation now as it would indeed be very hard to challenge the millions of kiruv dollars that are pumped into Aish and Ohr Sameach (students in London are now offered $600 to simply attend a 6 week lecture series during which they are fed the offers for free trips etc). I'm not saying that kiruv is necessarily bad but there is a long term way of doing it which requires foresight, strategy and leadership to carry out, and not a blizkrieg of Bible Codes and other nonsense to 'Wow!' someone into drastically change their whole lifestyle and thinking that more often than not backfires to return them to a similar, if not worse, position than they were in before.

Chabad - Atzmut in a body/R' Oliver & R' Berger II

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...

“Rather, you cite his proofs that the chiddush is not as big of a chiddush as it seems; that it has priority.”

What the Rebbe said wasn’t a chiddush altogether, as is evident from the traditional sources that he cites immediately. It’s just that people who don’t learn Chassidus don’t know about the earlier sources, so when they saw the phrase taken out of context discussing an idea they never heard of, without bothering to read the explanation that the Rebbe goes to the trouble to give in the sicha, they concluded (unfairly) that this idea is odd and new (to put it nicely).

“In none of the quote does your rebbe define Atzmus. Was he saying that the Zohar said that seeing Rashbi was a way of seeing godliness, or that the Zohar said that seeing him was actually seeing God?”

The term Atzmus needs no definition; it is understood (to the extent that it can be understood, considering that it is beyond our understanding). The Rebbe then EXPLAINED that seeing the Rashbi was a way of Hashem revealing himself through the Tzaddik, because of the Tzaddik’s tremendous bittul, NOT as the misnagdim twist it to say, that the Tzaddik IS .. chas v’shalom. Does anyone think that an angel is shem Havayeh? No, but because of the angel’s bittul, shem Havayeh was revealed THROUGH the angel to the extent that the angel is called b’shem Hashem. That was the point of the reference to the Ma’amar concerning the fact that the posuk identifies shem Havayeh with the melach. So too with Tzadikim.

As for ein od milvado, it’s of course a core concept in Chassidus Chabad, but it’s not the focus of that sicha, so I really don’t see the relevance. If you want to ask a further profound philosophical question concerning ein od milvado and Beriah yesh mei’ayin, that’s fine, but that’s a broader discussion. It simply unfair to say that “I disagree that the Rebbe explicitly and clearly explains himself as meaning one and not the other,” when as I have shown, that’s exactly what the Rebbe does, by quoting concerning angelim being identified with shem Hashem, and concerning Moshe’s saying “I will give the grass.”

“No one explicitly points out why by proving chibur, one proves true unity, identity, "Atzmus uMahus", not "merely" a vehicle for the Shechinah ("merely in quotes because being the merkavah is only a small thing by comparison).”

The Rebbe never said, as you put it, “true unity, identity” that the Tzaddik IS etc. chas v’shalom. The Rebbe spoke about Hashem being revealed THROUGH the Tzaddik because of the Tzaddik’s bittul, which is clear from the sources cited in explanation of the phrase.


“On the one hand, "the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid." On the other hand, the text concludes "and he [ie Moshe -micha] was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all." It leaves us wanting. MRA"H is both not the Borei, and not a nivra distinct from the Borei. Moshe isn't the Giver of grass, however Moshe is so mevateil himself as to be a puppet that the Giver can speak through.”

If you read a full sentence instead of breaking it up, you’ll see that it’s very straightforward. The Alter Rebbe simply says that due to Moshe Rabeinu’s bittul, HE wasn’t an independent metzius from Hashem, so therefore Hashem could be revealed through him. I see nothing difficult here, and I’m tired of repeating myself. All I can say is that if you still do find difficulty with it (and see the need to share that with one and all), maybe you need to learn more Chassidus so you’ll be able to grasp such concepts better, and maybe it would be wiser to get more background study in a field of knowledge (you still didn’t answer my question concerning your degree of expertise in the particular area of Chassidus Chabad) before you publicise to the entire world your beginner’s criticisms. Chassidus Chabad is very different from chakirah, and expertise in one doesn’t translate to expertise in the other.

“Check again what I wrote. I was careful to repeatedly say that I am trying to give a dispassionate assessment of a single idea, not of any people. (Never mind labeling them; even if I knew someone believed kefirah, that's insufficient to brand him a kofeir.)”

Huh? You said clearly and the beginning of the conversation that Lubavitchers are “apiqursim”! Have you forgotten already?

Rabbi Micha Berger comment to "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?":

R' Oliver, you write: "The term Atzmus needs no definition; it is understood (to the extent that it can be understood, considering that it is beyond our understanding). The Rebbe then EXPLAINED that seeing the Rashbi was a way of Hashem revealing himself through the Tzaddik..."

If you take Atzmus without a definition, then you are talking about G-d being placed in a body. That's the literal words. So clearly you are requiring a subtext.

Your rebbe does not say it's Hashem's way of revealing Himself. He compares it to earlier quotes. It could mean he is saying the Rashbi too had G-d inhabiting his body no less than any meaning you assign it. There is no explanation in the text, only proofs. Which means that your argument that the words shouldn't just be read literally and taken in context is difficult -- nothing in the context explicitly contradicts the literal.

What there is is a footnote pointing you to the Alter Rebbe in Liqutei Torah. Note this isn't in the body of the text. It's not quoted or paraphrased. Not quite the clear denial of the literal one would expect if a reiterated "Atzmus uMahus" didn't mean "Atzmus uMahus" are actually places in a body.

The citation to Liqutei Torah, in turn, actually says two contradictory things: 1- that Moshe isn't the one who gives the grass, he speaking on behalf of G-d; and 2- when Moshe opens his mouth, G-d is speaking. So, who is actually speaking -- Moshe as connected to G-d, or Moshe as G-d's vehicle? This too isn't even a clear disproof of the notion!

I disagree with you as to what the Liqutei Torah means, since you're taking one side of a paradoxical paragraph. I, OTOH, feel that placing it within the greater context of yeish meiAyin, every Jewish soul being cheileq E-loak mima'al *mammash* (as RMMS stresses), ein od Milvado, etc... shows that a memutza hamechabeir and Atzmus are identical. How? Everything is G-d, therefore something that doesn't hide that fact is *blatantly* G-d.

This is where I think RMMS wasn't saying what the Elohistim claim. He was saying the rebbe is G-d in a quantitatively different way than a rock is. Everything is G-d, and humans are more aware of that than rocks, Jews more than nachriim, and a rebbe most of all. They are claiming the rebbe is qualitatively different.

I said this at the open of this discussion, but with a bad and offensive choice of phrasing:

RMMS was deifying the rebbe in a Buddhist way, they're deifying the rebbe in a Xian one.

And there is a machloqes as to whether this quantitative difference assigned to the rebbe reaches the point of violating the ikkarim, or not. RMMS obviously was meiqil (if he said it was true, then obviously he held it was mutar to believe), but your rebbe may be a daas yachid on this.

Chabad - Rav Schach & Lubavitcher Rebbe

No account of how gedolim viewed the Lubavitcher Rebbe would be complete without mentioning Rav Schach. The Yated Ne'eman - Rav Schach's newpaper - reported the following I, II,

It is important to note that contrary to popular myth Rav Schach got along well with Chassidim. It was specifically the messianic, separatist views of the Lubavitcher Rebbe that he found very problematic. The following is an article written by a chassidic askan regarding Rav Schach.

HaRav Shach and the Chassidim

On several occasions the Rosh Yeshiva told me it pained him deep inside over the sheim ra he had acquired as a "hater of chassidim." This was "total sheker" he told me resolutely. "We are fighting against secularism in the yeshivas. Today, besiyata deShmaya people are learning Torah in both Chassidic and Lithuanian yeshivos. In my view there is no difference between them; all of them are important and dear to me. In fact, go ahead and ask your Chassidic friends with us at Ponevezh if I distinguish between Chassidic and Lithuanian bochurim."

Few people know that the Rosh Yeshiva served as rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Karlin in Loninitz before the War and was very successful there. In a sizable newspaper article to mark the 35th anniversary since the yeshiva's founding, a staff member in charge of the talmidim during the yeshiva's early years writes, "He continued to feel great love for the yeshiva."

And in a letter Maran wrote to mark the celebrations, the great love he felt for chassidim working hard to learn Torah was clearly apparent. The letter is full of nostalgia for those years. "And what a glorious sight it was when the Rebbe came to Loninitz. totally dedicated to the yeshiva in particular and to harbotzas Torah in general. The Rebbe was particularly happy when he came to spend a day with the members of the yeshiva. He inspired them with words of encouragement and was like a father to them, fulfilling all of their needs. He also sat down with them to eat," wrote HaRav Shach years later when he was already rosh yeshiva of Ponevezh and leader of the generation.

Recently I spoke with a prominent Chassidic Jew, R' Mordechai Leib Levine, who now lives in Jerusalem. He used to run the bookstore in Williamsburg. He told me HaRav Shach always showed great respect toward Chassidic bochurim who learned well. He would provide them funds for their basic needs (from money the Rebbe entrusted to him) and would sometimes give them a bonus saying, "You have another ma'aloh-- you're a warm, Chassidic bochur."

Chassidus - A Simple Jew's postings

A Simple Jew sent these links to some fascinating and relevant discussion about Chassidus

http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2008/05/question-answer-with-rabbi-zvi-leshem.html

http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2008/06/guest-posting-by-chabakuk-elisha-doing.html

http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2008/05/dont-be-surprised-every-other-group.html

Chabad -The apologetics aren't satisfying

Rabbi Oliver has requested that I respond to his explanations and defense of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

The simple answer is that the hashkofa that Rabbi Oliver presents is alien. I hear his sources and have read Ahl HaTzadikim - which is on my desk in front of me as I type these words. The question is at this point what is the question? If you want to argue from the point of kabbala and chassidus - I acknowledge that I am not an expert in either. However even to the degree to which the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe are explained and follow logically from axioms and principles - they don't compute. I am more comfortable with the view expressed by Rebbe Nachman regarding the kabbalistic concept of tzimtzum.

Only in the future will it be possible to understand the Tzimtzum that brought the 'Empty Space' into being, for we have to say of it two contradictory things... [1] the Empty Space came about through the Tzimtzum, where, as it were, He 'limited' His Godliness and contracted it from there, and it is as though in that place there is no Godliness... [2] the absolute truth is that Godliness must nevertheless be present there, for certainly nothing can exist without His giving it life. (Likkutei Moharan I, 64:1).

With all the logic and cited sources - the result is not what I learned in yeshiva. It is also not because it involves kabbalistic/chassidic concepts. It is the resulting picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as ish elokim that I choke on. That is not the way my rebbeim talked about gedolim and it is not anything like the descriptions of gedolim I have ever read or heard. What you see in your rebbe is not what I saw in Rav Moshe Feinstein or Rav Aaron Kutler. The infallible, navi who is omniscient and should be the focus of our prayers and the motivation for our good deeds - has never appeared as a model in my world. Not even Moshe Rabbeinu is described this way.

The obvious question is "so what?" What does it matter if the chassidim learn and understand yiddishkeit differently? The simple answer is the net result of these differences are that Chabad is separating from the body of Orthodox Jewry. While the Rebbe was alive and was firmly in control over the consequences of these statements and attitudes - it is possible to declare firmly eilu v'eilu.

What I see happening is that these ideas and beliefs have already produced in certain parts of Chabad a religion which is increasingly less recognizably Jewish than it was while the Rebbe was alive.

What happens here on this blog is possibly not of consequence for the future of the Jewish people. However the increasing alienation between Chabad and the rest of us does have consequences. If they continue growing apart - at some point there will be a split like there was when Jews who believed in Yoshka became Christians, when the Sadducees split off from the main body, when Karaites went their own way as did Shabtsai Tzvi and the Reform and Conservative movements. The fragmenting of Jews is a well known phenomenon in our history. Whether a total break happens I don't know since I am not a prophet - but the fault lines do grow bigger by the day.

Two hundred years ago Chassidus threatened to break off from the mainstream - but didn't. It is not clear to me that Chabad will not end up not only splitting off in the future - but also be rejected by the mainstream.

Chabad has to deal with people like me who get high anxiety and distress when they see alien behavior and hear bizarre assertions. All the intellectual proofs and explanations - do not remove this intuitive repulsion to the unfamiliar. Similar Chabad is increasingly angry and hurt by the revulsion felt and expressed by us. This is not sinas chinom. Certain differences and variations are acceptable and even treasured. However it is inevitable that beyond a certain point - the differences lead to the perception that that is not one of us and there is simply a reflexive rejection response.

I obviously am not poskening nor prescribing - I am simply describing what is. Therefore I say to Rabbi Oliver - nice try. But I am not convinced. My queasiness when reading the statements of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not assuaged by your soothing words and seemingly logical explanations. Chaval - I was hoping you would succeed.

Chabad - Gerrer Rebbe's regard for the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver comment to "Chabad - Chasidim - not just Litvaks - are upset":

THE HOLY ADMUR: RABBI YISROEL ALTER ZATZAL OF GER (GUR)

From Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha
by Rabbi Shalom Dover Ha’Levi Wolpo

Translated by Alexander Zushe Kohn Part III

THE GREATEST LEADER IN OUR GENERATION

The gaon Rabbi Nachum Kornbisser, rosh yeshiva of the Chiddushei HaRim yeshiva related’ the following:

“During the month of Shevat 5730 (January-February, 1970) when letters were being sold for the Torah scroll of Moshiach, I was staying with the Beis Yisroel at his home in Kfar Shmaryahu. Some Chabad shluchim came to visit the Admur in connection with the matter of the Torah scroll. The Admur later told me: ‘I inscribed a letter, and I also gave them money. I heard a rumor that there is someone who opposes the Rebbe’s declaration that this Torah scroll can bring the Redemption; I am completely incapable of fathoming this opposition.’

“At that time, there was also a rumor that a certain individual described the matter of the Torah scroll as idolatry, G-d forbid. In reaction to this, the Beis Yisroel told me: “I find it very hard to believe that so-and-so said this; but if I were to find out that he did indeed say it, I would no longer wish to meet with him. I once had a visitor who called Breslov “idolatry”; after that, I was no longer prepared to meet with him. You should know that the Lubavitcher is an awesome person [a moradiker mentch], leader of Israel.’ I heard many times from the Admur’s holy mouth that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the greatest leader of our generation.” (Kfar Chabad Magazine issue 127.)

I heard from prominent Gerrer chassidim, relatives of the Gerrer Admurim, that when the Beis Yisroel received “complaints” that Lubavitcher chassidim are calling their Rebbe Moshiach, he said, “As long as he comes already.”

AT THE HEAD OF AN ARMY OF THOUSANDS OF JEWS

At the Siyum HaRambam of 5747, the gaon, Rabbi Yisroel Piekarski zatzal, related the following:

“I remember how over twenty years ago, when I was by the Admur of Ger, the Beis Yisroel zatzal, and we spoke about the greatness of Lubavitch, the Admur spoke in glorious terms of the activities of Lubavitch in bringing Jews back to the folds of Torah. He said: “When the complete Redemption will come, the tzaddikim of all the generations will be called upon to demonstrate their achievements. One can easily imagine the awesome scene, when his holy honor, the Admur of Lubavitcher shlita, will approach at the head of an army of tens of thousands of Jews whom he brought back to Torah and mitzvahs, and to their Father in Heaven.”

ENCOURAGES THE YESHIVA STUDENTS TO STUDY TANYA

On 25 Nissan 5755 (April 25, 1995), the gaon and chassid, Rabbi Shabsai Slavtitzki of Antwerp, wrote to me as follows:

1. “When I was learning in the Kol Torah yeshiva in Jerusalem (about twenty-five years ago), there was a bachur who came from a Gerrer family. When a match was proposed for him, he went to ask the Beis Yisroel about it, and the Beis Yisroel gave him his blessings. Since this bachur studied Chabad chassidus, and had a connection to Chabad, he also asked the Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach about the proposed match. The Rebbe answered him that based on his written description of the woman in question she is not for him.

“The bachur did not know what to do. As a good friend of this bachur, I suggested that he go back to the Gerrer Rebbe, tell him what the Rebbe said, and ask him what to do. He followed my suggestion, and the Beis Yisroel told him to as act in accordance with the Rebbe’s advice because, ‘He sees high.’1 Another match was subsequently proposed for the bachur, and again, he went to receive the Beis Yisroel’s blessing. The Admur asked him: “Did you ask the Lubavitcher Rebbe for a blessing?’ When the bachur replied that he had not, the Admur instructed him to ask the Rebbe do so.

2. “During that time, there used to be a Tanya class late at night for the students of Kol Torah, in the home of the Amshinover Rebbe, in Bayit Vegan. The Gerrer Rebbe used to visit the Amshinover Rebbe from time to time, and on one such occasion, he saw us studying the Tanya in a large group. He was very pleased, and he said, “Fine, fine, learn, learn,”2 indicating his pleasure by tapping us with his cane.

3. “One of the bachurim who studied in this Tanya group came from a Gerrer family, and he had asked the Beis Yisroel if he should join our class. The Admur told him to participate because “it is impossible to be G-d fearing without learning the first twelve chapters of Tanya.” When the Admur heard that there were yeshivas that did not permit the study of Tanya, he responded with very sharp words – words that I do not wish to repeat.”

THE REBBE STANDS UP

In the seifer Rosh B’nei Yisroel,3 the gaon and chassid, Rabbi Yosef Segal relates an amazing story:

Towards the end of Elul 5720 (September, 1960) he traveled to the Rebbe. Before his departure, he asked the Beis Yisroel – with whom he was very close – for a blessing. When the Admur heard that he was traveling to the Rebbe, he said,” Give the Rebbe my regards, and bless him, in my name, with a k’siva va’chasima tova.4

When he later had a private audience with the Rebbe, and he began to relay the Gerrer Rebbe’s blessing, the Rebbe suddenly rose from his chair, and listened to the blessing while standing. When Rabbi Segal completed the blessing, the Rebbe responded “Amen!” sat back down, and said, “G-d should help that all the blessings that Jews give one another should be fulfilled.” (See there the rest of this awesome story, which reveals the deep soul connection the Rebbe and the Beis Yisroel shared.)

Chabad - Rav S. Z. Auerbach's regard for the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver comment to "Chabad - Chasidim - not just Litvaks - are upset":

There is a sefer Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha with many quotes from gedolei Yisroel about the Rebbe, that shows the ultimate mutual respect that they had for each other, in contrast to the vicious lies that are being bandied about here. I'll post some things, and hopefully Rabbi Eidensohn will see fit to turn this imp't info. into blog posts just as he turns every small comment on a topic into one.

THE MIGHTY GAON RABBI SHLOMO ZALMAN AURBACH
From Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha
by Rabbi Shalom Dover Ha’Levi Wolpo
Translated by Alexander Zushe Kohn

The mighty gaon Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach was born in the holy city of Yerushalayim on the holy day of Shabbos, 23 Tammuz 5670 (July 30, 1910), to his father, the gaon and kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Yehuda Leib zatzal, and his mother the tzedeikes Tzivya, peace unto her. (Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Leib, a descendant of the holy Toldos Yaakov Yosef zatzal, was the founder and rosh yeshiva of the Kabbala yeshiva Shaar HaShamayim, and the author of Chacham Lev.)[...]

TREMENDOUS ESTEEM FOR THE REBBE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE NESIUS

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s noble lineage – on his father’s side he was a descendant of the Baal Shem Tov’s great disciple, the Toldos Yaakov Yosef, and on his mother’s side he was a descendant of one of the Tzemach Tzedek’s great oral scribes – was undoubtedly a factor in his very close relationship with the chassidic Torah leaders of our generation, and in his admiration for the Rebbe.

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s first correspondence with the Rebbe, I found in a letter he sent the Rebbe in 5722 (1962), together with his booklet Hatzaa L’Tikunei Nashim B’Inyanei Nida. With permission from the Agudas Chassidei Chabad library, I photographed the letter. It says as follows:

“The seventeenth of Adar, 5722 (February 21, 1962). I have sent my booklet to the master and Admur shlita. I would greatly rejoice in hearing your holy opinion on this stringent matter .... I know that you are extremely busy with matters pertaining to the entire Jewish people ... the main issue, in my humble opinion, is in siman 2, and with regard to the master, your ancestor, the Rav zal. It should be immediately noticeable to Your Grand Holiness that I speak of the Rav zal with fear and trepidation. Indeed, I regard him as one of the ancient ones .... I also entreat the Admur to look at siman 4 .... I would thus greatly rejoice in hearing your opinion, the opinion of Torah, on this matter. I very much request that in your prayers you mention me for good health, nachas from my family and disciples, and [goodness] in all spiritual and physical/material matters. My [full] name is Shlomo Zalman, son of my father and teacher Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Leib Aurbach, and my mother and teacher, Tzivya, peace unto her.”

Shaarei Chesed, Yerushalayim.”

I heard from the gaon’s grandson, that it is common knowledge among the members of his family that after receiving the gaon’s letter the Rebbe expressed admiration for Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s reverence for the Alter Rebbe’s rulings.

THE YEARS OF A KING

AND LEADER

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman’s great admiration for the Rebbe is also evident in a letter dated 5 Nissan 5732 (March 20, 1972):

“To His Grand Greatness, the majestic and honorable Admur of Lubavitch – whose name, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is greater than the [title] Rabban – may your well-being always increase. Though it is not customary among us for lesser ones to send greetings to greater ones, I nevertheless join the masses in public prayer and blessing for one who is needed by the masses – blessing that G-d may ‘add days onto the days of the king,’ for the days of a king and leader are not merely the years of an individual, but ‘the years of all generations.’ May you reach the age of strength in blessing and joy, for [G-d’s] kindness prevails upon those who fear Him. May G-d’s desire to enhance the greatness and glory of the Torah throughout the entire world be carried out successfully through you, and may you quickly merit to gaze upon the pleasantness of G-d through the new light that [that will shine] on Tzion, and through the coming of our righteous Moshiach.”

I heard from those who were close to the gaon that after sending out this letter, he enthusiastically repeated the interpretation he had included on the verse “May You add days to the days of the king, may his years be like all generations” – i.e., that the days of the Rebbe, who is a king over Israel, are not his individual years, but the years of the entire generation.

At a family Sheva Brachos in 5752 (1991-92), I presented Rabbi Shlomo Zalman with my seifer, Yechi HaMelech. When I handed him the seifer, I said, “Who are the kings? The sages [are the kings]!” Rabbi Shlomo Zalman lifted his eyes from the seifer, and focused them sharply on me. “No,” he said. “Not just [in the sense] that the sages are the kings – [here it means] king literally!”

“THE WONDROUS AND UNIQUE ADMUR”

On the ninth of Nissan 5737 (March 28, 1977), Rabbi Shlomo Zalman sent his blessing to the Rebbe in honor of the Rebbe’s seventieth birthday:

“I, the small one, join tens of thousands of Jews in thanking G-d, and in rejoicing over the wondrous and unique Admur, the Rebbe of Lubavitch shlita, reaching the age of seventy-five. He is a tower of light for this generation, radiating and spreading luminous rays of truth and faith into the hearts of Jews everywhere, and imbuing them with the light of G-d’s Torah, and the glow of its commandments. With gratitude for the [Rebbe’s] past [activities], I join everyone in prayer and blessing that G-d should not remove his kindness from us, and G-d should lengthen [the Rebbe’s] days and the years of his reign, until ‘there will arise a Kohen to [inquire of] the Urim and the Tumim’ speedily in our days – amen!”

In a Torah essay sent for inclusion in a special compilation published in honor of the Rebbe’s birthday that year, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman opens with the following words: “I hereby join in printing words of Torah in this compilation dedicated to the great honor of the Admur, the Rebbe of Lubavitch shlita, who is wondrous and unique in our generation in Torah and piety. Indeed, ‘there is no honor other than Torah.’“ He also sent Torah insights for inclusion in the seifer, Kavod Chachamim, published in 5742 (1981/82) in honor of the Rebbe’s eightieth birthday.

ADMIRATION FOR THE REBBE’S EFFORTS TO BRING JEWS BACK TO TORAH

On 11 Nissan, 5739 (April 8, 1979), Rabbi Shlomo Zalman sent a letter to the gaon and chassid Rabbi Nachum Trebnik o.b.m., the Rabbi of Kfar Chabad at the time:

“Greetings. Since I am unable to fulfill your request of joining the farbrengen taking place today in Kfar Chabad in honor of the birthday of the honorable and holy Admur of Lubavitch shlita, I wish to express here my participation through a blessing and a prayer that G-d should lengthen the days of his reign in goodness and sweetness and G-d’s kindness should prevail upon him as on all those who fear Him, so that the power invested in his mighty actions and activities – to which their can be no comparison in terms of their effects at bringing the hearts of the Jewish people closer to our Father in Heaven – should grow stronger. May his eyes quickly behold, together with all of us, that G-d has chosen His people and His inheritance, with the coming of the righteous Redeemer – amen sela! Thus speaks Shlomo Zalman Aurbach.”

When the Rebbe launched his campaign to have every Jewish child purchase a letter in a special Torah scroll, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman purchased letters in the Torah scroll for his grandchildren.

The gaon always had high regard for the opinions and rulings the Rebbe voiced on matters concerning the Jewish masses. Thus, for example, when it came to the “Who is a Jew” issue, he joined the gaonim, Rabbis Yechezkiel Abramski zatzal, and Yosef Sholom Elyashiv shlita in issuing a proclamation, “an outcry from the holy city of Yerushalayim,” concerning the obligation to amend the law so that non-halachic conversions would not be recognized. Similarly, in the beginning of Menachem Av 5746 (August 1986), he stated his opinion that “the only solution to the “Who is a Jew” problem, is [to correct the law to say] ‘halachic conversions.’”

Sinas Chinom II - Netziv

Netziv (Introduction to Bereishis): Bereishis was called Sefer HaYoshor (the Book of the Upright) by the prophets. This is because it is about the Avos—Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov who were called Upright by Bilaam. We need to understand why he singled them out by the title Upright instead of other descriptions such as tzadik or chasid? Furthermore, why is Bereishis singled out with this description of Upright? Another question is why Bilaam asked that his end should be like those who have such a description? The praise of Uprightness is to reinforce G-d’s judgment in destroying the Second Temple which as a generation of tzadikim and chassidim and those devoted to learning Torah—however they were not Upright in the mundane world. Therefore, because of the baseless hatred in their hearts to each other they suspected that whomever they saw who did not conduct himself according to their opinion in Yiras Shamayim—that he must be a heretic. Consequently, this led to much killing and all the evils in the world until the Temple was destroyed. Thus, there was an acknowledgement of the Uprightness of G-d’s judgment in that He would not tolerate tzadikim like these. Rather he wanted tzadikim who were upright in the world. Because even if the non-upright tzadikim were motivated by religious consideration—such conduct destroys the world. Therefore, this was the praise of the Avos that besides being tzadikim and chassidim and lovers of G-d to the ultimate degree they were also upright. That means that they conducted themselves in relation to the peoples of the world—even the debased idol worshippers with love and were concerned about their welfare in regards to the preservation of Creation. This we see in the pleading of Avraham for the people of Sedom—even though he had total hatred for them because of their wickedness—nevertheless he wanted them to live

Netziv (Devarim 32:5): It is known that the destruction of the First Temple was because of idolatry, sexual immorality and murder which angered G‑d. The destruction of the Second Temple was because of sinas chinom. We have explained in Bamidbar (35:34) that they were involved in the study of Torah and serving G‑d nevertheless most of the killing was done for the sake of G‑d. In other words they would label as a Sadducee (heretic) anyone who transgressed any of the commandments. They would then have them punished as a heretic and thus their conduct was very destructive – even though they thought they were motivated by concern for the honor of heaven. … Thus the problem of the Second Temple was that ostensibly good deeds were now mixed with bad motivation. Thus it was hard to separate the good from the bad since the bad was done for the sake of heaven.

Sinas Chinom - Hatred that yields nothing

The following excerpt is from the Ohr Someach website

based on a lecture by Rabbi Yochanan Zweig

To answer these questions, we need to understand what is meant by the term "Sinas Chinom." Our Sages tell us that it is Sinas Chinom that destroyed Jerusalem, and it is Sinas Chinom which keeps us mired in exile until this very day. Sinas Chinom is sometimes translated as "baseless hatred" - hatred for no reason. When there is love and caring among Jews, Hashem acts with us in a way that shows love and care. But when we act with anger and spite, harboring animosity, it's as though we're inviting Hashem to do the same.

But let's stop and think: What sane individual hates someone for no reason? A petty reason, an invalid reason, perhaps. Bob steps on Steve's toe, so Steve hates Bob. But hatred with absolutely no reason whatsoever? Let us therefore take a different approach to understand the concept of Sinas Chinom.

The following parable characterizes Sinas Chinom: A king told a person, "Ask for anything you desire and I'll give it to you, and to your enemy I'll give double." After thinking a while he said, "O, King, poke out one of my eyes."

Anyone doubting that such people actually exist, consider the following true account: There were two brothers whose old mother died, leaving a $100,000 inheritance entirely to the younger brother. The older brother was enraged, certain than in the last year of her life his brother had convinced their mother to cut him out of the will.

"I'm going to contest the will," he told his rabbi. "I'll see to it that my brother doesn't get a penny!"

"Did you ask lawyers how much it'll cost to contest the will?" asked the Rabbi.

"Of course," answered the man. "It's going to cost $200,000, but I don't care. It's worth it for me to lose a fortune as long as my brother gets nothing!"

How is it that a person is willing to spend thousands of dollars, in order to gain nothing? Why doesn't he go out and buy presents for his friends and family, or better yet - himself?

The answer is: Sinas Chinom. Of course he'd be better off spending the money on himself. But he cannot. Why? Sinas Chinom: "Free Hatred." Though the hatred may have some basis, it is "free" in the sense that it yields nothing. It is free of logic, free of profit. On the contrary, he will poke out his own eye or spend a fortune - even destroy himself - to satisfy his hatred. Ultimately, Sinas Chinom is self-hatred.

Chabad - Atzmut in a body/R' Oliver & R' Berger I

Rabbi Oliver wrote to: "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?": [this is an excerpt from Rabbi Oliver's comment translating and explaining the Rebbe's statement regarding Atzmut in a body]

“Ve’al derech maamar haZohar, ‘man p’nei ho’adon do Rashbi, oder vi be’eIs ha’shlichus iZ afilu malach nikra b’shem Havayeh, oder vi Moshe Rabeinu hot gezogt venosati eisev.”

“This is similar to the statement of the Zohar,(1) ‘Whose is the face of the Master [G-d]? This is the Rashbi.’(2) Or [this can be explained along the lines of the idea that] at the time he performs his mission, an angel is called by the name of Havayeh [one of the Names of Hashem].(3) Or [this can be explained along the lines of the idea that] Moshe Rabeinu said, ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass.’” [Devarim 11:15] (4)

(1) Zohar 2:38a.

(2) I saw baalei nigleh [Talmudic experts] questioning this [statement from Zohar], and with a tremendous noise [claiming that it contradicts the doctrine that Hashem doesn’t have a form], how is it possible, etc., etc. [and thereby seeking to dismiss the words of the Zohar].” However [this is not only a matter of Kabbolo, for], we find [a statement] similar to this also in the revealed dimension of Torah [i.e., a Talmudic source], in Yerushalmi, Bikkurim, 3:3, “‘And G-d in His holy chamber’—this refers to Rebbi Yitzchok, the son of Rebbi Lezer in the house of study of Keisrin.”

(3) Tanya, Igeres HaKodesh end sec. 25. [One should not be surprised if a spark from a ray of the Shechinah is called [in the Baal Shem Tov’s Tzavaat HaRivash] by the name Shechinah, for we find that even an angel, which was created [and not a spark of the Shechinah], is called by Hashem’s Name in the parsha of Vayeira [“And he [Avraham] said [in reference to the angels who visited him], ‘L-rd, do not pass by your servant” Bereishis 18:3], according to the commentary of the Ramban [ibid.: “He [Avraham] called them by the Name of their Master [G-d], because he recognized that they are supernal angels, as they are called Elokim and Eilim [names of Hashem], and therefore he prostrated to the ground before them.] And as it is written [ibid. 16:13], ‘And she [Hogor] called the name of Hashem, Who spoke with her [where the verse says explicitly in ibid. 16:7 that it was an angel speaking to her],’ and there are many similar examples.]

(4) See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 50a. [There the Alter Rebbe writes: With this we will understand that which appears surprising at first glance concerning the meaning of [the section] “And it will be if you will surely listen,” [Devarim 11:13] which Moshe said. How did he say, ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass’ [ibid. 11:15] as reward for observing the Mitzvos] as if he is the one giving, G-d forbid, as the commentators ask. For since in Mishneh Torah [Devarim] Moshe is like one speaking for himself [as opposed to repeating the words dictated to him by Hashem]—analyze the Ramban in his preface to his commentary on the Torah—if so it should have been written ‘And Hashem will give the grass.’ Rather, the explanation is that the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid. The reason for this is along the lines of what was explained earlier that through the Giving of the Torah the [Jewish people] attained the level of marriage [with Hashem], which is the inclusion and complete bittul [nullification] to Atzmus Ohr Ein Sof [the Essence of Hashem’s infinite light], until their souls literally flew out from them. In a similar manner, was the constant state of Moshe Rabeinu, as he said, ‘Go [Moshe] and tell them, return to your tents, and you stand here with Me.’ [Devarim 5:30] For he took up no space, and he was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all. Therefore he was able to say ‘I will give,’ because the word of Hashem was speaking in him from within his throat.]

======================
Rabbi Micha Berger comment to "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?":

R' Oliver,

Thank you for going to substance.

You do not bring proof that RMMS was speaking of connectedness rather than identity. Rather, you cite his proofs that the chiddush is not as big of a chiddush as it seems; that it has priority. In none of the quote does your rebbe define Atzmus. Was he saying that the Zohar said that seeing Rashbi was a way of seeing godliness, or that the Zohar said that seeing him was actually seeing God?

I disagree that the Rebbe explicitly and clearly explains himself as meaning one and not the other. Frankly, I believe that given Lubavitch's form of tzimtzum shelo kepeshuto, the ideas are identical. Once there is chibur to the Borei, the illusion of yeish (yeish meiAyin as seen from "down here") is gone. I'll explain.

Where your quoted material does address explaining what those sources say is where the footnote points to your Alter Rebbe. Far from explicit, it's cited in a footnote without quotation. And in terms of clear -- it says both!

On the one hand, "the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid."

On the other hand, the text concludes "and he [ie Moshe -micha] was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all."

It leaves us wanting. MRA"H is both not the Borei, and not a nivra distinct from the Borei. Moshe isn't the Giver of grass, however Moshe is so mevateil himself as to be a puppet that the Giver can speak through.

Now here's where things get messy, and I'll explain what I intimated above. "Ein od milvado". Or, "cheileq E-loak mima'al". Nu, so the rebbe IS G-d -- in the same way you, I, and perhaps even the keyboard I'm typing on are also G-d. And yet the rebbe is a puppet whose actions are G-d's, unlike you or I who have bechirah, or the keyboard which isn't a memutza mechabeir, hiding its godliness.

And thus, the Alter Rebbe isn't contradicting himself. By proving a rebbe is a memutza hamechabeir, one proves he is "cheileq E-loak mima'al' mammash" (as RMMS quotes the Tanya with emphasis) in a more immediate way than the rest of us.

This is my aforementioned "jump" in the argument. No one explicitly points out why by proving chibur, one proves true unity, identity, "Atzmus uMahus", not "merely" a vehicle for the Shechinah ("merely in quotes because being the merkavah is only a small thing by comparison).

What RMMS himself does write is

Last, Rabbi Oliver writes: "How amazing (to put it nicely) that you call a whole group of Jews by such a harsh, serious halachic name because you read a text, when at the same time you openly admit that you have no idea whether it's actually understood by members of the movement the way you as an outsider understand it!"

Check again what I wrote. I was careful to repeatedly say that I am trying to give a dispassionate assessment of a single idea, not of any people. (Never mind labeling them; even if I knew someone believed kefirah, that's insufficient to brand him a kofeir.)

PS: I have Al haTzaddikim and the sichah open in front of me when I write to this discussion.