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."