mentalblog.com comments:
I need to read it again (and again), but wanted to thank you for posting it.
Maybe make it a three part post? It's way too long and complicated!!
Question: Did the Rebbe ever mention existentialism or even use its terminologies?
Ephraim,
I would like to ask you to please define the nature of 'influence' in the context discussed here:
1) Ala Rambam and Aristotel - direct.
2) Absorbed from prevalent culture because all ideas are 'seeded' in their own time and influence all contemporary thinkers in an inevitable sort of a way. Thus the phenomenon would be observed with all gedeilei Yisroel through the millennia. (And if so, please give a few other examples).
3) Unique and unprecedented in normative Judaism.
4) Other.
While the Rebbe was no doubt was exposed to the ideas and fads of his day, I do not think it is meaningful or methodologically sound to deconstruct or "reverse engineer" his legacy and then attribute its component parts to the influence of diverse ideologies. For example, while one may observe that Shlichuth bears an uncanny resemblance to Going into the People (хождение в народ), a 19th century Russian movement that aspired to uplift the common people both spiritually and socially, to claim that the Rebbe was influenced by this movement would be facile and just plain wrong. There is no end where this method may lead you. Whatever you may think of the Rebbe's legacy, it is clear that he was never a follower of convention, even when it claimed to be ground-breaking and iconoclastic.
On the second time around (third time still to come):
I agree with Darya on the general principle that while you can voice comparisons, it is difficult to maintain influence, as the Rebbe never used the language of these thinkers. In comparison, one can trace an influence of Greek philosophy on Chasidus, by way of certain terms being used in Chasidus that are the original translations of Greek concepts used in the translation of More Nevuchim. (I would not agree that there is influence, as the terms are given different meaning in Chasidus, but I could see how the influence could be drawn.)
To state that the "traditional Hassidic Rebbe" did not believe in social and political action does not apply to any Rebbe of the Chabad dynasty, beginning with the involvement of the Alter Rebbe in the Napeolonic Wars.
My initial thought on the governmental model of Moshiach according to the Rebbe would be constitutional theocracy, with the Torah as constitution, and the theocracy a vibrant one due to prophecy. I am not sure how absolutism and prophecy can go hand in hand, but I will give it a third try.
Your personal though is correct in the sense that this vision failed on the yeshiva level. On the community level, there was some achievement, hampered by human nature but aided by those who did not pass through a yeshiva or the yeshiva system did not deaden.
The idea the Rebbe emphasized was Dirah BeTachtonim, not the Reshima (which can be called the other to G-dliness, Or En Sof, but not to G-d), but the comparison to other systems seems to hold.
I will hold a full opinion on the last paragraph until further reading, but will say now that it has been posited before that the Rebbe's style of limmud was a combination of his father's (kabbalah integrating every other field of study) and the Rogatchover (an underlying concept that unites the entire field of study).
I don't understand all the complications.
Is there someone who thinks he can or wants to figure out the Rebbe??
Someone who wants to encapsulate the Rebbe in his small little brain??
FEH.
Zei a gutteh kabbolos oilnik and dats all. and bederch memeilah you'll know and better yet you'll be a shtick Rebbe.
The Rebbe was hands and feet above any persons mind in this generation, lais man depolig. The Rebbe revolutionized everything and was and still is light years ahead of anyones thinking.
PS don't forget the stooges :-) I mean lets start forgeting about these stooges.
I'd like to hear your theory on how "kabolas ol mamosh" to the Rebbe allows all sorts of perikas ol towards the people he appointed. I think they are related.
Could someone say over the Derrida/Rebbe connection more slowly? Exactly how does the Rebbe deconstruct binary oppositions?
It is soo interesting , but much too fast.
Epfraim, what French self important nut thought you to talk like this:
"he strips down the textual structure and the inherent connotations of words and dyads of opposite symbols to a semiotic field of unstable meanings."?
Guravitzer,
Kabbolos oyl means listening to what the Rebbe said and having the courage to stand by those words even when it makes no logic
Kabbolos oyl is following what the Rebbe wants even when its not popular and when it seems elef lamateh, don't care to follow those instructions
al la -- 10 out of the 12 spies not only did not listen and do as instructed by Moshe Rabbeinu, they brought churban to all of klal yisroel
why do you thing "we chabad" still read this parsha in the Torah. and the one of Korach
you think its only talking to Satmar?
Once again -- 10 out of all 12 leaders (tzadikm beoisoh shah) brought shit to the Jews -- learn the lesson my good friend.
"he strips down the textual structure and the inherent connotations of words and dyads of opposite symbols to a semiotic field of unstable meanings."?
TA: Can you describe it otherwise?
Tinokos shenishbu applied to all of modern Jewry goes back to before the Rebbe. Was the rebbe influenced by the Chazon Ish?:)
Chazon Ish (Yoreh De'ah 2:28)
There is another condition - that the person's act should be considered willful, not coerced. As the Rambam said (Hilkhot Mamrim 3:3), "Their (the Karaites') children and students are considered to be coerced and to be like a tinok she-nishba (a child who was taken captive by non-Jews and raised as a non-Jew)." A tinok she-nishba a) brings a sacrifice (when he begins to live as a Jew) as it says in Tractate Shabbat, Chapter "Klal Gadol;" b) we are commanded to ensure his survival and c) even to desecrate the Shabbat in order to save his life. Furthermore, the Hagahot Maimoniot (Hilkhot Mamrim 6) writes that a person is not categorized as a rasha unless he transgresses intentionally and refuses to accept rebuke. At the end of his book "Ahavat Chesed," the Chafetz Chayyim quotes the Mahari Molin's opinion that it is a mitzva to love evil people ("resha'im") for this reason. It is related in the name of the Maharam Lublin that today, we are always considered "before having given rebuke" because (as the gemara says) we no longer know how to properly and effectively administer rebuke. Non-observant Jews are therefore considered "anussim" - under extenuating circumstances - and we cannot consider a woman absolved from yibbum (the levirate marriage if the remaining brother is a Shabbat desecrator). The same holds true for other halakhot (i.e. Sabbath desecrators are always considered full-fledged Jews)."
The application of the status of tinok she-nishbah to secular Jews began in 19th century Germany with R. Ya'akov Ettlinger see su"t Binyan Tzion 23, Achiezer 4:37 amongst other poskim .
1. Re: Berl's question what “influence” means. In my understanding, the answer 4) applies. Original thinker explores his ideas as a dialogue with intellectual milieu around him, not as a student indoctrinated by his teacher. Together with it, this is not just general cultural imprint, because I believe that there were specific philosophical and existential problems that the Rebbe was relating to through his intellectual and public work.
2. Re: Darya's comment. I think that my response to Berl's comment makes it clear. I don't try to claim that the Rebbe followed anyone, nor that he was confined by anyone's philosophy. In field of intellectual search, being influenced doesn't mean being indoctrinated. It means to use certain frame of reference to basic issues at hand. I hope in my writing I didn’t make an impression that I believed that the Rebbe pasted and copied ideas that belonged to somebody else.
On the other hand, if you claim that any attempt to analyze Rebbe's spiritual and intellectual heritage within frame of reference of philosophical discourse is illegitimate, I am afraid you are not serving the Rebbe well. My general impression is that isolating the Rebbe's and Chabad thought from philosophical context impoverishes it and turns it into scholasticism, when many valuable ideas are turned into propaganda, and lose their true intellectual value. I think that even if after a discussion on this blog my posting will be collectively shred to pieces by its readers, it is more genuine intellectual contribution to understanding the Rebbe's ideas than repeating the same stuff all over again. If in general you maintain that whatever the Rebbe said is pure revelation from heaven, outside of any contemporary context, then our discussion ended before it started, because whatever I will try to claim will be denied on famous grounds of “it isn’t true because it cannot be true ever.”
3. Re: Guravitzer's observations. When we say that modern political philosophers basically follow Plato, we don't expect them to repeat the "cave metaphor" all over again. Plato was writing tedious dialogues between Socrates and his students and opponents, which is dated and lengthy and didn’t even happen. However, his ideas, condensed to a pure philosophical discourse, proved to be worthy of consideration two millenia later. So too, prophets spoke in Tanach, but their ideas of universality of G-d, of shared fate of G-d and people, of universality of Redemption, of personal accountability, etc., are very meaningful today as they were back then, outside of the lingo of their times. I obviously agree that the Rebbe didn't use terminology of existentialism, but whether the Rebbe used existentialist conceptual tools or not, is arguable. (Just as an example, when the Rebbe commented in Inyono Shel Torath HaChassidus that there is no real difference if tzimtzum is kipeshuto or shelo kipeshuto and since G-d is Nimna Hanimno'oyth therefore either way is viable and we believe that it was shelo kipeshuto not because it makes more sense but because this is how we received it from Avoseiny Nesyienu, in my understanding he refers to indeterminacy and complementarity of reality [i.e. the uncertainty principle, or - Creation following both mutually exclusive paths simultaneously], when our position as observers [i.e. “arbitrary” decision that tzimtzum is shelo kipeshuto based on meta-philosophical grounds] affects the observed phenomena. As the Rebbe basically said there, tzimtzum shelo kipeshuto – shelo kipeshuto. He didn’t say any of it, but otherwise this statement would have been purely scholastic, and repeating it thousand times doesn’t make it any more meaningful or convincing, especially that everyone before him made every effort to prove this way or the other. This makes me think that the Rebbe intended to say something more meaningful than “it doesn’t matter.”)
As I said, I was not referring to the content of his philosophical ideas, but only to their social and political representations. BTW, I think that Chassidus is a dramatic departure from Kabbalistic Aristotelean Gnosticism toward more phenomenological perception of reality. Therefore Chassidus is so unrestrained in applying totally new meanings to old Kabbalistic concepts.
As far as Reshimu vs. Dirah BeTachtonim goes, this is a long story. Mittel Rebbe basically posited that revealing metziyus in the Reshimu is the revelation Atzmus itself, and hence the Dirah BeTachtonim comes from there. I agree that the Rebbe departed from this mystical statement and made it into an even more immediate experience, which only proves my point. But I maintain my view that there is not just carefree abandonment of one idea for the sake of the other (which is unscrupulous even to assume that), but serious philosophical development with distinctive and pretty dramatic differences.
Not only Chabad Rebbeim felt strongly and acted with regards to Napoleonic Wars. HaChoze of Lublin even envisioned it to be the war of Gog and Magog. The Kozhnitzer Magid and The Holy Jew, who were HaChoze’s students, were forced to follow his suit. All three of them participated in Tikkun on Seder Pesach, which HaChoze insisted on, and failed. All three of them died within a year as a result of it. There is a famous story that Reb Aharon of Karlin, who supported France, and Alter Rebbe, who supported Russia, argued over the question of whose party should win, and decided that whoever does Tekias Shofar first on Rosh HaShana, his side wins. Karliner got up vatikkin and was davened as fast as he could, but at some point he said, “It is pointless, the Litvak already made the Tekiyos. He got up and first thing before davening blew the Shofar…” However, all those stories refer to their very active involvement in mystical realm (including the famous story about Alter Rebbe’s slippers), and not in practical political reality. (A story about Reb Shmuel Munkas being Alter Rebbe’s spy in France is singular, not very clear, or proven.) So too, today Charedim in Israel and Satmar in Williamsburg are very active on local political level. However they do it not as believers in participatory society, but as outsiders who found their way to take advantage of the system, which is basically generous with everybody. The Rebbe, on the other hand, truly believed in being “part of the game.”
4. Re: Ca. Shaliach's FEH. Thank G-d I am not a yeshivah bochur any longer that has to listen to this stuff, or G-d forbid, sit through a farberngen listening to this. Otherwise I might have started feeling guilty and ashamed after your little toychochas mussar. Your approach makes Chabad into what it is today – agglomeration of people who are afraid and cannot think critically. This in itself is not terrible. You don’t have to think. But turning it into a culture where those who “dare” to think are ridiculed, makes you part of self destructive society. By the way, sadly, Chabad, which in the past boasted to be a movement of thinkers, barely has one or two real intellectuals. Even those are somewhat vilified, besides for those who use their intellectual abilities to “prove the party line.” This all is all too well known and painfully similar to other times and places, where ideas served for other perposes - to indoctrinate and intimidate. What worries me more is the fact that after this little schtech among the unzere you go and give a shiur to your baaley batim (I hope) and you explain to them how Hassidus and the Rebbe are deep and intellectual, and how learning it will make a person more involved in searching truth. Actually, as I come to think about it, you are intentionally lying to them. If and when they will wear a hat and a jacket and still try to ask you a question about G-d, you will either give them a full load of propaganda or tell them FEH. Truth to be told, the fact that you say what you say is not because you gave up on your intellectualism as part of mesirus nefesh, but because you were intellectually unmotivated, and Shlichus franchise the way it is built today allows that. I think that your answer only proves my point about what happened to Baaley Teshuvah in Chabad for the last 40 years, and why.
5. Dear Tzemach Atlas. Thanks for epithets, if it helps you to maintain meaningful conversation. I believe that I could have understood you without you getting all uptight. I will resist the temptation to project my problems on a hypothetical French nut, and I will assume responsibility. As I told you when we met, I am not good at writing. I agree that my last paragraph was too condensed to be properly understood. I will try to make every effort to be more clear:
When we use words, we imply that they have certain inherent meaning. This meaning is usually derived from dyads of stable antagonists – black and white, good and bad, etc. If a person in a story walks down the street and somebody comes from behind and hits him with a bat and the first guy falls, we assume that the assailant is a bad guy and the victim is a good guy. But what if the victim is former concentration camp guard and the assailant is his former prisoner? Good and bad reverse. What if the assailant is not a prisoner but a Mossad agent, and the victim is not a Nazi officer proper but a Hungarian collaborator? If you are pro-Israeli you think that the Mossad agent is a good guy, and the hell with the Hungarian. But if you are a Hungarian, it gets messier, and so on and so forth. So, if I take any text and start to strip it down to units of meanings that break the initial narrative into alternative subnarratives, I start deconstructing the text and creating new reality – that of “unstable meaning.” I realize that there is a conflict between the two guys. I realize that cruelty of this world dictates that one has to die. I realize that both are caught up in tragic irreversibility of their life stories. All those ideas create “metaphysics of presence” of
Continued --
All those ideas create “metaphysics of presence” of conflict without making it necessarily a determined fact of who did what to whom and why. If, on top of that, I start exploring the structure of the text as if it carried meaning the same way as the words themselves did, then the function of words and structures transforms from its traditional position to new order of literary things. Literature becomes more about structures and their systemic behaviors than about real words and stories and characters.
So, I believe that the Rebbe did exactly this to a lot of discourses and ideas in Chassidus – "he stripped down the textual structure and the inherent connotations of words and dyads of opposite symbols to a semiotic field of unstable meanings."
Does it make sense now?
Besides for that, I apologize for my less than perfect English. I hope I succeeded to make myself understood. Sorry for making it again so long.
sorry this the disadvantage of virtual exchange, I was trying to be funny but you read is as uptight, far from it.
what does it say about our culture that the very people with great English apologies for it and the very people who make sense think, the sense is too long. I never heard this excuse from a regular moron pulpit pusher.
Would the Rayaatz comprehend all this talk, would he want to ?
Ephraim, regarding your comments to Ca. Shliach. In the reversal of Rebbe’s Tinok SheNishba the true representatives of this are the very Hareidim themselves indoctrinated and trapped in the system, My approach to this recently is a sense of love and compassion. When I see a sheliach who mindlessly mumbles formulas I feel sorry for him. This is why on the personal level I see the Rebbe’s quest as all encompassing tragedy that might push me into the WalMart. He failed with BTs as you described, he failed to uplift his own Chasidim, his negation of ghetto notwithstanding, and he failed in his quest for political redemption.
Ephraim, we've already established the field of pro-technical term use and against in the other thread. I'm willing to leave that battle there. Your sentence was understandable.
In general, you speak of the poverty of Chasidus when not applied intellectually. According to the teachings of Chasidus itself, Chasidus is poor specifically when academic and intellectual, and is meant to lead to Avodas Hashem. I can respect the intellectual who after his application in academic form then uses it for Avodas Hashem - be it tikun hamidos, hisbonenus, avodas hatefilah or a farbrengen.
Ephraim,
I did not really get your answer to my question. Let me go at it from another angle. Let's assume that התגלות התורה is to be viewed as a continuous process (I am pretty sure this is the Rebbe's view). If so, then how do the ideas expressed by the חכמים of a particular time relate to the general philosophical ideas that are prevalent then? Are these ideas used only as tools to effectively communicate to the contemporaries, or do they present genuine opportunities to develop, as it were, the תורה itself? I think without a clear definition of this subject, the entire conversation here remains unframed.
Clarification: In simplest of terms, I am asking for concise translation of this entire 'influence' idea into a genuine Jewish vernacular. Thus far you still use very general terminology, such as 'original thinker', etc.
herz zich ain Efraim,
While I complimented Radloh for his depth and intellectual approach ( before his great revelation -- not that it changes afterwards)
I think you are shtark meshugah. You are so full of it -- I couldn't wait to respond to you later.
I can have an intellectual discussion with you an ANY subject in the world . (you don't know who I am) .You want to talk philosophy, psychology, science, economy, sociology, politics, these are all human generated endeavors and start with the mind.
However when it comes to Torah and Rebbe, I try to control and direct my thoughts as instructed by our Holy Torah. The fact that a Jew accepts Naaseh Koidem Lenishmo and not the opposite, in your books it may be considered closed and narrow minded
in my books a human mind is narrow by its very nature and its only window to harchovoh is the bittul to Daas Hakodoish Boruch Hu. FIRST.
So my approach begins with the actual words and instructions of the Rebbe as said, kepshuto. And I work myself backwards (according to your approach) to understand (sometimes intellectually) what was the reasoning and intention behind those words.
I can spend hours talking to you about shem mah versus shem ban and how they interact with each other, I can talk you about Yechiduah ilo and Yichodo tato and how this in truth is an exercise of human figmentation because in truth Hashem Echod its all one and the same...
When it comes to Rebbe, the mere fact that you attempt to figure what might have motivated or influenced the Rebbe to say or do whatever is like trying to figure why G-d commanded us to shake a Lulav and Esrog. Its an arrogance and a foolishness of the greatest proportions. Its you trying to reach where you can and will never reach without having first, the kabolos oyl.
To approach the mind of the Rebbe or Torah for that matter with an atitude of , let me make sense of it, and it has to be munach besichli for me to appreciate and approach the subject, goes against everything that is Jewish or Chassidic.
Unless I am just not understanding you.
PS If I don't respond today its because I have to run.
Berl,
I think you are right on the mark here.
The issues of influence and the development of the intellectual history of an idea are very difficult in general, let alone when you are attempting to demonstrate that a Jewish thinker such as the Rebbe Ztzl was "influenced" by works he probably never studied.
Tzemach,
Sorry I misunderstood you.
I do think that my last paragraph was less than satisfactory, therefore I got so defensive.
Re: Rebbe. I disagree with you. I think he did number of phenomenal things, and he succeeded at them phenomenally. I don’t know if Judaism would have survived the aftershock of the Holocaust if not for him. He restored Judaism as true world religion. He created a movement of tens of thousands of BTs, majority of who genuinely feel that their lives are more meaningful than WalMart. I personally feel that the Rebbe gave an opportunity to many people. I remember that Sicho when he was saying that he did all he could. And you know? He was right. Just simply right. I think that he succeeded almost in everything, besides for redeeming himself from that terrible loneliness he was confined to by all those people who surrounded him, and maybe by his own tragic personality.
Guravitzer,
I was discussing intellectual concepts in the Rebbe’s heritage. Period. Spiritual poverty of present day Chassidus is due to the fact that this originally revolutionary and risky spiritual endeavor (cf. Karliner, Kotzker, HaChoze miLublin, Rabbi Nachman, Mei HaShiloach, “Heichal Brochah” of Komarna, etc., just to name few who walked the very tight rope, and in modern time – Shlichus as a concept, if you ask me) was transformed into a stifled routine of JCC-type activity, aka chulent and kugel recreation.
Let’s put it simple: You and Ca. Shaliach pulled out your ultimate Lubavitch weapons very quickly. I didn’t doubt it would come. I just wondered how long it will take. You promptly reminded me of Avodas Hashem, and he – of Kabbolas Oyl. Look, nothing can be simpler than that. I don’t hide under any nickname. I am not Guravitzer, nor I am a Ca. Shaliach or a Ma. Shaliach. Here I am. Ask around in CH. I don’t live here, but I work here. I am simply tired of those games when people trade virtual blows hiding behind fake identities, fake ideas and fake beliefs. We can conveniently punch everyone in a nose with our keyboard as long as we don’t attempt to seriously challenge and expose ourselves, literally and emotionally, lest we run the risk to be labeled as “shtark meshuga” or “full of it,” and then we start fearing that it might affect our children’s shidduchim. I can feel this suffocating air of a shtetl crawling into my lungs. Sorry for being bitter, but give me a break. Think about it – this is your and my lives that are passing by, for real…
Berl,
You ask a very big question that is discussed by many Rishonim and Achronim, and opinions differ vastly.
According to Chabad Hassidus (NOT others!), the Rebbe’s teachings are pure divine revelation, more like Torah Shebichtav than Torah Shebeal Pe. I will tell you my humble take on it. When you read Piyutim from Middle Ages, G-d there is very different than the one they talk about in early Chassidus. And that G-d is very different from Holocaust G-d, who in turn is dramatically different from the Americanized feel-good G-d, who is again very different from a G-d of hilltop settlers in Israel. I'm sorry for putting it so bluntly.
Torah is G-d's Wisdom that finds its way into this world. History, human destiny, new ideas, revelations, revolutions, and catastrophes are all parts of that process, and all will turn out to be one “Heroica” Symphony to G-d, with its jubilant and stark movements alike, when the time arrives. (As it was put very aptly by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in Pri Haaretz) When you read Tanach, you see that prophets, which means G-d, were very deeply involved with what was really happening historically and politically in real time. Ideas of other nations mattered, and were rejected or not, but there was interaction. You can say that this is the way G-dly ideas come down to this world - through spiritual evolutions that take place in every single place on this planet, across generations and continents (for example, from Russia to America with love and fervor). As Ba'al Shem Tov said, there could be a war that would take years, with cannonades and cries of thousands of soldiers, just in order for a Tzaddik to come up with a niggun. It sounds cruel, but it is so existentially true. But one thing is sure: Unlike many others who mind their own business, that Tzaddik has to be very attentive to cannonades and to screams of the wounded. Otherwise he doesn’t merit composing a niggun out of that terrible scream of this world. The greatest scream of the wounded you hear in contemporary times is the scream of wounded souls and broken ideas.
I claim that the Rebbe also did that. He listened and was deeply affected. He viewed Torah as a natural venue to relate to what was happening, and he interpreted things in his frame of reference. G-d's wisdom was and still is (unlike the common belief among Lubavitchers who believe that human history basically ended) making its steps into this world. In reference to the Rebbe, these were the questions I was trying to ask: How this interaction took place in the Rebbe's thought? How his personal intellectual life played into it? How his tragic loneliness played into it? How his acute awareness of global processes played into it?
I hope I explained my point.
I am truly saddened by many replies - because many comments proved to me that very sad fact, that he was alone and remained alone, despite his almost desperate attempts to be and to do otherwise. He remained confined to spiritual prison of superficial reverence imposed on him by those who surrounded him, which by act of deification (see Ca. Shaliach’s comment about G-d and Lulav and Esrog) denied his ideas their true value. True aloofness to his ideas was disguised by high talk about their incomprehensibility, as if they ever tried. How convenient! Could be, and probably it is true that he was truly incomprehensible. But who cares?! Is Talmud comprehensible? Is Arizal’s Kabbalah comprehensible? Is life comprehensible? Or only bank account is allowed to be comprehensible? And still we ask any question we can think of and pound our heads against this wall for thousands of years. Only the Rebbe should be denied this privilege of being explored and discussed in a truly open manner that every authentic spiritual figure deserves? The Rebbe wanted and deserved to be understood. This was his basic right, and our basic responsibility. This is truly tragic fate. You don’t have to agree with me, but this was my premise.
Ca. Shaliach,
You know, there is very important part of my profession called bedside manners. I think that Shluchim are supposed to have some too. I am afraid you don’t.
Understand something – as soon as all you are trying to tell me is what you thought about Radlo “before and after,” I understand that you are not talking to me. You are talking to masses comprised of Radlo and myself, who you feel compelled to straighten up or diagnose. I know very little who Radlo is, and know nothing about what you found out about him. I am new on the block. If you don’t accept new kids to your sandbox, just tell me.
You say that I don’t know who you are. Guess what, I don’t. Because you are a “Ca. Shaliach.” A screen name. With all due respect, Ca. Shaliach is not very unique. There are hundreds of Ca. Shluchim, unless you are The One. If you are Shlomo Cunin, then you definitely know who I am. But in general, you can’t keep anonymous and challenge that I don't know who you are. You can't eat the cake and keep it. But anyways, most probably the loss is all mine.
You are attributing to me certain attitudes that I find amusing. I am not a little yeshivah bochur that you can scorn me by boot camp slogans. But I must admit – it was cute.
And you know what? Spare your time from talking to me hours about everything in the world, because I don’t know that much. I am genuinely amazed that you do. I know my profession, and some even say that I am not bad at it. I know some of contemporary philosophy because I cared to study. I think I know some of Hassidus because I cared to spend my life on it. I care about the Rebbe. I hope I don’t need your permission or your manual for that. If he survived you, he will definitely survive me.
Re: Kabbolas Oyl. Let me tell you a true story. I knew a guy in Russia. He was from a village called Ilyinka. All the villagers of Ilyinka converted to Judaism 150 years ago. They had a Rov and really kept all the Mitzvos and married with Chuppah VeKiddushin only within the village. But they looked like pure Russians. So, in the early 80’s that Russian looking guy called Yermiyahu Petrov (or something like that) came to visa offices in Moscow to apply for emigration visa to Israel. The officer there started sneering at him, “You are a real Russian man! What do you need these Jews for?” The guy screamed at him, “I am a Russian?! You call me a Russian?! Come out, let’s measure our sculls!” (Knowing everything, you must know that he was referring to phrenology, Nazi pseudo-science that was supposed to prove anatomic inferiority of Jews, and help identify them during selections.) Let’s not measure Kabbolas Oyl.
I am glad you clarified to me everything about arrogance and foolishness. I didn’t have an opportunity to hear that one for a long time. Thank you for refreshing my memory. But for some reason I doubt that you would really care to discuss things with me, because you already know answers before you heard questions. You are from those guys who “bring light to masses.” It must be really boring to talk to us, simple folks, especially about names Ban and Mah and Yichudo Ilo’o and Yichudo Tato’o. Why would we want to know that, for G-d’s sake?
Yes, and thank you for allowing for this remote possibility that you are not understanding something. No worry. You understand everything.
I would just like to clarify, and distance myself from X Shliach, that I can see very clearly from your post that you care deeply about what you write, and that it has great meaning to you. If you reread what I wrote carefully, I did not remove the academic study of Chasidus from the equation, merely mentioning (what I was sure you were aware of, and I am not sure why you left out) that Chasidus itself tells us that avodah is primary.
The use of nicknames (by me at least) has nothing to do with avoiding anonymity, and simply in the spirit of this blog and the blogosphere in general. I believe I was even "outed" at one point, and Tzemach deleted those comments. I would gain or lose nothing by being identified, and for the most part I don't think I hide behind anonymity to deliver punches. Nothing of what I wrote was meant personally.
Put it this way: Bringing up avodah when you discuss haskalah was in no way meant as a reference to your personal avodah, which I have no knowledge or judgement of.
Gandalin, hey! I brought it up first.
Efraim, In response to Ca. Shliach, I would like to add that not only do they vilify those who offer different opinions,but they very, very badly terrorize them, too.They are good, excellent students, not of the Torah Hakdosha, not of Chsidus they supposedly are trying to protect, but of those others everybody runs away from.
Ephraim,
Firstly, this time I feel you did address my question - thank you. You also said that it was a "big question that is discussed by many Rishonim and Achronim, and opinions differ vastly." Well, I would be much obliged if you ever felt like posting a list of maarei mekeimeis - I would greatly enjoy it.
Now, about your replies to “Ca. Shliach”:
1) I would expect you to see that the guy is numbskull and not quite 'there' (maybe he can even use your services :) ).
2) I object to your identifying his ideas as "Lubavitch" ideas. I know, it's only a label, but labels matter a great deal. I posit that an idea can only be classified as "Lubavitch" idea if it comes from chassidus. Conversely, even if every self-proclaimed Lubavitcher in the entire world holds a certain view, that does not make it a "Lubavitch" view.
Ephraim,
Sorry for being so literal, but are you saying that this interaction with the world you talk about is the meaning of the last lines of the 7th Chapter of Tanya? (I mean the direct Divine service part, not the part about earning a living in order to serve G-d)
8th chapter, not 7th
"According to Chabad Hassidus (NOT others!), the Rebbe’s teachings are pure divine revelation, more like Torah Shebichtav than Torah Shebeal Pe. I will tell you my humble take on it. When you read Piyutim from Middle Ages, G-d there is very different than the one they talk about in early Chassidus. And that G-d is very different from Holocaust G-d, who in turn is dramatically different from the Americanized feel-good G-d, who is again very different from a G-d of hilltop settlers in Israel. I'm sorry for putting it so bluntly."
It's the same G-d, but experienced differently, or approached differently by different people.
"Spiritual poverty of present day Chassidus is due to the fact that this originally revolutionary and risky spiritual endeavor (cf. Karliner, Kotzker, HaChoze miLublin, Rabbi Nachman, Mei HaShiloach, “Heichal Brochah” of Komarna, etc., just to name few who walked the very tight rope, and in modern time – Shlichus as a concept, if you ask me) was transformed into a stifled routine of JCC-type activity, aka chulent and kugel recreation."
It must certainly seem that way. But maybe that's because the dross of the past has been washed away, and only the finest diamonds have remained. Maybe in that time, there was as much schlock as there is now.
Guravitzer,
I guess I owe you an apology.
I wasn't expecting you to disclose yourself, even though I do find myself somewhat vulnerable by being exposed under my name in the host of anonymous nicknames (luckily, some I do know).
I was referring to the phenomenon - of anonymity, spiritual and intellectual.
I still don't think I understand the intention of your post about Avoda. However, I disagree with one point. I firmly believe that Chassidus is not "poor academically." It is a powerful intellectually revolutionary current, and this is the way the academic research views it, and rightfully so. Its seemingly unsystematic form of exposition (which was changed in Chabad, especially in a later phenomenon of Hemshechim) is deceptive, and doesn't mean lack of rigorousness. Chassidus was intentionally presented in short narratives, which suits well its phenomenological paradigm.
Berl, come on. Face it. Ca. Shaliach represents classic Lubavitch based attitude, with all the knak. If it wasn't so, Lubavitch had scores of intellectuals, all those very bright people who are out there but traditionally intimidated to think.
Re: Mar'ei Mekomos in Rishonim.
Rav Sa’adya Gaon was a rationalist, and used many philosophical methodologies and basic postulates in his works.
Rambam was clearly a big supporter of Aristotelean philosophy (or whatever he thought it was. In reality it was neo-Platonic rendition of his Arabic translators, unless you explain Moreh Nevuchim according to Mittel Rebbe who knew to learn it in Kabbalistic context. However, in Rambam’s time this book was ostracized and even burnt as a far shot toward non-Jewish philosophy. In recent times, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov banned this book as too philosophical.).
Rabbi Hisdai Kreskes (in 'Ohr Hashem') rejected Aristotle but not because of him being a philosopher. Rather, he rejected number of philosophical propositions of Aristotle, like his treatment of the concept of infinity and space, and posited his own ideas about it. On these grounds he also criticized Rambam’s philosophy. Rabbi Hisdai Kreskes maintained that Torah had its own resources to advance philosophical knowledge, which could dispute with other philosophies. But he clearly saw Torah originated philosophy on par with the external sources, however obviously superior. He made groundbreaking statements that later became famous as a critique of Aristotle, but known to be formulated by an Arabic philosopher Abul Barkat. Looks like Kreskes wasn’t aware of Abul Barkat, and postulated similar ideas independently. Kreskes’s main opposition to philosophy of Aristotle was not because of it being a philosophy, but because of its goals and conclusions. According to Aristotle, ultimate goal of human existence is intellectual perfection, whereas Kreskes’s understanding of Torah’s ultimate goal is dramatically different – spiritual and social perfection of a person. Therefore Kreskes rejected Aristotle.
Interesting detail relevant to our discussion: One of the sharpest critiques of Aristotle was drawn for his original concept of unity of the “Knower, Knowledge, and the Known.” Kreskes fights this identity in length and maintains that there is basic duality between the act of knowledge and the object of knowledge. It is ironic to mention this dispute in the context of our discussion here: This idea is perceived as the most fundamental methodological and epistemological postulate of Chabad philosophy, whereas it is a purely Aristotelian idea that was fiercely (and quite successfully) fought by one of the most authentic Jewish philosophers.
Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi rejected philosophy as a discipline that doesn’t comply with the Torah.
Too many Achronim discuss it to bring here any representative bibliography, but I will try my best to come up with something later on.
Tanya 8th chapter - correct. And many others.
Efraim,
>>>besides for redeeming himself from that terrible loneliness he was confined to by all those people who >>>surrounded him, and maybe by his own tragic personality.
As far as I am concerned your name is an anonymous name. I don't know if its real and it doesn't matter. because on the blog it represents an idea and approach that someone is expressing. period.
so now, because you can write 30 lines straight and say the same thing over and over, doesn't mean that you said anything special at all. Your response to me was basically, I am a SHMUCK with a close mind. That's my take in 5 words.
Please, bechol loshon shel kovoid,allow me the opportunity to give you my response.
If you are a Lubavitcher brought up in our moisdois you should know way better than attributing to the Rebbe ( the Moshe Rabbeineu of this DOR) such words like "tragic personality confined by loneliness."
The Rebbe who taught and preached again and again, Chassidus hot ofgeton men iz kain mol nit elent -- and here you accuse the teacher of these words to suffer a basic malady of michutz lamacheneh moishovoi??
You claim all kinds of words of admiration for the Rebbes accomplishments and then ascribe to him all kinds of weaknesses and failures. you ARE a double talking POTZ.
YOU don't like it??? Tough luck. You ask questions like....
"">>>How this interaction took place in the Rebbe's thought? How his personal intellectual life played into it? How his tragic loneliness played into it? How his acute awareness of global processes played into it? ">>>>
excuse me but again who in the world do you think you are???? and who are you talking about??
The Torah talks of man pnei ho-odoin zu Rashbi -- you must know the Mechilta which says Vayaminu Bashem UvMoshe Avdoi --- Unless I am talking to a Professor Berger , you DO appreciate the common approach given and expected by Torah, the word of none other than G-D, to the Two , I hope...
So I repeat my earlier question, where do come off trying to figure how anything interacts in the thought of pnei Hashem??? at best we can be kailim mekablim, set ourselves aside our yeshus that is and try our best to be mekabel. But no, you want to krich in the head of the spiritual giant of this generation and figure how it works??
YOU THINK, you can understand and perceive hararei koidesh at its pinnacle?? What is the sibah hamesubov to the Rebbes way of thinking??
Your entire postings shmecked foon gavoh and prostkeit.
and if you care to respond don't just call me names, which you are welcome to do..please respond and explain or justify your Chutzpo in the logic and intellectual demeanor YOU claim to possess.
and to Berl -- what you too are getting turned on by the illusory elegance of his writing???
Dear Ephraim,
First of all please do not stop writing. It is fascinating.
It may be because of my ignorance of philosophy and intellectual history but I believe tracing where the Rebbe was influenced, differed and innovated through the lenses of Jewish thinkers would be more immediate and beneficial. I would very much enjoy seeing some of the more erudite posters such as yourself tracing an idea as it viewed by the kabbalsits, other Chassidic thinkers, the different generations of Chabad rebbes and finally the Rebbe
The Chasid of course will want to replace the words influenced, differed and innovated with the word REVEALED but that will not take away from the understanding of the unique approach of the Rebbe to so many issues.
For example the concept of one Nasi Hador is more breslov than Chabad. Ok they call it the Tzadik haamiti. The alter rebbe talks of the Heads of the Jewish people in every generation in the plural sense. Did the other rebbeim ever allude to this concept of ONLY one . Why did the Rebbe take this approach etc.
>>>Berl, come on. Face it. Ca. Shaliach represents classic Lubavitch based attitude, with all the knak. If it wasn't so, Lubavitch had scores of intellectuals, all those very bright people who are out there but traditionally intimidated to think.
Efraim,
it seems your idea of being free to think is precisely as you say,
without (outside of) the parameters of Torah.
I'm starting to think you may be a reincarnation of the Maskilim.
Ca. Shliach,
There is no question in my mind the thoughta expressed by Ephraim's here are an example of devekus besalmidei chachomim - a sincere earning to understand and to relate and to translate, even if futile (even perhaps consciously so). I can't believe anything he wrote would trouble the Rebbe in the least. On the other hand, the obsessive crap you write here against the Rebbe’s sheluchim - imperfect as they may be - is completely not lefi ruach kodshei. And you, of all people, have now appointed yourself to be the Rebbe's defender? If I didn’t think you were certifiably nuts, I would really revile you. Anyways, pretty please with sugar on top, just go away and stop stinking up the atmosphere!
Efraim,
In my rashly penned previous comment I neglected to express my appreciation for you piece, which is clearly a labor of love and perhaps also a cry of your heart. Far be it from me to defend the Rebbe as an island entire of itself, a bastion impervious to influences or external logic. One who can never be influenced by others is not a thinking person; those who paint his as such want to make an idol of him.
My sole quibble with you is that it is impossible to sort out the elements of the Rebbe's legacy and then attribute them to the various "isms" of the day. Social theories of the 19th and 20th century had numerous ovelapping elements that gradually became imbued within the Zeitgeist. For example, how can you attribute (without any corroboration) the Rebbe's social and political activism to existentialism when there were myriad other philosophies even more emphatic in their advocacy of political action? But perhaps I am needlessly splitting hair in the first place; it could be that your point was not so much to pin the Rebbe's legacy on specific ideologies of the day but rather to demonstrate that it is inseparable from the Zeitgeist and is part and parcel of the general human experience. Those who seek to view Chabad outside the frame of reference common to all humanity will of course find your inquiry objectionable.
Darya Petrovna,
Instead of me painstakingly struggling with ideas, I should have asked you to write your last two sentences that distill my basic idea in the best possible way. This would have kept everyone happy.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that the Rebbe's ideas were in reaction to the political and social climate of his time. It is also understandable that there are correlations between his ideas and those of philosophers grappling with the same problems of that era. And yet, as a chosid, it is hard to swallow the thought that the Rebbe was influenced by secular philosophy, as that would seem to negate the divinity of his messages, being that they are not sourced in his own chochma. A chosid is more likely to see this correlation as a manifestaion of "zeh leumos zeh"- a revelation of chochmos chitzonios corresponding to the revelations of divine chochma that the Rebbe emanated. Berl, Efraim, what do you think?
Zumer,
Honestly, for me it is semantics.
The main question is - did the Rebbe maintain deep and meaningful dialog with spiritual and intellectual milieu when he was in a position to absorb things from around him, especially during the times when he was in Europe in comparative obscurity, or he was insular to those dramatic influences?
If we ask ourselves how ideas come to us, or in general, how creativity behaves, it is always divine and autonomous, and at the same time inspired in the most intimate way by everything that surrounds us. It is intertwined and "ze leumos ze" all at once.
Did the Rebbe emanate certain ideas when he lived anonymously in Paris, so that those ideas emanated and found their expression in chochmos chitzoniyos?
You take me to radical mysticism that I don't know much about, and definitely not qualified to pass judgment on, even though I am aware that this is the official party line. I can only either agree with it or not, based on me convincing or not convincing myself if this is something I ought to believe in. But what informed answer can I give here besides for either lining myself up with the party line (which is not my party to begin with) or not?
Ephraim, I also want to thank you for what you wrote. It almost makes reading blogs worthwhile. I'd like to add a story.
There was an older Chossid Z"YA who taught here. He was a classic Lubavitcher Chassid of the previous generation: still physically and intellectually strong at an advanced age and with a pure tongue.
As I say, he taught here, although I wasn't fortunate enough to be in his classes. One of my friends told me this anecdote. At the end of classes he would often say, "Nu, boys, would you like some cake?"
Yes, they would like some cake, so he invited them to his flat nearby where he and his rebbetzin would give them some tea and cake.
That year his rebbetzin A"H passed away. When he returned to teaching he once again ended the class with "Nu, boys, would you like some cake?"
They looked at each other in surprise - surely things had changed. None the less, they respectfully said yes, they would like some cake.
The elderly Chassid took out his key and passed it to them. "Here," he said. "Please close the door when you're done."
Ephraim,
"radical mysticism" - bravo, a great phrase. :)
zumer,
While we, as good radical mystics, believe that all the hashpoeis to the world go through the tzaddikim, einei hoedoh bechlal venesi hadeir bifrat, we do not have the foggiest idea as to HOW that process works in terms of the consciousness of the tzaddik himself, nor in any other terms, for that matter. On the other hand, the tendency to deny the Rebbe any personal conscious accomplishment it who he was and, in fact, insisting that he was a robot-like G-d's Will Enunciator is terribly simplistic, dehumanizing, arrogant and plain disrespectful. I don't feel that there is real awe in this approach, rather a convenient self-congratulating glee of users. Besides, how can you LOVE a robot? Moreover, when the discussion is about the Rebbe’s shitoh on interaction with powerful philosophical ideas of the times, how does it help to say that these ideas come forth into the world as a spiritual contrast to the Rebbe’s philosophical output? Does that approach help you shape your view of the world and your response to the ideas that surround you (your ‘hiddoveik bemideisov’)? I don’t think it helps at all, I think it takes you back to ‘the Rebbe as the great artist’ discussion.
Ephraim,
I hate to burst your bubble, but much of the ‘radical mysticism’ and even some of what you call Chabad ‘party line’ vis-à-vis Chabad view of the Rebbe was fashioned by the Rebbe himself in the early ‘50s. You do not have to take my word for it - the sound recordings of those sicheis from the summer of 1950 are readily available. So shaal naalecho meal raglecho and tread carefully.
Berl, I appreciate your response and you are probably right about all the mystical conjecture, however, how did you jump from not being influenced by secular ideas to veiwing the Rebbe as a robot? I never said that the Rebbe had no independent, creative thought processes C"V- I only meant that I don't feel comfortable ascribing his inspiration to french philosophers and the like. I in no way wish to deify or dehumanize the Rebbe's pesonality. As for Efraim, I am not concerned with which "party" you align yourself with, I only wish to clarify my understanding of this issue.
"how did you jump from not being influenced by secular ideas to viewing the Rebbe as a robot?"
zumer,
Firstly, I did not jump from that but from the "zeh leumas zeh" statement. Secondly, I did not really jump at all - I wasn't referring to you specifically, but rather to the general "tendency" I feel is out there.
zumer,
Just to clarify, I never mentioned anything about deification. Deification is fine by me. It's dehumanization I abhor. Remember: מחציו ולמטה איש מחציו ולמעלה האלקים
Joe in Australia,
I am not sure what you meant by this story. I liked it though. If I may suggest an interpretation, you are trying to say that the Rebbe gave us the key and told us that we can go in and have cake, his ideas, by ourselves, and close the door behind when we are done. Is that right?
If this is what you mean, I totally agree. It sounds somewhat sad but so true. Things do change, and we sometimes have to go and search for cakes on our own.
Zumer, Berl,
In my eyes, it is still radical mysticism, which doesn’t make it illegitimate, but makes it irrelevant to our discussion. I will explain my point. When the Rebbe says this, I am totally comfortable with it, because he was a deeply engaged mystic all the way, since he was a young man. He spoke from his personal mystical experience. I know nothing about mystical experiences, but I trust him on that. As Rashag said, “I trust this young man, and if he said that Rayatz revealed himself to him, I know that he says truth, and I know that Rayatz didn’t reveal himself to me.”
For me to say all this emanation theory is equal to just announcing that I abide with what I heard. It is fine if you chose to do so, but I don’t understand how it contributes to our conversation. I agree with Berl that this causes dehumanization of the Rebbe, and I think that the problem is even broader. This approach causes dehumanization to us as well. It causes lack of intellectual authenticity – I proclaim abstract truths as if they were owned by me, when I have no clue what it really means. It's like saying that we all love climbing Everest when actually we never were there. The most we can say is we like watching people on Discovery channel do this, or we like the idea of doing it. Creating this mass delusional feeling that we all are on top of Everest, is unhealthy to our perception of reality, to put it mildly. In contemporary Chabad, as I see it, it results in impoverished thinking.
Let me give an example (O my G-d, another controversy!): When after Yud Shevat the Rebbe was crying and saying that Rayatz was still alive and he was present with us, I can say that the Rebbe as a mystic felt and knew things that we have no clue about, and I could feel in awe of being in presence of a mystical event. The Rebbe maintained number of times that Rayatz’s neshomah entered him. It is radical mysticism, like it or not. Do I have a problem with it? No. Do I have a problem with teenagers running around waving flags and spewing it right and left about the Rebbe today? Yes. He was sharing his deeply owned mystical truth that led him in his spiritual life and actually caused him make personal sacrifices (I don’t agree with those who claim that the Rebbe wanted this position from the get go. He was really not this type of a person.), whereas the YellowFlag people make it into a political statement, which turns intimately owned mystical experience into cynically disowned party-line propaganda, when trite circumstances turn into fateful ideologies. It's like shooting somebody execution style in the name of world proletariat when he cut you in line in a grocery store. (Just a metaphor.) They hurt themselves more than they hurt others. They, I am afraid, disown themselves through those statements that they trade. In my eyes it is a delicate difference between intimacy as an act of sharing closeness, and prostitution as an act of trading it as a commodity, if you know what I mean. And since female body became a frontpage item, we look at women with much less respect. Same thing happened to the Rebbe. Since the YellowFlag phenomenon, his genuine and revolutionary ideas, as I tried to look at it, were turned into spiritual pornography. His personal experiences are viewed by many with scorn and disbelief, or even outright dislike. Not many people even make an effort to try to think what was it that he was trying to say or do, because they feel appalled by the fallout and by intellectual violence his ideas are accompanied with today. If this is not a personal tragedy, I don't know what tragedy is.
Ephraim,
I agree with 95% of what you wrote. However, I do not like to speculate on what was or was not tragic in the Rebbe's eyes. First of all, he took this role upon himself consciously, fully aware of all the implications. Secondly, it’s a bit inaccurate to describe the Rebbe’s mystical experiences as strictly private. To me it seemed that he most definitely expected others to internalize some points of view that were shaped by those experiences. Lastly, I am not as convinced as you are that all the ‘flag-waving’ (well, maybe not the literal one) was undesired.
I have been away for several days and I return to find that Mentalblog has righted itself. I never new that rats on a ship could amount to so much unsecured b-ll-st - ballast.
As others have commented, there is much to read before commenting but the anecdote caught my attention. It synopsizes the entire debate regarding post-Gimmel Tammuz Chabad-Lubavitch: Nothing has changed yet everything has changed. In a word; we are living in a tzimtzum.
berl, you are trying to reconcile two opposing schools of thought. If deifying the Rebbe is ok, if he is the embodiment of G-d in this world, then he is unlike any human, hence, dehumanization.
Berl,
True, the Rebbe shared a lot of it, and made it public consciously. As I don't think he needs to be defended from me, so too I think he doesn't need to be defended from his own Hassidim.
However, when the Rebbe shares with you (very democratically, if I may say) his private experiences, what is it that you do with it? You appropriate it as if it was your own? You throw it around as a dime? It reminds me of those prisoners with life sentences who instead of telling a joke just call out its number, and everybody laughs.
Somehow, it all gets too easy.
"Oh, that's easy. It is שכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו. Hey, I know this one - it is Attik Yomin, let's have a drink. No, it is מטי ולא מטי, it's on the house. Rebbe is angel, Rashi said in Chumash. No, he is G-d, there is another Rashi on it. No he is more than G-d, Tosfos said that, and how didn't they understand it before? He just said it, and when the other guy screamed it, he nodded with his head." It's just one maymor and another sicho and a couple more letters, and full blown theology is right there, like in drive-by MacDonald's.
How come it is all so simple for you folks? You read it in Reader's Digest, or it's some book like "Ultimate Truth for Dummies" that I didn't read?
zumer,
Please do not go to the silly "embodiment of G-d in this world" stuff. That is not what I meant by 'deification'. What I meant and partially said was that in the mind of a chosid, the "meichetziei ulemaalo hoeleikim" must never obscure the "meichetziei ulemato ish." Moreover, that too, is a maaloh, not a chisoron in the 'hoeleikim'...
Ephraim,
Now you are back to the 95% of your previous comment, the part I fully agree with.
Ephraim,
The one thing in my comment that you do not address is that there is a possibility that the Rebbe actually liked some of the ‘cheap appropriation’ that you dislike so much. And maybe that's why he shared so, as you put it, democratically. And btw, what’s more post-modern than pastiche and appropriation?
If I said "atzmus umehus melubash beguf" does it sound less silly? But wait, I just quoted the Rebbe- I guess that makes it too easy. This discussion is going in circles. Instead of discrediting arguments by insults and trivilization, just state your opinion, without obscurity.
zumer,
It is an obscure and an esoteric subject. It is only slightly tangential to the main discussion here. I needed to mention it because you equated the deification and dehumanization in your comment (saying that you engage in neither). And no, atzmus hamelubosh is not AT ALL the same as "embodiment of G-d in this world".
Efraim,
Leaving aside the vileness of C Schliach's post, I would nevertheless like you to elaborate on one issue he raised. After all you know and experienced, don't you feel that your Weltanschauung is in fundamental conflict not only with the debased form of Chassidus we presently behold but with its basic tenets of in general? The tzadik-beinoni concept presupposes existence of a superhuman entity whose actions and ideas are always guided by God, to say the least, even if you assume as you may that his human state still remains intact in the course of this process. This being so, is it then still possible to apply logic and reason to his thought processes?
I do not pretend to be a follower of Chassidus. To me, logic and reason, however imperfect they are in our hands, are the only tools of discernment we can ever have. I only accept as a working assumption that logic and reason are not antinomial to the Divine because the Divine acts and manifests itself through these qualities. But then again, I am not a True Believer. A True Believer facing this dilemma would inevitably be racked by internal turmoil, and perhaps he would not be one anymore.
P.S. I think I treaded too far. I would not feel offended if you do not respond.
Thanks.
Why is anybody comfortable with 'deification' of the Rebbe?
I thought that was outright keffira, Berls (mis)quote, notwithstanding about Moshe ish Haelokim(besides the 'small' difference that Moshe was chosen by Hashem as the Jewish leader and the Rebbe was chosen by some people in Brooklyn and other parts to lead a small chassidus at the time.How did this Nosi Hador thingy comeabout?..That's the whole problem with Lubavitch theology, we've got circular logic going here.For example:The Rebbe is nossi, therefore like Moshe 'Ish Hoeloikim' therefore Moshiach, therefore according to Meshichisten can't die.But whoa, guys, you getting ahead of yourselves!Who decided that thae Rebbe, ceratainly a fine man was Nossi Hador???Berl of Crown Heights? Or some of his elder compatriots in 1950?
Lets stop it now:The vast majority of Jews never ever accepted the first 'hanocho', so we can't continue on the reast of this wierd trip.
Ephraim, I wish you'd stop tiptoeing around the 'elephant in the room' problem and address it.
Some random thoughts on the above:
Joe in australia's "cake story", remotely reminded me of how Tzvi Freeman capsulizes Gimmel Tammuz, in his unique imitable way: That it's like a teacher who leaves the classroom for several minutes, to see how the students will far in his absence. Cutesy, but also food for thought..
*
Also - Joe: In the Rebbe's opinion, we wouldn't necessarily say ZY"A on any chosid, regardless. In Shaarei Halocha U'Minhag (not here at the moment), he says that within Tzadikim themselves, not everyone is on the caliber of Rashbi, etc.
Besides for which, it came as a novel rarity when the Rebbe added on Zalman Moshe's Nichum letter, the letter צ< thus making it זצ"ל.
*
To Joseph -
The other Rebbeim had said it rather matter-of-factedly, it was a "given" by them. Therefore, "negating" may not have been required (On the Rashab, my father Nosi Yisroel..).
An interesting point to what you bring from Tanya (ch. 1, etc.), which is speaking generally ("עמד ושתלן בכל דור ודור" - is respectively, first of all).
There is obviously much more to be said in this vein.
In that thread as well: indeed, the Rebbe always encouraged other Chassidis'n to continue the previous dynasties and flourish, and that there's a koach to all who have m'kushorim. (Many instances, where the Rebbe "pushed" them into the position, the current Boyaner one example.)
There's an intersting loshon the Rebbe says to the Karlin-Stolin Rebbe(Shlita), when he came to comfort the Rebbe after 22 Shvat. The Rebbe starts off, (toichen): "פותחין בדבר הלכה מעניני אבילות, שמן הדין הי' לעמוד בפני נשיא בישראל".
(The full discussion is printed in 'Toras Menachem - Menachem Tziyon' set).
I must point out a very strange thing, which is a little bit Lubavitch 'leshtosom'
The Rayat'z (i think)revealed that just like there are holy guests/ushpizin on sukkos,Avrohom, Yitzchok etc , there are also chasidic holy guests, and they are.....THE LUBAVITCH DYNASTY!(besides the Besht)
So some questions:Isn't this, to say the least, a bit not on the modest side to say that your lineage are the 'Kings of Israel' of every generation, who visit every Jew's sukka?
What exactly are the Chasidic guests adding to our forefathers Avrohom,Yitzchok?Why not the Ramba'm or the Ari z'l?
Are we now going to change the nusach of Shmonei Esreh to Elokey Avrohom and the Lubavitcher line?
Friends, with this type of stuff and this is one example it's difficult to take you seriously, despite so much positive that Lubavitch has done in the Jewish World
Berl,
And no, atzmus hamelubosh is not AT ALL the same as "embodiment of G-d in this world".
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on that thought?
Darya Petrovna, if "I only accept as a working assumption that logic and reason are not antinomial to the Divine because the Divine acts and manifests itself through these qualities."
Then surely: "it [is] then still possible to apply logic and reason to his thought processes" to "[the]superhuman entity whose actions and ideas are always guided by God
Boruch der aysel,
This is fine with me, it was my point exactly. But why did the true believing correspondents turn out in force against Ephraim's attempt to analyze the Rebbe's legacy using the ordinary tools of logic and deduction? Obviously they do have a problem with it.
I don't think they are too big on neither logic nor deduction. They have no exclusive claim to the mantel of "true belief" ;)
Shimon,
Forget the whole argument about the נשיא הדור and let's just talk about משה רבינו. What does it mean to you that he was מחציו ולמעלה האלקים ? Are you comfortable saying this about משה רבינו ? If there is a problem with saying something like this about any human being (or as you put it - כפירה ), then it should not have been said about משה רבינו either - no mater Who chose him for the task - for he was still a human being. And if it can be said about משה רבינו, then you can apply it to all צדיקים , who are all איתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא ודרא . And it would not be at all exclusive to נשיא הדור (whoever he might be). Moreover, every Jew is G-dly, it's just aparent ( בלשון החסידות - בגלוי ) with the צדיקים .
Let me tell you all. I had the privilige of eating at Efraim's shabbos table, when he was living in Tel Rumaida. It was one of the most memorable shabbosim I have had. Quite a show of Mesiras Nefesh. It goes without saying that the table conversation was extraordinary, it was almost surreal how one was transported beyond those hiltop "trailors" surrounded by the A-rabs.
Re Chabad "minds". I find that Chabad has a lot of intellectualls that are not "apologists" and can think their way out of a paper bag. Efraim, what u hear are mostly the "squeeky wheels", not necesserily does that reflect the reality. Yossi Jacobson, Dovi Pinson to name a few. I have come across alot that farshtayen an inyan.
If you know anything about the rest of the orthodox mindset, such as, the litvishe, BP, Flatbush, Williamsburgh, Chabad people far and away have a much healthier view of Judaism/Jewish thought. The stench emenating from their minds is akin to the stench of water sitting in a canal that hasent moved in decades. The water (Torah) is present, the canal (mitzvois) is there, ubber s'shtinkt from lack of (intellectual) use.
Frankly speaking, your thoughts on the Rebbe, was one of the most touching and eloquent writings i have read concerning the Rebbe's legacy. Right up there with the speech by Jonathan Sacks. KEEP IT UP.
Tzemach u must have some zchus somewhere for Efraim to choose your blog to publish his wonderful insights. A breath of fresh air compared to the usual drivel and nonsense that passes for conversation on this blog.
CA Shliach - since when does "v'yadaita ki ani Ha-va-yeh" contradict "Lo machshivoisai machshivoisaichem"? BTW, the best way for you to uphold the Rebbe's "Honor" is by acting and talking aidel. Not as a roosishe chaya mit daineh zidlen. The Rebbe was not a big proponent of your style.
CA Shliach - since when does "v'yadaita ki ani Ha-va-yeh" contradict "Lo machshivoisai machshivoisaichem"
You ask a good question,
My original point was in the spirit of writing on a blog. Doesn't any one get it??
This is not a University setting and we the professors deciding the course of the world.
If you are in tuxedos with bow ties, let me inform you, I write on this blog everyday when I go to Malibu Beach for my morning Mikvah sipping Ketel One to get the engines revving for the day. Farshtei???
I Hope that explains my tone. I am having fun. That includes even when I speak of the three stooges.(which I'm quite serious about)
Now even if there are some valid points to Efraims discourse -- however and in particular, as a person who claims to be brought up with Farbrengens etc... his entire tone is disrespectful.
The Rebbe is radical , Tragic, Lonely, Chassidim lack intellectual expression.. did any one pick up all the negativity in his shot of HOT air.
Knowing G-d, doesn't give anyone a right to pass judgement on G-d and feel the need and satisfaction of neatly packaging Him in what is at best the mind of one individual who sounds like he is in the looften.
To Call G-d lonely, Tragic, radical, vechulu -- the accusatory judgments, is passing over the line. This lacks total respect for the subject matter. Unless off course you think the Rebbe is a man like everyone else just happened to get lucky and fall in a special position.
To think and worse yet accuse the Torah positions of the Rebbe to be influenced by French existentialism or whatever, is ki devar Hashem Bozoh. Would you say Eliyohu Hanovi and Yeshayahu Hanovi were influenced by the Romans and their Nevuah had a tinge of paganism in it???? Chas Vesholom.
For the record, on this blog I always defended peoples supposed deficiencies... look back
But this guy smells too strong of Gaavoh. and although he may be motivated (he thinks he is) buy pure intentions I think he has stepped over the boundary and can use a little coming down to the ground therapy.
any way back to my sip of Belvedere and one more dunk for Shabbos Koidesh.
Good Shabbos Efraim , I really love you too.
Whatever else you may say about Ca Shiach, I recognize in him a pure, unadorned and consistent expression of the mindset I observed in my encounters with various Chabadniks, at least those that belong to a subset that does not shy away from publicly stating their views. Many others may be evasive or somewhat sly in public. I do not doubt the sincerity of those true believers who discount his views (his style and substance are another matter) in their comments, but they should reexamine whether the intellectual openess they strive to embrace is truly consistent with the Chabad dogma to which they have committed. Some of the inconvenient matters they try to brush aside cannot be simply ascribed to inept, corrupt or confused practioners, they may have come down from the highest level of their movement. I say it with utmost respect possible because I recognize that finding the right spiritual path is an arduous undertaking with an uncertain outcome at best; anyone who embarked on it had already accomplished a great deal.
CAShliach- the Rebbe was not a radical? not lonely? not tragic? Exactly which Rebbe were u watching? Have you stripped the Rebbe from his humanity? when did that accure, Taf Shin Yud or lchatchila he never had any humanity? and whats with this Shemtovism shtick of cursing the guy out and then saying "I love u".
I was very excited by the potential of this small bit of writing but unfortunately after reading it over shabbos - i have come to the conclusion that the author is not really saying much at all.
Both French Existenitalism and the Rebbe's own Religous Philosophy/Theology need to be studied in far greater detail for there to be any important or meaningful results.
Who are the 1 or 2 real chabad intellectuals??
To Asher Lev,
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz
Rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg
You or I might not like them, but they give new material.
Others just popularize or being apologetic.
Commenting by HaloScan
