It seems to me quite obvious we aren't discussing with people who are educated in the wisdom of Chassidus but rather people who have a secular view of Tzadikim.


Berl, have you heard of a Merkovo Le'Eloikus? Do you have any clue of what it means??

does it emphasize humanization or dehumanization of the subject?

Ca. Shliach was asked a number of questions begining from how and why he crticizes people nominated by the Rebbe, why he thinks it is preposterous to try and figure how the Rebbe thinks, and the only responses to his comments is that he is crazy,

it seems to me that no one wants to really address his very valid points.


There has always been philosophisers who try to intelectualize everything including miracles and G-d himself.

This is what appears to be the gist of this conversation. The Torah says uldovko boi - and it is explained hidovek betalmidai Chachomim.

according to Rashi of all people, there are certain great Rabbis that operate like G-d, that's what the above means, connecting with them is like connecting with G-d, literally (Rashi)

so I see and agree that in the same way it is preposterous to try anad figure G-d there is certainly the Tzadkim that by connecting with them it is like connecting with G-d ( Shechinah medaberes mitoich geroinim) and anyone who thinks he can figure G-d obviously is missing some major marbles the same would be for their physical expression or represantative in this world. AKA The Rebbe uchedoimeh
Dov. | 06.14.07 - 10:31 am | #

Is Merovo leElokus the same as the one depicted in the "fun Kisliyavitch zum Lubavitch" painting?
Tzemach Atlas | Homepage | 06.14.07 - 10:39 am | #

Dov,
The ideas of מרכבה לרצון העליון and שכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו are not in any way dehumanizing ideas; in fact they are only awesome BECAUSE they refer to human beings. On the other hand, jumping on Ephraim's throat because he tried to express his view of the Rebbe's relationship with the prevailing philosophical ideas of his day is indicative of a dehumanizing approach. Incidentally, Ephraim doesn't even have to be right in his analysis for Ca. Shliach to be wrong in his response.
berl, crown heights | 06.14.07 - 11:36 am | #

Dear Ephraim et al, as Gimmel Tammuz approaches, I will take some time off, and hope that this discussion will still be alive or can be revived in a week from now. May we continue it Bezer Hashem together in Yerushalayim.
guravitzer | 06.14.07 - 1:05 pm | #

the only one jumping down Efraim's throat is ca.shliach, and that is just the only m.o. he knows.
zumer | 06.14.07 - 1:08 pm | #

Berl,

I find you to be totally disingenuous.


Now you are saying that its because of the way Ca. Shliach responded that you take issue with him.

C'mon who are you fooling, besides as the intellectual that you are, and a truly objective philosopher, doesn't it behoove you to defend your positions against his intellectual and Torah points. Or was there nothing intellectual or Torah about Ca. Shliachs points.


Also, Efraims response to him wasn't much different. a bunch of personal rhetoric and nothing of substance.

I guess people who claim to be seeking intellectual honesty can sometimes themselves fail in that endeavor and delude themselves of their one sided dribble.
Dov. | 06.14.07 - 1:10 pm | #

"people who claim to be seeking intellectual honesty..."
Now, that's too much! When did I ever claim such a thing?
As to Ca. Shliach, I will not waste any more time explaining. Just go through the blog archives and read his obsessive drivel first.
berl, crown heights | 06.14.07 - 1:32 pm | #

"besides as the intellectual that you are, and a truly objective philosopher, doesn't it behoove you to defend your positions against his intellectual and Torah points. "

Firstly, I am no philosopher and I am most definitely not objective. I am known here as a rather partisan person (G-d forgive me, there is truth in that accusation). Secondly, I don't have to defend my positions at all, nor do I bother unless the defense process itself promises to be fun.
berl, crown heights | 06.14.07 - 1:50 pm | #

Is it not interesting that as CA. Shliach leaves the scene dov shows up..hmmm. I have met many shluchim but it is very clear cashliach/dov is no shliach. To identify as a shliach and to bash like this and try to stifle other peoples opinions just not work on shlichus...
Joseph | 06.14.07 - 10:31 pm | #

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
mendel | 06.14.07 - 11:49 pm | #

If I may, I'll chime in with something that I believe is relevant. When the Rav's z"tl daughter was married to Rav Aron Lichtenstein Shlita, past Rosh Yeshiva at the Gush, Reb Aron Soloveitchik, z"tl spoke at the Sheva Brochos held on Shabbos. This story is relayed by Rav Hershel Schachter Shlita.

The Rav wasn't well enough to speak, having undergone an operation. Reb Aron asked the following question: How can it be that the grandson of Reb Chaim Brisker, z"tl and the son of Reb Moshe Soloveitchik, z"tl presented Shiurim which were fused explicitly and sometimes only concerning modern Philosophy. The Rav, like the last Rebbe z"tl, was in Berlin, where he Rav continued and finished a PhD in Philosophy. Reb Aron, continued, how is this the Brisker Shita? How can philosophy from the outside somehow find it's way into the shiurim of the Rav.
This was, of course, an argument that simplistic ones used in criticising the Rav by claiming that he had forged some "new" derech in Torah which his Grandfather and Father would never dream of.
Reb Aron answered, possibly based on a Malbim. Yosef Hatzadik's brothers had the same Tayne against Yosef. They said, our father Yaacov Ovinu had one dream. Sulam Mutzav Artzo Verosho Magiah Hashomaymo. This was a dream fill of Kedusha reaching to the lofty heights of Shomayim. How can you, Yosef, have the Chutzpah to have two dreams: one dream which is concerned with Ruchnius (about the stars etc) and another which is concerned about Gashmius (which is about the stalks of wheat etc). They claimed that Yosef was a fraud. He was breaking the Mesorah of his father and speaking a new language through these new dreams.

The answer, Reb Aron explained is that the dreams were exactly the same. Yosef had taken the dream and broken it down into its components. Yes, there was a Sulam. But it started in Gashmius in this world and then continued into Ruchnius Shomaymo. Yosef expanded on his father's mesora but broke it down into a different terminology of components.

Reb Aron went on to say that the Rav was transmitting the exact Brisker shitta that his Zeyda and father had passed on as Mesora. Anyone who reads the writings of the Rav can plainly see his deep connection with his Zeyde and father and their Shita of learning. The difference is that the Rav lived in another world. He had a great interest in Philosophy. He used the language of the philosophy to faithfully restate the conceptual mesorah that he had received, in the modern language of his time. In doing so, he enfranchised and regaled the world in a manner that many consider unparalleled.

Interestingly, in his later years, the Rav ceased speaking and writing using references and concepts from philosophy to make his points. There are at least two opinion as to why this occured. According to Rabbi Wurtzberger, z"l this was because the Rav felt that the Talmidim no longer understood or appreciated the philosophical parallels that he drew and he was therefore no longer able to make his Shiur any clearer. In fact, he was probably obfuscating the Shiur. According to Rav Shechter, the Rav simply lost interest in Philosophy over time and ceased using it.

Either way, EVEN IF, one discovers a consistency between the last Rebbe z"tl and French philosophy (something I know nothing about) then it is quite plausible that this philosophy was a metaphysical binyan which he saw as something that was consistent with the Mesorah he received from his father and the Rayatz. It does not necessarily mean that he developed his outlook as a result of the exposure to that binyan. Rather, his own approach, also tailored to the world that he lived in and the people he had to influence, found a meaningful manifestation through he prism of that philosophy.

Now, I say all this as someone completely ignorant of both French philosophy, and indeed the writings of the last Rebbe.

Dibroh Torah B'Loshon B'nei Odom.

Chochmo Bagoyim Ta'amin.

The Ikkar is Mesorah. I don't believe either the Rav or the Rebbe transmitted a new Mesorah.
Isaac Balbin | 06.15.07 - 12:19 am | #