Which is Normative Judaism
Moshe Shulman
I am here posting the answer to Rabbi Keller from Rabbi Schochet.
I will not comment here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
reprint from the Algemeiner Journal - March 27 , 1998
G-D-CENTERED OR MACHLOKET-CENTERED: Which is Normative Judaism?
A Response to Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller of Chicago
by Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet
Rabbi C.D. Keller of Chicago just published an article in The Jewish
Observer of March 1998, titled "G-d-Centered or
Rebbe/Messiah-Centered: Which is Normative Judaism?" It focuses on
crude utterances by elements that identify with Lubavitch.
By applying the notorious device of "guilt by association," however,
his nine-page article is turned into an implicit and explicit attack
on Lubavitch and Chassidic practices.
To be sure, he throws in a few compliments - e.g., "the Lubavitcher
Rebbe created the world's largest Jewish outreach organization and
one of the largest educational networks.. a movement with so much
good to its credit and so much mesiras nefesh." This concession,
however, along with the number of valid criticisms, emerge as no more
than consideration of the sayings of our sages that falsehood and
lashon hara need an admixture of some truth to become credible.
I will not defend the "Meshichists," and certainly not the grotesque
and disgusting publications so widely quoted by Rabbi Keller. In most
respects, I, along with all responsible Lubavitchers that I know,
share his opinions about them. The author of the obscene article in
Beis Moshiach, cited by Rabbi Keller, can affirm that I was the first
to rebuke him that his words are tantamount to avodah zara. I have
stated the same in public as well, and did so as soon as I was shown
the article, a few days after its appearance.
My reaction to Rabbi Keller's article relates to its own faults and
repugnance. A full response would require at least twice the size of
his nine pages, thus I have to restrict myself to general
observations and only a few specific points that are symptomatic of
his approach.
[1] First and foremost: what was the purpose or justification of the
article? Rabbi Keller himself concedes that "it will not make any
difference to the Messianists. They will remain steadfast in their
faith. For most others (sic) it is not necessary because the
fallacies are obvious." Thus he claims to address "those who may be
confused." Just who are those readers of The Jewish Observer who may
be confused?
[2] Rabbi Keller published an article in The Jewish Observer six
months earlier in which he already scored all his basic points
against the Messianists. The second article is essentially a more
detailed, lengthy repetition of the first. If his concern is with
"those who may be confused" - why the duplication? Did they become
more confused? If they did not believe him the first time, why should
they believe him with his "second coming"? To be sure, chewing the
cud is a sign of kashrut; but he should have heeded the warnings of
our sages that hamarbeh devarim meivi chet, marbeh shtus and marbeh
sheker.
[3] Where did Rabbi Keller find a hetter to print, repeatedly and in
a public forum, words of blasphemy and idolatry, especially when
addressing an audience "who may be confused"? The question is
compounded when noting that Rabbi Keller himself acknowledges that
these are matters "that should not be heard"!
[4] Rabbi Keller states that he submitted his article to "several
widely respected Gedolei Torah - both Chassidic and non-Chassidic -
who urged its publication."
Question: Who are these "widely respected Gedolei Torah"? Why does he
not identify them? Moreover, if this is so urgent an act of saving
the souls of "those who may be confused," and it is a case of eit
la'asot laHashem etc., why did these Gedolei Torah fail to issue some
statement of their own, or at least authorize a signed approbation to
Rabbi Keller's article? After all, in matters of piku'ach nefesh it
is incumbent upon the gedolim to take the initiative!
My question is not of curiosity but of principle. Without using any
ru'ach hakodesh, I, and many others, can easily draw up a list of the
men Rabbi Keller would approach for approval of an article of this
kind.
[5] Rabbi Keller states that a response to his first article was
circulated by Rabbi Daniel Moscowitz of Chicago, and adds that he
does not intend to respond to it. I took the trouble to contact Rabbi
Moscowitz and asked him for a copy. It turns out that the response
was a "Letter to the Editor of The Jewish Observer" which, not
surprisingly, the editor refused to publish. Rabbi Moscowitz informed
me that he sent a copy to Rabbi Keller and to a few people who
approached him about that article. His response dealt exclusively
with a defense of two principles that Rabbi Keller found
objectionable.
It is then certainly astonishing to find Rabbi Keller attacking Rabbi
Moscowitz and his letter without the public knowing about its
contents. In spite of disclaiming any intent to answer that letter,
it is very clear that Rabbi Keller's second article is provoked by
it. He condemns Rabbi Moscowitz for not repudiating the offensive
statements of the Messianists (which was beyond the scope of his
response) and takes direct issue with one part of his reply.
Moreover, Rabbi Keller attributes to Rabbi Moscowitz a defense of
five issues as "normative." Four of these are not mentioned at all in
Rabbi Moscowitz's letter, and one of these had not even been
mentioned in Rabbi Keller's first article. His present article thus
becomes a classical example of Rabbi Moscowitz arguing about wheat
and Rabbi Keller responding about barley! It is certainly an
understatement to condemn this as blatant dishonesty!
Now for a few specifics:
[6]. Rabbi Keller notes that Rabbi Moscowitz's letter cites sources
from the Talmud, Zohar, Chassidus and Nefesh Hachaim to prove that
[the two items he dealt with, and which had been criticized by Rabbi
Keller] "do not indicate any turn away from normative Yiddishkeit."
He comments: "This to me is extremely disturbing." And in the
preamble to his "refutation" of these two items he writes:
"Any serious student of Torah knows that there are statements in
Tanach and in the words of the chachamim to be taken literally, and
those to be understood metaphorically. Whoever confuses the two is
guilty at times of outright kefirah (heresy)."
I could not have put it better. Unfortunately, though, both his
examples are inappropriate. If he had studied the discussion of
anthropomorphism in Chovot Halevovot and Rambam, he would have
realized the absurdity of his analogy with anthropomorphism.
His second example of the verses ordaining tefilin and mezuzah is not
only irrelevant to his case but explodes his very approach: yes, an
allegorical reading of these verses would negate the observance of
these mitzvot, but so would their literal reading! If not for the
interpretative tradition of Torah shebe'al peh, these verses (like
most others that ordain mitzvot) are meaningless.
This raises the crucial question: whose interpretation of the sources
referred to is acceptable? Is it the one of the authoritative
commentators or Rabbi Keller's?
To quote Rabbi Keller: "Not only the average Jew but even the Gedolei
Torah who reviewed this article were not aware of such Torah
hashkafos based on these sources." What is the point? No one suspects
them, or Rabbi Keller, of being familiar with the Zohar, the writings
of the Arizal (R. Isaac Luria), of the Chassidic classics, and so
forth. Little wonder, then, that they do not know about the mystical
discussions of the status of the tzadik and the subtle terminology of
Theomorphic ascriptions (see the well-known interpretations of
Ha'azinu 32:46-47 in Sifre and Yerushalmi-Pe'ah). If they will make
the effort to study the works of the Toldot, the Kedushat Levi, the
Tanya, and especially the No'am Elimelech (to name just a few), they
would find there a very elaborate treatment of these "Torah
hashkofos."
Newspapers and popular journals are definitely not the forum to
discuss such delicate themes (see Chagigah 11b-ff.). I suggest that
they start with studying Tanya, Igeret Hakodesh, ch. 25, to
familiarize themselves with some basic premises. And if I may be so
bold, I refer them to the monograph "Tzadik Yessod Olam: The Concept
of the Rebbe-Tzadik" in my book Chassidic Dimensions, pp. 81-124.
A cavalier dismissal of the words of our sages, as displayed in the
article, whether it be because of unawareness, failure to understand,
or disagreement, is to be melagleg bedivrei chachamim (see Baba
Bathra 75a). To repeat Rabbi Keller's words: "Whoever confuses
(literal and metaphorical readings) is guilty at times of outright
kefirah!"
[7] Rabbi Keller identifies the Messianists' belief that the
resurrected Rebbe will be Moshiach with, lehavdil, Christianity. This
obscene analogy merely displays ignorance of both Judaism and,
lehavdil, Christianity.
Unlike the Meshichists, Christians (as well as the Sabbateans)
believe that their savior was already the Messiah in actual, and that
the Messianic redemption is already an established fact, though yet
to move to a new stage with the "second coming." This is not a matter
of semantics but fraught with practical implications: that belief
caused them to abrogate Torah and mitzvot (even as the Sabbateans,
too, changed Halachah because of their belief).
There is not a single case of any Meshichists abrogating or changing
a single mitzvah or aspect of Halachah! In fact, they continuously
urge greater and more punctilious observance of Torah and mitzvot to
hasten the redemption.
More specifically: is it possible for a resurrected tzadik to be
Moshiach? According to Sanhedrin 98b most definitely yes!
Is that view "normative Judaism"? It is certainly not the normative
Jewish perception of Moshiach throughout the ages. By the same token,
however, it does not violate normative Judaism or valid Halachah one
iota. The Almighty can appoint anyone He chooses to be Moshiach,
whether he be - to use the Gemara's expression - "of the living or of
the (presently) dead".
Indeed, the Meshichists are not even original. Aside of the Gemara
and the authorities that quote it (e.g., Abarbanel), no less an
authority than R. Menachem Nachum of Czernobyl (author of Me'or
Einayim) stated his conviction that the resurrected Baal Shem Tov
will be Moshiach (see Sefer Baal Shem Tov, Me'irat Einayim, par. 23).
The Meshichists can and must be criticized for converting a
(legitimate) personal belief and conviction into a categorical
imperative. There is no objective proof that their perception of
tzadik hador or nassi hador supersedes different perceptions by
others. Their public claims and activities, therefore, are a harmful
aberration and arrogant triumphalism.
[8] Rabbi Keller objects to Chassidim "conjuring up the image of the
Rebbe to strengthen hiskashrus with the Rebbe." He denounces this
practice as contravening the very first paragraph in Shulchan Aruch
which mandates "shiviti Havayah lenegdi tamid."
Once again he mistook his "being not aware of such Torah hashkafos"
to be a license to be melagleg bedivrei chachamim: R. Abba related
his continuous hiskashrus with R. Shimon bar Yochai, to seeing his
image before his eyes (Zohar II:123b; see Chessed LeAvraham - Azulay
II:33); and the Arizal in structs that difficulties in matters of
Torah can be overcome by conjuring up the image of your Rebbe. (See
Chida, Midbar Kedeimot, s.v. tziyur, note there his additional
comments and references). The holy Sar Shalom of Belz stated that
when in trouble or need one should conjure up the image of a tzadik
and then will surely be helped (cited by his son-in-law, R. Chanoch
Henech of Olesk, in his Lev Same'ach).
Many authorities relate this to the verse "your eyes shall see your
Teacher" (Isaiah 30:20), to the point that R. Avtalyon Di Consiglia
(end of 16th century) writes in his Palgei Mayim that he kept a
picture of his Rebbe in his Bet Hamidrash in order to fulfill that
verse!
[9] Rabbi Keller objects also to people submitting questions and
problems to the Rebbe "by writing letters to him and placing them at
random in the Rebbe's Igros Kodesh," and then considering that page
to be an answer. Thus he repeats his habitual error: he rejects the
verse "Have I not written unto you esteemed things of counsels and
knowledge" (Mishlei 22:20) as rendered in Midrash Tanchuma and
Pessikta, and interpreted to mean that one can find counsel by random
opening of Torah-texts. Before Rabbi Keller is tempted to dismiss
this, too, as "allegory and metaphor", he should note that it is
cited literally in Halachic context (see Chida, Birkei Yossef, Yoreh
De'ah 179:6, and his Devash Lefi, s.v. Torah).
(In my humble opinion, however, this practice requires great caution
and qualified guidance, because there is a danger of subjective
interpretation. Nonetheless, it is a proper and legitimate practice
of normative Judaism even if some "normative Jews" are not aware of
it.)
[10] All this should suffice to understand the nature and agenda of
Rabbi Keller. The effect of his article is not to resolve confusion
but to create it. Its sole achievement is to generate divisiveness,
which is worse than avodah zara (see Sifre, Nasso, sect. 42, and
Bereishit Rabba 38:7).
No one will object to Rabbi Keller, or anyone else, rebuking
wrong-doing. To rebuke wrong-doing is as much a mitzvah of the Torah
as to keep Shabbat and to eat kosher. But just as one cannot observe
Shabbat or kashrut without knowing their laws, so, too, one cannot
observe the mitzvah of hoche'ach tochi'ach without knowing its laws.
These include the Halachic qualifications of the terms amitecha and
lo tissa alav chet that are mentioned in that verse.
"R. Tarfon said: I wonder whether there is anyone in this generation
who is able to reprove; for if anyone says to (a sinner) 'remove the
mote from between your eyes,' he would answer 'remove the beam from
between your eyes.' R. Eleazar ben Azarya said, I wonder whether
there is anyone in this generation who is able to accept reproofs.
R. Akiva said, I wonder whether there is anyone in this generation
who knows how to reprove." (Arachin 16b)
This, too, is not some "allegorical" Aggada. It has Halachic
implications as noted in Chazon Ish on Hilchot De'ot, ch. 6, and on
Yoreh De'ah 13:16, which the author of the article should ponder most
seriously. Moreover, this Berayta relates especially to a case when
the "beam" in the would-be rebuker's eyes includes the hardened
substance of a consistent opposition to, and mockery of, Lubavitch
and the Rebbe since long before Messianism became an issue!
Unfortunately, Rabbi Keller dismisses Chassidus a priori, Rachmana
litzlan. As a "normative Jew", however, let alone as a rosh yeshivah,
he must certainly study, and pay attention to, the texts of Chafetz
Chaim and Shemirat Halashon. Proper knowledge of these texts would
surely have prevented him from speaking and writing as he did so far.
This reply is not meant to insult anyone. Rabbi Keller's article
cried out for a response, and Halachah mandates that in the face of a
chilul Hashem one is not to defer even to the honor due to a teacher.
If I may have slipped and offended Rabbi Keller personally - or
anyone else - I publicly beg for his forgiveness. My intent is solely
to set the record straight, shelo yarbu machloket beYisrael.
"These are the things you are to do: every one is to speak the truth
to his fellow, administer truth and the judgment of peace in your
gates... Love truth and peace!" (Zachariah 8:16, 19)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Micha Berger
On 12 May 1998 00:38:17 GMT, Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> quoted
Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet's response to Rabbi Keller's anti-meshichist
polemic:
: By applying the notorious device of "guilt by association," however,
: his nine-page article is turned into an implicit and explicit attack
: on Lubavitch and Chassidic practices.
Actually, he explicitely limits his comments to the meshichists. Anything
beyond that is a strawman.
In case you have any doubt, here are the first two paragraphs. The "emphasis
added" was by Rabbi Keller in his second article, not me.
In an article in the Summer '97 issue of The Jewish Observer, I
wrote of 'a movement... of active messianism which has lately taken
a frightening turn towards avoda zara.' As is quite obvious to anyone
who read the article carefully, I took great pains not to level this
charge at the whole Lubavitcher movement, but against one faction -
the group popularly known as 'Meshichisten' (Messianists). To quote
the article, "We have seen a highly respected Chassidic movement,
with great accomplishments for Torah and Yiddishkeit to its credit,
torn apart by a machlokes (dispute) that touches ikrei emunah -
the fundamentals of our faith.
"The Rebbe progressed in the eyes of ONE FACTION WITHING THE
MOVEMENT [emphasis added] from being a navi to being the most
probable candidate for Moshiach, to being 'bechezkas' Moshiach, to
being Melech HaMoshiach, to being a dead Moshiach who has not died,
to being 'omniscient', 'omnipotent' and being 'the Essence and Being
[of G-d] enclothed in a body!'
: [1] First and foremost: what was the purpose or justification of the
: article?
For people within Lubavitch who haven't yet decided where they stand on the
debate? For people who deal with meshichtsin, who might need to know their
beliefs before doing so? For example, would you invite your local Chabad
shaliach in to your shul to give a class on prayer if you knew that he
believed it "ok" to pray to the Rebbe?
: [3] Where did Rabbi Keller find a hetter to print, repeatedly and in
: a public forum, words of blasphemy and idolatry, especially when
: addressing an audience "who may be confused"?
Footnote 1 of the article reads:
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article, as well as the quote from my previous article
cited below, were reviewed, before they were published, by several widely
respected Gedolei Torah - both Chassidic and non-Chassidic - who urged their
publication.
: why did these Gedolei Torah fail to issue some
: statement of their own, or at least authorize a signed approbation to
: Rabbi Keller's article?
I don't know. Why does he fault Rabbi Keller for being unable to secure
someone else's action?
: This raises the crucial question: whose interpretation of the sources
: referred to is acceptable? Is it the one of the authoritative
: commentators or Rabbi Keller's?
: More specifically: is it possible for a resurrected tzadik to be
: Moshiach? According to Sanhedrin 98b most definitely yes!
IOW, after all this, Rabbi Schochet DEFENDS the position of the meshichtzin
and the article he earlier calls "disgusting".
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5806 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 12-May-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Simcha Streltsov
Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I am here posting the answer to Rabbi Keller from Rabbi Schochet.
: Unlike the Meshichists, Christians (as well as the Sabbateans)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
this counter-position is the funniest line, considering that these
two words - l'havdil- are translations of each other
R Schochet ends with:
: This reply is not meant to insult anyone. Rabbi Keller's article
: cried out for a response, and Halachah mandates that in the face of a
: chilul Hashem one is not to defer even to the honor due to a teacher.
interestingly enough, at the beginning he agrees with R Keller that there
are some people who are justly criticized and asserts that he rebuked
them in private. As his private rebuke seemingly
did not bring [full?] effect , it seems that he should have been obligated
to rebuke them in public - according to his own quotes about "removing your
own problem" first, and "even not to defer the the honor due to a teacher".
Thus, it seems that R Shochet is not following his own criticism.
Note also that R Keller writes after waiting considerable amount of time
after events started, while R Schochet who had enough opportunities to
to come public on that issue before, reacts to R Keller's publication.
strange position,
--
Simcha Streltsov Disclaimer:
simc...@juno.com Noone agrees with the opinions above,
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon Kal v'homer - my employer
Moshe Shulman
>From: sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov)
>R Schochet ends with:
>: This reply is not meant to insult anyone. Rabbi Keller's article
>: cried out for a response, and Halachah mandates that in the face of
a
>: chilul Hashem one is not to defer even to the honor due to a
teacher.
>interestingly enough, at the beginning he agrees with R Keller that
there
>are some people who are justly criticized and asserts that he rebuked
>them in private. As his private rebuke seemingly
>did not bring [full?] effect , it seems that he should have been
obligated
>to rebuke them in public - according to his own quotes about "removing
your
>own problem" first, and "even not to defer the the honor due to a
teacher".
>Thus, it seems that R Shochet is not following his own criticism.
>Note also that R Keller writes after waiting considerable amount of
time
>after events started, while R Schochet who had enough opportunities to
>to come public on that issue before, reacts to R Keller's publication.
>strange position,
If Schochet or any of the other big people there would be open in
their attacks, then no one would see a reason to say anything. If
they would attack those acting incorrectly instead of those who are
saying things they claim to agree with, no one would interfere.
Lubavitch has always been ignored by people like R. Keller, and he
probably would not have said anything if there wasn't what to say.
Moshe Shulman
>From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>On 12 May 1998 00:38:17 GMT, Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com>
quoted
>Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet's response to Rabbi Keller's
anti-meshichist
>polemic:
>: By applying the notorious device of "guilt by association," however,
>: his nine-page article is turned into an implicit and explicit attack
>: on Lubavitch and Chassidic practices.
>Actually, he explicitely limits his comments to the meshichists.
Anything
>beyond that is a strawman.
This is the problem. If anyone comments about any Lubavitcher, or
anything Lubavitch does, they are attacked. It's almost as if one is
not allowed to be Jewish if they do not follow what Lubavitch does.
>: [1] First and foremost: what was the purpose or justification of the
>: article?
>For people within Lubavitch who haven't yet decided where they stand
on the
>debate? For people who deal with meshichtsin, who might need to know
their
>beliefs before doing so? For example, would you invite your local
Chabad
>shaliach in to your shul to give a class on prayer if you knew that he
>believed it "ok" to pray to the Rebbe?
Also for those who don't know whether what is going on is allowed or
not.
>: why did these Gedolei Torah fail to issue
some
>: statement of their own, or at least authorize a signed approbation
to
>: Rabbi Keller's article?
>I don't know. Why does he fault Rabbi Keller for being unable to
secure
>someone else's action?
Why should they be subject to baseless attacks? If Rabbi Keller is
willing to be attacked, does that mean others are also? I am quite
certain if he accepted the words of Rabbi Keller, they would likewise
come out openly. As it is I know who they are and his comments are
just disgusting. They are both greater Talmidei chochomim then he is,
and people of impecable charachter.
>: This raises the crucial question: whose interpretation of the
sources
>: referred to is acceptable? Is it the one of the authoritative
>: commentators or Rabbi Keller's?
>: More specifically: is it possible for a resurrected tzadik to be
>: Moshiach? According to Sanhedrin 98b most definitely yes!
>IOW, after all this, Rabbi Schochet DEFENDS the position of the
meshichtzin
>and the article he earlier calls "disgusting".
Yes, and incorrectly. Sanhedrin 98b does not support it.
Moshe Shulman
There has been a little discussion of this article, I do not want to
repeat comments already made. Nor do I wish to comment on all the
'proofs' (except for one exception.) However there are a few things
that need to be stated:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>[2] Rabbi Keller published an article in The Jewish Observer six
>months earlier in which he already scored all his basic points
>against the Messianists. The second article is essentially a more
>detailed, lengthy repetition of the first. If his concern is with
>"those who may be confused" - why the duplication? Did they become
>more confused? If they did not believe him the first time, why should
He stated that it was in response to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A response to my article was circulated by Rabbi Daniel Moscowitz,
regional director of Lubavitch Chabad of Illinois. He does not
repudiate the offensive statements as the opinions of a small
minority - a lunatic fringe - as I have heard from some of my
Lubavitch friends. Instead he defends the whole movement from the
charge avoda zara by writing that 'these statements are well within
the mainstream of Torah thought as recognized by the non-Chassidic
world.' He then proceeds to cite chapter and verse from a number of
sources - Zohar, Yerushlami, Chassidus and even Nefesh Hachaim - to
'prove' that they 'do not indicate any turn away from normative
Yiddishkeit.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>[3] Where did Rabbi Keller find a hetter to print, repeatedly and in
>a public forum, words of blasphemy and idolatry, especially when
>addressing an audience "who may be confused"? The question is
>compounded when noting that Rabbi Keller himself acknowledges that
>these are matters "that should not be heard"!
The same question could be directed at Chazal who placed in the
Talmud manysuch things so that we should learn what is and is not
allowed.
>[4] Rabbi Keller states that he submitted his article to "several
>widely respected Gedolei Torah - both Chassidic and non-Chassidic -
>who urged its publication."
>Question: Who are these "widely respected Gedolei Torah"? Why does he
>not identify them? Moreover, if this is so urgent an act of saving
>the souls of "those who may be confused," and it is a case of eit
>la'asot laHashem etc., why did these Gedolei Torah fail to issue some
>statement of their own, or at least authorize a signed approbation to
>Rabbi Keller's article? After all, in matters of piku'ach nefesh it
>is incumbent upon the gedolim to take the initiative!
Considering the following comment R. Schochet made towards R. Keller,
why should they use their names?
>they believe him with his "second coming"? To be sure, chewing the
>cud is a sign of kashrut; but he should have heeded the warnings of
>our sages that hamarbeh devarim meivi chet, marbeh shtus and marbeh
>sheker.
If R. Schochet has no fear to attack a Talmud Chocham openly like
this, why should he fear to attack other Roshei Yeshivas, and Rebbes?
Why shouldn't they have concern for what might happen, if the more
responsible people in Lubavitch, like Rabbi Schochet, react in this
manner?
>My question is not of curiosity but of principle. Without using any
>ru'ach hakodesh, I, and many others, can easily draw up a list of the
>men Rabbi Keller would approach for approval of an article of this
>kind.
Interesting comment.
>It is then certainly astonishing to find Rabbi Keller attacking Rabbi
>Moscowitz and his letter without the public knowing about its
>contents. In spite of disclaiming any intent to answer that letter,
>it is very clear that Rabbi Keller's second article is provoked by
>it. He condemns Rabbi Moscowitz for not repudiating the offensive
>statements of the Messianists (which was beyond the scope of his
>response) and takes direct issue with one part of his reply.
'The scope of his response?' If someone writes that X has done wrong,
either you agree, or you justify X. It seems that Rabbi Moscowitz did
not repudiate, but justified them. That would appear to be the only
justifiable response.
>Moreover, Rabbi Keller attributes to Rabbi Moscowitz a defense of
>five issues as "normative." Four of these are not mentioned at all in
>Rabbi Moscowitz's letter, and one of these had not even been
>mentioned in Rabbi Keller's first article. His present article thus
>becomes a classical example of Rabbi Moscowitz arguing about wheat
>and Rabbi Keller responding about barley! It is certainly an
> understatement to condemn this as blatant dishonesty!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A response to my article was circulated by Rabbi Daniel Moscowitz,
regional director of Lubavitch Chabad of Illinois. He does not
repudiate the offensive statements as the opinions of a small
minority - a lunatic fringe - as I have heard from some of my
Lubavitch friends. Instead he defends the whole movement from the
charge avoda zara by writing that 'these statements are well within
the mainstream of Torah thought as recognized by the non-Chassidic
world.' He then proceeds to cite chapter and verse from a number of
sources - Zohar, Yerushlami, Chassidus and even Nefesh Hachaim - to
'prove' that they 'do not indicate any turn away from normative
Yiddishkeit.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He did not attribute a defence of the 5 things to Moscowitz, but of
failing to repudiate the statements of the 'lunatic fringe.' R.
Schochet was able to say he opposed them. Why couldn't R. Moscowitz?
The issue would of ended there (and if not, I and other sincere
people would be the first to back up R. Schochet in complaining about
an unfair attack on Lubavitch.)
>His second example of the verses ordaining tefilin and mezuzah is not
>only irrelevant to his case but explodes his very approach: yes, an
>allegorical reading of these verses would negate the observance of
>these mitzvot, but so would their literal reading! If not for the
>interpretative tradition of Torah shebe'al peh, these verses (like
>most others that ordain mitzvot) are meaningless.
I do not think this is justified. R. Keller's intention was ONLY to
show that an allegorical interpretation could lead to serious error.
>This raises the crucial question: whose interpretation of the sources
>referred to is acceptable? Is it the one of the authoritative
>commentators or Rabbi Keller's?
Would R. Schochet allow someone to speak of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z'L
in this manner? Is this the way an Orthodox Jew speaks about a fellow
Talmud Chocham? It is one thing to argue commentaries, another to
attack someone persoannly.
>To quote Rabbi Keller: "Not only the average Jew but even the Gedolei
>Torah who reviewed this article were not aware of such Torah
>hashkafos based on these sources." What is the point? No one suspects
>them, or Rabbi Keller, of being familiar with the Zohar, the writings
>of the Arizal (R. Isaac Luria), of the Chassidic classics, and so
>forth. Little wonder, then, that they do not know about the mystical
>discussions of the status of the tzadik and the subtle terminology of
>Theomorphic ascriptions (see the well-known interpretations of
>Ha'azinu 32:46-47 in Sifre and Yerushalmi-Pe'ah). If they will make
>the effort to study the works of the Toldot, the Kedushat Levi, the
>Tanya, and especially the No'am Elimelech (to name just a few), they
>would find there a very elaborate treatment of these "Torah
>hashkofos."
ROTFL The Chassidic Rebbe who looked this over is a descendant of one
the most illustrious Chasidic dynasties. He is quite familiar with
these seforim. Likewise, I can say that I have learned Toldos,
Kedushas Levi, Noam Elimeilech and Tanya (and many others.) There is
not a single word there that would be in contradiction to what Rabbi
Keller wrote, and what he complained against.
>Newspapers and popular journals are definitely not the forum to
>discuss such delicate themes (see Chagigah 11b-ff.). I suggest that
>they start with studying Tanya, Igeret Hakodesh, ch. 25, to
I fail to see the relevance of chapter 25. There is nothing there
about any of the issues at question.
>[7] Rabbi Keller identifies the Messianists' belief that the
>resurrected Rebbe will be Moshiach with, lehavdil, Christianity. This
>obscene analogy merely displays ignorance of both Judaism and,
>lehavdil, Christianity.
>Unlike the Meshichists, Christians (as well as the Sabbateans)
>believe that their savior was already the Messiah in actual, and that
According to the sources Rabbi Keller quoted ('In the Merit of the
Righteous Women) it says explicitly that the Lubavitcher Rebbe IS
Mochiach vadai. That is what Rabbi Keller wrote, and he quoted that
source. This attack is in fact false.
>There is not a single case of any Meshichists abrogating or changing
>a single mitzvah or aspect of Halachah! In fact, they continuously
>urge greater and more punctilious observance of Torah and mitzvot to
>hasten the redemption.
I thin introducing the recital of 'Yechi' as a part of the
daily/Shabbos service (before reading the Torah I believe) is a
definate change. (BTW this occured in 770 when I was there for a
Shabbos.)
>More specifically: is it possible for a resurrected tzadik to be
>Moshiach? According to Sanhedrin 98b most definitely yes!
I believe he answered this, and I could provide sources by FELLOW
LUBAVITCHERS who will show Rabbi Schochet his error.
>iota. The Almighty can appoint anyone He chooses to be Moshiach,
>whether he be - to use the Gemara's expression - "of the living or of
>the (presently) dead".
^^^^^^^^^^
He seems to have another Talmud then we do.
>Indeed, the Meshichists are not even original. Aside of the Gemara
>and the authorities that quote it (e.g., Abarbanel), no less an
>authority than R. Menachem Nachum of Czernobyl (author of Me'or
>Einayim) stated his conviction that the resurrected Baal Shem Tov
>will be Moshiach (see Sefer Baal Shem Tov, Me'irat Einayim, par. 23).
This is just another example of deception. Par 22 discusses the
nitzus of Moshiach. 23 does not even mention resurrection. And I am
sure that Rabbi Schochet knows about the famous letter of the Baal
Shem Tov where he wrote to his brother in law about his aliyos
nashamah where he SPOKE WITH MOSHIACH!!!! R. Nachum Chernobeler and
his grandson R. Yakov Yisroel of Cherkas knew of this letter.
>Unfortunately, Rabbi Keller dismisses Chassidus a priori, Rachmana
>litzlan. As a "normative Jew", however, let alone as a rosh yeshivah,
This is a red herring. He has an haskoma from a Chassidishe Rebbe so
what does that have to do with anything? This is just a personnal
attack on a talmud Chocham. There is no source for this in Chassidus
beklal and Chassidus chabad b'phrat. I am sure that Rabbi Schochet
knows that one of the complains that the Alter Rebbe had for Rebbe
Shlomoh Karliner had to do with showing the proper 'honor to talmidei
chochomim.'
Zev Sero
On 12 May 1998 20:03:06 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On 12 May 1998 00:38:17 GMT, Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> quoted
>Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet's response to Rabbi Keller's anti-meshichist
>polemic:
>: By applying the notorious device of "guilt by association," however,
>: his nine-page article is turned into an implicit and explicit attack
>: on Lubavitch and Chassidic practices.
>Actually, he explicitely limits his comments to the meshichists.
And then goes on to attack L and Ch beliefs and practices that are not
confined to the CHMJs, let alone to the handful of idolaters.
>: [1] First and foremost: what was the purpose or justification of the
>: article?
>
>For people within Lubavitch who haven't yet decided where they stand on the
>debate? For people who deal with meshichtsin, who might need to know their
>beliefs before doing so? For example, would you invite your local Chabad
>shaliach in to your shul to give a class on prayer if you knew that he
>believed it "ok" to pray to the Rebbe?
Would you invite someone to give a class on prayer if you knew that he
believed it was not "ok" to ask a tzadik to pray for one?
>: [3] Where did Rabbi Keller find a hetter to print, repeatedly and in
>: a public forum, words of blasphemy and idolatry, especially when
>: addressing an audience "who may be confused"?
>
>Footnote 1 of the article reads:
> AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article, as well as the quote from my previous article
> cited below, were reviewed, before they were published, by several widely
> respected Gedolei Torah - both Chassidic and non-Chassidic - who urged their
> publication.
>
>: why did these Gedolei Torah fail to issue some
>: statement of their own, or at least authorize a signed approbation to
>: Rabbi Keller's article?
>
>I don't know. Why does he fault Rabbi Keller for being unable to secure
>someone else's action?
I understand Rabbi Shochet to be saying that he suspects that there is a
very good reason why Rabbi Keller doesn't identify these Gedolei Torah,
because identifying them would not add to the article's credibility.
>: This raises the crucial question: whose interpretation of the sources
>: referred to is acceptable? Is it the one of the authoritative
>: commentators or Rabbi Keller's?
>
>: More specifically: is it possible for a resurrected tzadik to be
>: Moshiach? According to Sanhedrin 98b most definitely yes!
>
>IOW, after all this, Rabbi Schochet DEFENDS the position of the meshichtzin
>and the article he earlier calls "disgusting".
And here is where we see how justified Rabbi Shochet's criticism is.
Nowhere does Rabbi Shochet call the belief in a dead messiah
`disgusting'. He does call the deification of a human being `obscene'
and `disgusting', and so it is. But it suits you and Rabbi Keller to
conflate the two positions, because you know very well that those who
deify the L Rebbe ChV could hold a convention in a chabadnitze (look it
up), and have been publicly condemned by the CHMJ leadership (e.g. the
CH Bet Din), so in order to attack L you must pretend that the CHMJs,
who do make up a large percentage of L, are identical with the idolaters
or at least are part of the same spectrum. For all the legitimate
criticism that can be made of the CHMJ position (and I have not been
reluctant to make such criticism, both on scj and to their faces), there
can be no comparison between that position and the idolatry exhibited by
a handful.
--
Zev Sero, Back in NY
zs...@bigfoot.com
Simcha Streltsov
Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: If Schochet or any of the other big people there would be open in
: their attacks, then no one would see a reason to say anything. If
: they would attack those acting incorrectly instead of those who are
: saying things they claim to agree with, no one would interfere.
I totally agree. To my shock I talked yeserday with one of the chabadnikim
who posts here sometimes, and he looked at things quite differently from me -
he started repeating R Shochet's et al words on how inappropriate
public remarks by R Keller are (if this person did not change his mind yet,
he can identify himself (_:)
and again, I am more concerned with this loss of intellectual integrity -
when the messenger is discussed prior and instead of the problem
(those sinners who like me
read newspapers can probably see a parallel in what some politicians do).
I am more ready to admit that Moshiach can come from the dead or unborn
than to revoke the idea that Hashem is Emet [truth]
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>On 12 May 1998 20:03:06 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>On 12 May 1998 00:38:17 GMT, Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com>
quoted
>>Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet's response to Rabbi Keller's
anti-meshichist
>>polemic:
>>: By applying the notorious device of "guilt by association,"
however,
>>: his nine-page article is turned into an implicit and explicit
attack
>>: on Lubavitch and Chassidic practices.
>>Actually, he explicitely limits his comments to the meshichists.
>And then goes on to attack L and Ch beliefs and practices that are not
>confined to the CHMJs, let alone to the handful of idolaters.
Zev there is not a single comment there that coul be seen as an
attack on 'Chassidus' by non-Lubavitcher Chasidim. Believe me onthat.
I know more in this area then you do. His words could have been
written by anyone in my Beis Midrash.
>>: [1] First and foremost: what was the purpose or justification of
the
>>: article?
>>For people within Lubavitch who haven't yet decided where they stand
on the
>>debate? For people who deal with meshichtsin, who might need to know
their
>>beliefs before doing so? For example, would you invite your local
Chabad
>>shaliach in to your shul to give a class on prayer if you knew that
he
>>believed it "ok" to pray to the Rebbe?
>Would you invite someone to give a class on prayer if you knew that he
>believed it was not "ok" to ask a tzadik to pray for one?
He said nothing against having a Tzaddik pray for you. Don't confuse
the matter. Even some Litveshe rabbs will pray for someone if asked.
>>: why did these Gedolei Torah fail to issue
some
>>: statement of their own, or at least authorize a signed approbation
to
>>: Rabbi Keller's article?
>>I don't know. Why does he fault Rabbi Keller for being unable to
secure
>>someone else's action?
>I understand Rabbi Shochet to be saying that he suspects that there is
a
>very good reason why Rabbi Keller doesn't identify these Gedolei
Torah,
>because identifying them would not add to the article's credibility.
Ever hear of fear of terrorism. You ever heard what happened to the
late Lubavitcher Rebbitsen's sister when the problem with Barry was
going on?
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>This is the problem. If anyone comments about any Lubavitcher, or
>anything Lubavitch does, they are attacked. It's almost as if one is
>not allowed to be Jewish if they do not follow what Lubavitch does.
Nu, what's the chidush? When he was alive the Lubavitcher Rebbe was
"the leader of world Jewry", "the leader of our generation", etc.
You can change your nusach to nusach Chabad, but once you daven
nusach Chabad, you are not allowed to change to any other nusach:
nusach Chabad is the one best nusach.
But that seems to be a chasidish thing in general: when I was growing
up, guys in kapotes and payess would walk around Lincoln Square Synaogue
during the silent Shmoneh Esreh and beg for money, allegedly for their
yeshivas. They had no respect for the prayers of Jews who happened
not to be wearing their uniform.
I've never seen this behavior during davening in Chasidic places.
Sure, beggars walk around and ask for money, but not during the
silent Shmoneh Esreh.
I keep saying that I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about
chasidim - that experience is a big part of it - "our begging is
more important than your davening, even when we're not actually
starving aniyim."
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Moshe Shulman
>From: sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov)
>Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: If Schochet or any of the other big people there would be open in
>: their attacks, then no one would see a reason to say anything. If
>: they would attack those acting incorrectly instead of those who are
>: saying things they claim to agree with, no one would interfere.
>I totally agree. To my shock I talked yeserday with one of the
chabadnikim
>who posts here sometimes, and he looked at things quite differently
from me -
>he started repeating R Shochet's et al words on how inappropriate
>public remarks by R Keller are (if this person did not change his mind
yet,
>he can identify himself (_:)
When we will see public remarks castigating the 'dead Messiah' cult
that exists there, then there will be no need for R. Keller or others
outside of Lubavitch to comment. Remember according to halacha, if
one says nothing, it indicates he is in agreement.
Harry Weiss
Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
: In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
: >This is the problem. If anyone comments about any Lubavitcher, or
: >anything Lubavitch does, they are attacked. It's almost as if one is
: >not allowed to be Jewish if they do not follow what Lubavitch does.
: Nu, what's the chidush? When he was alive the Lubavitcher Rebbe was
: "the leader of world Jewry", "the leader of our generation", etc.
: You can change your nusach to nusach Chabad, but once you daven
: nusach Chabad, you are not allowed to change to any other nusach:
: nusach Chabad is the one best nusach.
I was told by the Rabbi of local non Chabad O shul that one may change
from nusach ari or sefard to askenaz, but not visa versa. This behaviour
is not just Chassidim or Chabad.
: But that seems to be a chasidish thing in general: when I was growing
: up, guys in kapotes and payess would walk around Lincoln Square Synaogue
: during the silent Shmoneh Esreh and beg for money, allegedly for their
: yeshivas. They had no respect for the prayers of Jews who happened
: not to be wearing their uniform.
: I've never seen this behavior during davening in Chasidic places.
: Sure, beggars walk around and ask for money, but not during the
: silent Shmoneh Esreh.
I have never seen that. I have seen them walking around during
repetitition. What galls me are those who do not stand still and answer
for kedusha. I was in NY last Thanksgiving and someone like that came
over to me and started asking for money. I told the man in the long
coat, with a long beard and peyos that I don't give to non Jews. He
stared at me and walked on.
: I keep saying that I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about
: chasidim - that experience is a big part of it - "our begging is
: more important than your davening, even when we're not actually
: starving aniyim."
: --
: Jonathan Baker
: jjb...@panix.com
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Micha Berger
On Fri, 15 May 1998 04:20:22 GMT, Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom.com> wrote:
: I was told by the Rabbi of local non Chabad O shul that one may change
Such is the position of Rav Moshe -- for Ashkenazim. Reason being that Nusach
Ari and the nusach of other Chassidim (which we for some odd reason call
Sefard) are later inventions. Go 2 centuries back, and your ancestors davened
either Ashkenaz or true Sefard. It is therefore permissable to switch back to
that nusach.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5809 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 15-May-98)
Moshe Shulman
>From: hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss)
>: I've never seen this behavior during davening in Chasidic places.
>: Sure, beggars walk around and ask for money, but not during the
>: silent Shmoneh Esreh.
>I have never seen that. I have seen them walking around during
>repetitition. What galls me are those who do not stand still and
answer
>for kedusha. I was in NY last Thanksgiving and someone like that came
>over to me and started asking for money. I told the man in the long
>coat, with a long beard and peyos that I don't give to non Jews. He
>stared at me and walked on.
However, as Reb Zushya said, if you give to someone who is not
worthy, HaShem will reward you, even though you are not worthy.
Moshe Shulman
>From: jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>In <> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>>This is the problem. If anyone comments about any Lubavitcher, or
>>anything Lubavitch does, they are attacked. It's almost as if one is
>>not allowed to be Jewish if they do not follow what Lubavitch does.
>Nu, what's the chidush? When he was alive the Lubavitcher Rebbe was
>"the leader of world Jewry", "the leader of our generation", etc.
>You can change your nusach to nusach Chabad, but once you daven
>nusach Chabad, you are not allowed to change to any other nusach:
>nusach Chabad is the one best nusach.
:) Yes I am aware of the fantasies that are common there. Of course
evry Chasidic group thinks their Rebbe is the 'best' or 'greatest.'
The problem is that they expect everyone to agree with them. As to
Nusach, I sepnt some time studing this. It is a big can of worms. To
go from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sefard/Ari is allowed but no the opposite.
The problem is that the Nusach we call Sefard or Ari (Chabad) is
really a modified Ashkenaz. I use the Keser Nehora siddur which is
actually a little closer to Nusach Ari then the Chabad nusach, but it
is very far from real Sefard.
>But that seems to be a chasidish thing in general: when I was growing
>up, guys in kapotes and payess would walk around Lincoln Square
Synaogue
>during the silent Shmoneh Esreh and beg for money, allegedly for their
>yeshivas. They had no respect for the prayers of Jews who happened
>not to be wearing their uniform.
>I've never seen this behavior during davening in Chasidic places.
>Sure, beggars walk around and ask for money, but not during the
>silent Shmoneh Esreh.
The people who shnor in non-Chasidic places are different, and of a
different quality.
>I keep saying that I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about
>chasidim - that experience is a big part of it - "our begging is
>more important than your davening, even when we're not actually
>starving aniyim."
Most people who go are for Yeshivas or various institutions. I know
of people who support dozens of families by going around and
collecting money. Of course there are now a lot of Russians, and some
people of dubious character. However, as Reb Zushya said, if you give
Harry Weiss
Moshe Shulman (mshu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >From: hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss)
: >: I've never seen this behavior during davening in Chasidic places.
: >: Sure, beggars walk around and ask for money, but not during the
: >: silent Shmoneh Esreh.
: >repetitition. What galls me are those who do not stand still and
: answer
: >for kedusha. I was in NY last Thanksgiving and someone like that came
: >over to me and started asking for money. I told the man in the long
: >coat, with a long beard and peyos that I don't give to non Jews. He
: >stared at me and walked on.
: However, as Reb Zushya said, if you give to someone who is not
: worthy, HaShem will reward you, even though you are not worthy.
I will generally not turn down anyone who comes for money, but it is not
their worthiness I questioned it is their refusal to sayy Kadosh Kadosh
In Keudsha or even to stand still.
: --
: Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
: http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Zev Sero
On 14 May 1998 23:55:06, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) wrote:
>>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>On 12 May 1998 20:03:06 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>>On 12 May 1998 00:38:17 GMT, Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>quoted Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet's response to Rabbi Keller's
>>>anti-meshichist polemic:
>>>: By applying the notorious device of "guilt by association,"
>>>:however, his nine-page article is turned into an implicit and
>>>:explicit attack on Lubavitch and Chassidic practices.
>>>Actually, he explicitely limits his comments to the meshichists.
>>And then goes on to attack L and Ch beliefs and practices that are not
>>confined to the CHMJs, let alone to the handful of idolaters.
>Zev there is not a single comment there that coul be seen as an
>attack on 'Chassidus' by non-Lubavitcher Chasidim. Believe me onthat.
>I know more in this area then you do. His words could have been
>written by anyone in my Beis Midrash.
Going through the article in order:
He attacks the statement that a Rebbe is `atzmus umehus melubosh in a
guf'; that is a belief that is easy to misinterpret, but he doesn't
attack the misinterpretation, he explicitly attacks the belief itself,
while pretending that it's something that the CHMJs made up.
He attacks the belief - explicitly stated in the Zohar, and explained
at length in Tanya - that `a tzadik who had departed is found in all
the worlds even more than when he was alive'.
He goes on to attack an ad which urges people to increase their efforts
to *bring about* the geulah (not a sentiment of those who think the
geulah has already happened), and to keep up their connection with the
Rebbe.
He is peeved that people are encouraged to continue turning to the Rebbe
for help with their problems, just as they did when he was alive, and
attacks the ad for not telling people `to turn to Hakadosh Baruch Hu
with our innermost thoughts and deepest prayers, but to the Rebbe'. But
this objection is no stronger after the Rebbe's physical life than it
was during it, so attacking the very concept of seeking a tzadik's help
with one's problems. In this, he is attacking not just CHMJs, and not
just all L, but all Chasidim, and many other Jews too.
He attacks the concept of hiskashrus, and the practise of strengthening
ones hiskashrus by visualising oneself standing before the Rebbe (with
or without the aid of a photograph).
He attacks the practise of writing a letter to the Rebbe and placing it
between the pages of his writings. He also attacks the venerable Jewish
practise of seeking guidance by opening a sefer at random (ironically
aka `goral haGRA'), itself an adaptation of the earlier practise of
stopping a schoolchild at random and asking him to recite a passuk (a
practise which goes back at least as far as Mordechai Hatzadik). I will
admit that I am uncomfortable with the way that the CHMJs have combined
these two practises into one, and turned the Rebbe's letters into a
tool of divination, but if he is merely sharing my objection, it's his
responsibility to make clear that he acknowledges the validity of each
practise on its own.
These are a few clear examples of what Rabbi Shochet is talking about.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>Zev there is not a single comment there that coul be seen as an
>>attack on 'Chassidus' by non-Lubavitcher Chasidim. Believe me onthat.
>>I know more in this area then you do. His words could have been
>>written by anyone in my Beis Midrash.
>guf'; that is a belief that is easy to misinterpret, but he doesn't
>attack the misinterpretation, he explicitly attacks the belief itself,
>while pretending that it's something that the CHMJs made up.
He stated clearly that that was meant allagorically, and not
literally.
>He attacks the belief - explicitly stated in the Zohar, and explained
>at length in Tanya - that `a tzadik who had departed is found in all
>the worlds even more than when he was alive'.
Read him again. If you think that is literal, then you have not just
that Litvak, but many Chasidim against you. Chabad has it's own
language that is different from that of all other Chasidim, but to
take that language and misunderstand it makes YOu guilty of what
opponents say.
>He goes on to attack an ad which urges people to increase their
efforts
>to *bring about* the geulah (not a sentiment of those who think the
>geulah has already happened), and to keep up their connection with the
>Rebbe.
Because it was connected NOT to Moshaich, but to the secon coming of
the Rebbe.
>He is peeved that people are encouraged to continue turning to the
Rebbe
>for help with their problems, just as they did when he was alive, and
>attacks the ad for not telling people `to turn to Hakadosh Baruch Hu
>with our innermost thoughts and deepest prayers, but to the Rebbe'.
But
>this objection is no stronger after the Rebbe's physical life than it
>was during it, so attacking the very concept of seeking a tzadik's
help
>with one's problems. In this, he is attacking not just CHMJs, and not
>just all L, but all Chasidim, and many other Jews too.
Zev, are you really so ignorant of Chassidus? No one goes to a Rebbe
because of himself. The Rebbe, because he is close to HaShem, is like
Rebbe Yochanan going to Rebbe Channinah ben Dosa in the talmud. Do
people in Lubavitch learn so little about the Baal Shem Tov and the
derech HaChasidus, that they don't know this?
>He attacks the concept of hiskashrus, and the practise of
strengthening
>ones hiskashrus by visualising oneself standing before the Rebbe (with
>or without the aid of a photograph).
ROTFL. Every Litvak I know has a picture of Reb Moshe. I have a
picture of my Rebbe Shlita in my home office. You totally
misunderstand the issue.
>He attacks the practise of writing a letter to the Rebbe and placing
it
>between the pages of his writings. He also attacks the venerable
Jewish
>practise of seeking guidance by opening a sefer at random (ironically
>aka `goral haGRA'), itself an adaptation of the earlier practise of
>stopping a schoolchild at random and asking him to recite a passuk (a
>practise which goes back at least as far as Mordechai Hatzadik). I
will
>admit that I am uncomfortable with the way that the CHMJs have
combined
>these two practises into one, and turned the Rebbe's letters into a
>tool of divination, but if he is merely sharing my objection, it's his
>responsibility to make clear that he acknowledges the validity of each
>practise on its own.
He is attacking exactly what has made you uncomfortable. The practice
of Gorel HaGra was RARE. To write a LETTER (not a kvitel with names
of family members left at the Kosel or a grave site) is unknown. To
pray to a dead person that THAT PERSON should help is forbidden.
(Look at all the tshuvas that deal with prayers at the graves of
tzaddikim and what one should do.) his is not Judaism, or Chasidis
here. (BTW I travel very often to the graves of tzaddikim, like the
Skelener Rebbe ZT'L, as is common for Chasidim, and not once did I
hav ein mind to pray TO THE TZADDIK. BTW I have even had yeshuous
from those prayers.)
Zev Sero
On 20 May 1998 23:29:43, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) wrote:
>>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>Zev there is not a single comment there that coul be seen as an
>>>attack on 'Chassidus' by non-Lubavitcher Chasidim. Believe me onthat.
>>>I know more in this area then you do. His words could have been
>>>written by anyone in my Beis Midrash.
>>He attacks the statement that a Rebbe is `atzmus umehus melubosh in a
>>guf'; that is a belief that is easy to misinterpret, but he doesn't
>>attack the misinterpretation, he explicitly attacks the belief itself,
>>while pretending that it's something that the CHMJs made up.
>He stated clearly that that was meant allagorically, and not
>literally.
Er, no. He attacks it outright.
>>He attacks the belief - explicitly stated in the Zohar, and explained
>>at length in Tanya - that `a tzadik who had departed is found in all
>>the worlds even more than when he was alive'.
>Read him again. If you think that is literal, then you have not just
>that Litvak, but many Chasidim against you. Chabad has it's own
>language that is different from that of all other Chasidim, but to
>take that language and misunderstand it makes YOu guilty of what
>opponents say.
What's to misunderstand? The Tanya explains it at length, and the
ad that Keller attacked was precisely accurate; when the tzadik is
alive, he is limited by his body, so he's not available at all times
and in all places. But once he is free of those limitations, he can
be found in all the worlds, including this one, at any time and in
every place. There's no allegory here. Keller's real problem is
with the Zohar's statement, and he dresses it up in the clothes of
the zealot, casting the blame on the CHMJs.
>>He goes on to attack an ad which urges people to increase their
>>efforts to *bring about* the geulah (not a sentiment of those who
>>think the geulah has already happened), and to keep up their
>>connection with the Rebbe.
>Because it was connected NOT to Moshaich, but to the secon coming of
>the Rebbe.
There was nothing in the ad that he quoted to indicate that it was
not talking about Moshiach.
>>He is peeved that people are encouraged to continue turning to the
>>Rebbe for help with their problems, just as they did when he was
>>alive, and attacks the ad for not telling people `to turn to
>>Hakadosh Baruch Hu with our innermost thoughts and deepest prayers,
>>but to the Rebbe'. But this objection is no stronger after the
>>Rebbe's physical life than it was during it, so attacking the very
>>concept of seeking a tzadik's help with one's problems. In this,
>>he is attacking not just CHMJs, and not just all L, but all Chasidim,
>>and many other Jews too.
>Zev, are you really so ignorant of Chassidus? No one goes to a Rebbe
>because of himself. The Rebbe, because he is close to HaShem, is like
>Rebbe Yochanan going to Rebbe Channinah ben Dosa in the talmud. Do
>people in Lubavitch learn so little about the Baal Shem Tov and the
>derech HaChasidus, that they don't know this?
And your point is? First of all, it's not just that the Rebbe is a
tzadik, i.e. close to Hashem, but that he has a general neshama,
through which the blessings from Hashem are channeled to the individual
neshamot, so that to be helped one must have the Rebbe's help. But
leaving aside the details of *why* chasidim go to a Rebbe, the fact
is that they do, and the same reasons that they have for going while
he's alive apply equally after his passing. So Keller's attack is on
the practise itself, which is universal among chasidim. There was
nothing in the material he quoted which would not apply equaly to
your going to your Rebbe, Moshe.
>>He attacks the concept of hiskashrus, and the practise of
>>strengthening ones hiskashrus by visualising oneself standing before
>>the Rebbe (with or without the aid of a photograph).
>ROTFL. Every Litvak I know has a picture of Reb Moshe. I have a
>picture of my Rebbe Shlita in my home office. You totally
>misunderstand the issue.
You posted the article; maybe you should read it again. He
attacks the concept of hiskashrus, and he attacks the practise
of visualising the Rebbe's image. And Litvaks may have photos
in their homes, but they don't practise hiskashrus, and they
don't conjure up the image of their leaders in their minds in
order to maintain the bond. Or at least, AFAIK. If they do,
of course, then Keller's attack is not only hateful but
hypocritical as well, so your `defense' of him only makes things
worse.
>>He attacks the practise of writing a letter to the Rebbe and placing
>>it between the pages of his writings. He also attacks the venerable
>>Jewish practise of seeking guidance by opening a sefer at random
>>(ironically aka `goral haGRA'), itself an adaptation of the earlier
>>practise of stopping a schoolchild at random and asking him to recite
>>a passuk (a practise which goes back at least as far as Mordechai
>>Hatzadik). I will admit that I am uncomfortable with the way that
>>the CHMJs have combined these two practises into one, and turned the
>>Rebbe's letters into a tool of divination, but if he is merely sharing
>>my objection, it's his responsibility to make clear that he acknowledges
>>the validity of each practise on its own.
>He is attacking exactly what has made you uncomfortable. The practice
>of Gorel HaGra was RARE. To write a LETTER (not a kvitel with names
>of family members left at the Kosel or a grave site) is unknown. To
>pray to a dead person that THAT PERSON should help is forbidden.
>(Look at all the tshuvas that deal with prayers at the graves of
>tzaddikim and what one should do.) his is not Judaism, or Chasidis
>here. (BTW I travel very often to the graves of tzaddikim, like the
>Skelener Rebbe ZT'L, as is common for Chasidim, and not once did I
>hav ein mind to pray TO THE TZADDIK. BTW I have even had yeshuous
>from those prayers.)
The material that Keller quoted and attacked had nothing to do with
praying *to* the Rebbe, as opposed to asking the Rebbe to intercede
on one's behalf. That is entirely in your mind, and in Keller's.
The practise of writing a PaN and placing it in the writings of the
person to whom it is addressed is well documented from long before
5754. And meanwhile people are reading the L Rebbe's letters, which
they wouldn't if this divination craze hadn't come up, so IMHO it's
worth it. The existance of Goral HaGRA, however rare, is enough to
justify this practise halachically. My point is that any attack on
it must be careful to point out that each part of this new custom
on its own is OK, and it's only the combination that's being attacked.
And even so, it's not such a terrible thing, and on the whole it's
probably a good thing. And in fact, some people undoubtedly *are*
receiving genuine answers; it's hardly beyond the L Rebbe's ability
to send an answer in such a way, though one can certainly not rely
on such an answer, any more than one can rely on `asking in a dream'
(cf Teshuvot min Hashamayim).
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>He goes on to attack an ad which urges people to increase their
>>>efforts to *bring about* the geulah (not a sentiment of those who
>>>think the geulah has already happened), and to keep up their
>>>connection with the Rebbe.
>>Because it was connected NOT to Moshaich, but to the secon coming of
>>the Rebbe.
>There was nothing in the ad that he quoted to indicate that it was
>not talking about Moshiach.
Zev, you and I and everyone reading that article knew who THEY meant
by Moshiach. Be serious.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
Zev, I will not deal with the inyan of 'general nashama' since that
is a belief (some would call fantasy) of Lubavitchers as to the level
of their Rebbe in comparison to others, and not a quality of a
'Rebbe.' However here is what Rabbi Keller said on the issue of
prayer To a Rebbe:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"More recently, a full-page ad featured in The New York Times advised
readers: 'The Rebbe, no longer bound by physical limitations, is
accessible to all of us, everywhere. Anyone, however great or humble,
can turn to him with their innermost thoughts and deepest prayers.
There are no barriers. There is no need to make pilgrimage or stand
on line to receive his blessing.' (3)
-----------------------------------------------------------
What we are being asked by the Messianists to accept as normative
Yiddishkeit is a deified Rebbe/Messiah-centered religion. We are told
to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Rebbe, who is
the physical incarnation of G-d, to whom we should direct our
prayers, and that the mitzvos should be performed in order to bring
about his second coming.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Of course, this does not remain with faith alone, but is translated
into action by directing prayers TO the Rebbe. All of the 'sources'
that indicate one can ask tzaddikim to intercede for him with their
prayers to HaShem have no bearing on praying TO the tzaddik. Praying
to the tzaddik, upon whom one has conferred the qualities of
omniscience and omnipotence, is avoda zara.
-----------------------------------------------------------
pertains to him.' - 'I believe with perfect faith that to the
Creator, blessed be His Name, alone is it proper to pray, and that it
is wrong to pray to any other.' - I believe that the Creator knows
all the actions of man and all their thoughts'; and this is the
exclusive property of HaShem.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zev, if you say that it is a part of Chasidus to pray TO a Tzaddik
that the Tzaddik should help, then I have to say that you know
nothing of Judaism b'klal and Chassidus b'frat. I could bring pages
of Chassidishe Toras and meisos contradicting such an avodah zara
idea as that. It is not 'universal' among Chasidim to pray to
pictures of their Rebbes for help. It is not 'universal' to believe
that one needs to pray to anyone other then HaShem. If we go to a
Tzaddik it is that he should pray for us. If you don't understand
what a tzaddik is I suggest you get the sefer 'Teferes Shlomoh' which
is founded on the midah of Yesod, and talks about Tzaddikim very
often. I have seen NOTHING in tanya or any other Chassidishe sefer,
either from Chabad or any other group which indicates such a thing.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
This is absolutly false. There are people who do pray to pictures,
which is what he was saying. Look at the following from Beis
Moshiach:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miracles In Our Time - vol 1 #32
BS"D
by: Yehudis Engel
Volume 1 Number 32
THE REBBE TO THE TEST
Arlene Gray, lives in California, and is an ardent follower of the
Rebbe. Being a resident of California she knew what earthquakes felt
like. But having a teenage daughter, made her feel that she also knew
what tornadoes feel like; that was generally what her daughter's room
looked like. It was in the midst of all this clutter that Arlene
found a picture of the Rebbe, lying around. Feeling that it was not
being treated with the proper respect, she took the picture and put
it into her handbag.
Later the same day which was a Friday, Arlene was involved in a near
fatal accident, which Thank G-D turned out to be minor. Arlene
thought to herself: "was it the Rebbe's picture (in her handbag),
that saved her? Or perhaps I am over-dramatizing the entire
situation. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the picture!"
As it got closer to Shabbos, Arlene decided to go to a particular
supermarket for certain sale items for the Shabbos dessert.
She parked her car in the supermarket parking lot above the store and
took the elevator down to the store. When she finished her shopping,
she once again took the elevator up to the parking lot. In her haste
to get home for Shabbos she got out of the elevator on the wrong
level and decided to just walk up with the emergency steps rather
than wait for the elevator. She walked up a flight of stairs and
could not open the door to get out. She promptly turned back to go
back down but the door (an exit door, with no handle on the outside),
had shut behind her, leaving her virtually trapped in this emergency
exit stairwell.
Arlene began to bang on the door hoping that someone in the parking
lot would hear her and come to her rescue. No matter how she banged
and called for help, it was to no avail. Now she began to get
frantic, knowing that her family was unaware of where she was and
therefore would have no idea where to look for her. Once again, she
banged on the door shouting for help but no one seemed to hear her.
In sheer desperation, she felt that she had only one last resort, she
took out the picture of the Rebbe and asked the Rebbe to help her out
of this situation. No sooner did she make her request .when suddenly
the door opened. There stood the supervisor of the supermarket
totally amazed at seeing someone there. Arlene could not thank him
enough for coming to her rescue. After explaining how she got
trapped, she asked the man if he heard her shouting for help. The man
answered that not only did he not hear her, but she could have been
stuck there for ages as people generally didn't walk past that door.
"I was on the top level of the parking lot when suddenly something
pushed me to go check the stairwell. For some strange reason I felt
that someone might be stuck there, though no one ever uses those
steps and they are very seldom checked."
Arlene was now quite convinced of the power of even a picture of the
Rebbe. She is careful to always have the Rebbe with her wherever she
goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The practise of writing a PaN and placing it in the writings of the
>person to whom it is addressed is well documented from long before
>5754. And meanwhile people are reading the L Rebbe's letters, which
Maybe in Lubavitch, but not outside of that. the only PN I have found
in a sefer, is when I found one my Rebbe had been given in a sefer of
his. :)
>they wouldn't if this divination craze hadn't come up, so IMHO it's
>worth it. The existance of Goral HaGRA, however rare, is enough to
>justify this practise halachically. My point is that any attack on
I am not talking 'halacha' I am talking Chassidus. No support for it.
Lubavitch all the years, was like all the other groups (excluding
Breslov) which held that one needed a physical Rebbe.
>it must be careful to point out that each part of this new custom
>on its own is OK, and it's only the combination that's being attacked.
Where do we see that Chasidim can be machadish a new minhag that
their Rebbe did not tell them to do? (I also thought that the
claimwas that they did not create new minhagim etc.)
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>He attacks the concept of hiskashrus, and the practise of
>>>strengthening ones hiskashrus by visualising oneself standing before
>>>the Rebbe (with or without the aid of a photograph).
>>ROTFL. Every Litvak I know has a picture of Reb Moshe. I have a
>>picture of my Rebbe Shlita in my home office. You totally
>>misunderstand the issue.
>You posted the article; maybe you should read it again. He
>attacks the concept of hiskashrus, and he attacks the practise
>of visualising the Rebbe's image. And Litvaks may have photos
>in their homes, but they don't practise hiskashrus, and they
>don't conjure up the image of their leaders in their minds in
>order to maintain the bond. Or at least, AFAIK. If they do,
>of course, then Keller's attack is not only hateful but
>hypocritical as well, so your `defense' of him only makes things
>worse.
Here is what he said:
-----------------------------------------------------------
To 'connect to the Rebbe' (hiskashrus im HaRebbe) - Chasidim close
their eyes and conjure up the image of the Rebbe (8). School children
are being taught to kiss the Rebbe's picture just as they kiss the
mezuza.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The idea of 'hiskashus' with a Rebbe by looking at a picture is
non-existant. There is an inyan of having an image of a tzaddik, but
that is not for hiskashrus, but because one has an hashpoah from
that. It need not even be your own Rebbe. (See Chesed L'Avraham for a
discussion of this inyan.) Certainly there is no mention of this in
any non-Chabad Chasidic sefer, nor those of Chabad that I have
learned. (In my younger days I learned quite a lot. Not just Tanya,
and Lekutei Torah, but some of the later Rebbes also, including the
Reshab, and his son. Also from other Chabad branches like Rebbe Aron
of Steriseliah, and Kopist.) In fact in Lekutei Dibirim he states
that the highest level of hiskashrus is through a niggun (a Torah is
less then that, but visualization was not mentioned.) As to kissing
pictures of Rebbes, I will not comment more then to say that it is
just goyish.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
Zev there are a lot of things here and Iwill answer them each in a
seperate message to keep things clearer and more focused.
>On 20 May 1998 23:29:43, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) wrote:
>>>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>>Zev there is not a single comment there that coul be seen as an
>>>>attack on 'Chassidus' by non-Lubavitcher Chasidim. Believe me
onthat.
>>>>I know more in this area then you do. His words could have been
>>>>written by anyone in my Beis Midrash.
>>>He attacks the statement that a Rebbe is `atzmus umehus melubosh in
a
>>>guf'; that is a belief that is easy to misinterpret, but he doesn't
>>>attack the misinterpretation, he explicitly attacks the belief
itself,
>>>while pretending that it's something that the CHMJs made up.
>>He stated clearly that that was meant allagorically, and not
>>literally.
>Er, no. He attacks it outright.
No Zev here is what he said:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Messianists 'sources' for 'equating Tzaddikim with HaShem' are
obviously not to be taken literally, but are to be understood as
referring to certain attributes of HaShem which apply to the
Tzaddikim, or as speaking of HaShem's spirit resting on the
tzaddikim. If we say that these sources 'prove' that HaShem's 'Being
and Essence' is clothed in a body, we are guilty of the same
idolatrous error as saying that the Creator has hands and feet. (5)
-----------------------------------------------------------
He clearly states that this idea is an allegory which the
meshichistan misunderstand. He is correct. Look at the hakdamah to
Eitz Chaim (reprented at the end of Kuntres Eitz Chaim from the
Reshab) where he discusses that kabbalistic terms, like tzimtzum, are
not to be taken literally.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>He attacks the belief - explicitly stated in the Zohar, and
explained
>>>at length in Tanya - that `a tzadik who had departed is found in all
>>>the worlds even more than when he was alive'.
>>Read him again. If you think that is literal, then you have not just
>>that Litvak, but many Chasidim against you. Chabad has it's own
>>language that is different from that of all other Chasidim, but to
>>take that language and misunderstand it makes YOu guilty of what
>>opponents say.
>What's to misunderstand? The Tanya explains it at length, and the
>ad that Keller attacked was precisely accurate; when the tzadik is
>alive, he is limited by his body, so he's not available at all times
>and in all places. But once he is free of those limitations, he can
>be found in all the worlds, including this one, at any time and in
>every place. There's no allegory here. Keller's real problem is
>with the Zohar's statement, and he dresses it up in the clothes of
>the zealot, casting the blame on the CHMJs.
Here is what he says:
-----------------------------------------------------------
To cite sources from Zohar that the souls of departed tzaddikim are
found in all worlds more then in their lifetime and that they shield
the world after their death, to justify an ad that is entitled "The
Third of Tammuz is not the Rebbe's Yahrzeit" is absurd.
The Zohar is referring to dead tzaddikim, whose yahrzeits are
observed. The Messianists, however, still consider the Rebbe alive -
even call him the Rebbe Shlita and speak of him in the present tense.
Moshe Rabbeinu died, Avraham Avinu died - but the Rebbe lives on!
This may not be avoda zara per se, but it is surely not normative
Yiddishkeit, and is the door that opens to avoda zara. Once a hero
has been immortalized, the process of deification is not far behind.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in Tanya that contradicts what he is saying, nor do
you seem to understand what the Zohar means. I suggest looking at the
Ari Shaar HaMitzvos V'Yichi on when to stop saying kaddish and why.
Also look at the end of chapter 27 of the fourth part of Tanya where
the correct understanding is given. (Based on the statement of the
Zohar 'espashtiso d'Moshe ...') Rabbi Keller's point is that it is
absurd to say that the L Rebbe didn't die based on that since we are
dealing with a Tzaddik who has died. This stuff is so simple that it
is absurd to have to discuss it, and it is just not correct to attack
Rabbi Keller, who is not in error in what he has said on this point.
Zev Sero
On 22 May 1998 03:51:04 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
>No Zev here is what he said:
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>The Messianists 'sources' for 'equating Tzaddikim with HaShem' are
>obviously not to be taken literally, but are to be understood as
>referring to certain attributes of HaShem which apply to the
>Tzaddikim, or as speaking of HaShem's spirit resting on the
>tzaddikim. If we say that these sources 'prove' that HaShem's 'Being
>and Essence' is clothed in a body, we are guilty of the same
>idolatrous error as saying that the Creator has hands and feet. (5)
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>He clearly states that this idea is an allegory which the
>meshichistan misunderstand. He is correct. Look at the hakdamah to
>Eitz Chaim (reprented at the end of Kuntres Eitz Chaim from the
>Reshab) where he discusses that kabbalistic terms, like tzimtzum, are
>not to be taken literally.
Read the whole article more carefully. He takes `atzmus umehus
melubash in a guf' as the *conclusion* of those who misunderstand
allegories. It is the very langage that he attacks, not their
understanding of it. Because the vast majority of CHMJs *do*
understand that belief correctly, despite the appearance of one
article (which Rabbi Shochet calls `obscene') in Beis Moshiach,
whose author seems to have misunderstood it. In the footnotes,
Keller specifically attacks the language `atzmus umehus' as a
heresy, contrasting it with `shechina' which he implies he would
have accepted as OK.
Zev Sero
On 22 May 1998 03:51:37 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
>Here is what he says:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>To cite sources from Zohar that the souls of departed tzaddikim are
>found in all worlds more then in their lifetime and that they shield
>the world after their death, to justify an ad that is entitled "The
>Third of Tammuz is not the Rebbe's Yahrzeit" is absurd.
>
>The Zohar is referring to dead tzaddikim, whose yahrzeits are
>observed. The Messianists, however, still consider the Rebbe alive -
>even call him the Rebbe Shlita and speak of him in the present tense.
>Moshe Rabbeinu died, Avraham Avinu died - but the Rebbe lives on!
>This may not be avoda zara per se, but it is surely not normative
>Yiddishkeit, and is the door that opens to avoda zara. Once a hero
>has been immortalized, the process of deification is not far behind.
Those who claim that the L Rebbe is still physically alive *don't* use
this Zohar, because it clearly says `tzadika de'ispatar' (a tzadik who
has *died*). There was nothing in the material he quoted on this
point to show that it was from the POV of someone who thinks that the
Rebbe didn't die. Thus, his attack is in fact on the belief that a
tzadik who has *died* is found in all the worlds more than when he was
limited by his body, because that's all that the material he quoted
was saying.
Zev Sero
>>>>He goes on to attack an ad which urges people to increase their
>>>>efforts to *bring about* the geulah (not a sentiment of those who
>>>>think the geulah has already happened), and to keep up their
>>>>connection with the Rebbe.
>>>Because it was connected NOT to Moshaich, but to the secon coming of
>>>the Rebbe.
>>There was nothing in the ad that he quoted to indicate that it was
>>not talking about Moshiach.
>Zev, you and I and everyone reading that article knew who THEY meant
>by Moshiach. Be serious.
Even if true, what difference does that make? They're still enouraging
people to do mitzvot to bring about the geulah, surely a good thing. If
they think that when Moshiach comes he will turn out to be the L Rebbe,
then they'll be in for a surprise, but it doesn't change the fact that
all they said in the ad was that we must work to *bring* Moshiach, and
*that* is what Keller attacked. They did *not* say to do mitzvot to
bring the Rebbe, they said to bring the geulah, and that is a goal that
all O Jews are bound to support. And those who believe that the geula
has already come, and all we need to do is `crown the king' by
recognising him as Melech Hamoshiach, would *not* be trying to `bring
about the geula', because according to them it's already here. They
claim that even `shining the buttons' is now over, and the *entire*
focus must be, not on the `old' mivtzoim but on `Yechi'; they'd rather
someone say `yechi' and not put on tefillin than that he put on tefilin
and not say `yechi'. This ad is clearly not from that POV.
Zev Sero
On 22 May 1998 03:52:53 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
>Zev, if you say that it is a part of Chasidus to pray TO a Tzaddik
>that the Tzaddik should help, then I have to say that you know
>nothing of Judaism b'klal and Chassidus b'frat.
And there was *nothing* in the material that Keller quoted to indicate
that it was encouraging anyone to pray *to* the Rebbe in that sense.
People went to the L Rebbe with their problems while he was alive,
both so that he should pray for them, and because chasidim believe that
the blessings from above are channelled through a tzadik.
>It is not 'universal' among Chasidim to pray to pictures of their
>Rebbes for help.
Of course not, and Keller quoted nothing that even remotely indicated
that people should pray to a picture, ChV. Pictures are used to
strengthen hiskashrus, a different thing entirely from asking the
Rebbe for help with ones problems. The Rebbe wrote that one way to
strenghten hiskashrus is to conjure up the Rebbe's image in ones mind;
that those who were ever in yechidus with the Rebbe should picture
themselves back in that situation, etc. Photos can help with this.
It has nothing to do with prayer, and I would agree that a photo that
is prayed to should be destroyed, and even a photo that isn't prayed
to but that someone puts in front of him while he prays, should be
hidden away becase of mar'it ha'ayin.
Zev Sero
On 22 May 1998 03:53:24 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
>In fact in Lekutei Dibirim he states
>that the highest level of hiskashrus is through a niggun (a Torah is
>less then that, but visualization was not mentioned.)
See the L Rebbe's letter on the first yortzeit of his father in law
(whom, BTW, he had no hesitation in referring to as Ztzkllhh, etc,
even in the very first letter that he sent, on the day after shiva
was over. The CHMJ's insistence in not using those abbreviations is
just one more of their bizarre practises that alienate me from them,
and make me feel really strange about defending them here. But
however bizarre they are, BH they're not heretics, let alone idolaters
ChV).
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
I think the same logic applies to those Jewish Christians who also
keep mitzvos. Stop reading into what they wrote what YOU would like
it to mean. What they meant is what he commented on.
>about the geula', because according to them it's already here. They
>claim that even `shining the buttons' is now over, and the *entire*
>focus must be, not on the `old' mivtzoim but on `Yechi'; they'd rather
>someone say `yechi' and not put on tefillin than that he put on
tefilin
>and not say `yechi'. This ad is clearly not from that POV.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe Z'L himself said that, but at the same time he
said that one had to do mitzvos etc.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
Zev he is refering to RDM's answer justifying the views of the
meshugganah meshichistan.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>No Zev here is what he said:
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>The Messianists 'sources' for 'equating Tzaddikim with HaShem' are
>>obviously not to be taken literally, but are to be understood as
>>referring to certain attributes of HaShem which apply to the
>>Tzaddikim, or as speaking of HaShem's spirit resting on the
>>tzaddikim. If we say that these sources 'prove' that HaShem's 'Being
>>and Essence' is clothed in a body, we are guilty of the same
>>idolatrous error as saying that the Creator has hands and feet. (5)
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>He clearly states that this idea is an allegory which the
>>meshichistan misunderstand. He is correct. Look at the hakdamah to
>>Eitz Chaim (reprented at the end of Kuntres Eitz Chaim from the
>>Reshab) where he discusses that kabbalistic terms, like tzimtzum, are
>>not to be taken literally.
>Read the whole article more carefully. He takes `atzmus umehus
>melubash in a guf' as the *conclusion* of those who misunderstand
>allegories. It is the very langage that he attacks, not their
No ZEV. He says (as I quoted above) that it is allegory, and no where
does he change that POV. You forget I POSTED the article and I have
it on my hard drive. I checked ever reference tothis issue, and you
are wrong. If you disagree, go to Deja News and find a passage that
you think supports you. You will not find one. What he wrote on this
issue is what all SHOULD agree to.
>whose author seems to have misunderstood it. In the footnotes,
>Keller specifically attacks the language `atzmus umehus' as a
>heresy, contrasting it with `shechina' which he implies he would
>have accepted as OK.
Read that footnote again. He is commenting on an idiotic comment of
RDM which R. Keller correctly showed to be absurd and baseless.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>On 22 May 1998 03:52:53 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
>wrote:
>>Zev, if you say that it is a part of Chasidus to pray TO a Tzaddik
>>that the Tzaddik should help, then I have to say that you know
>>nothing of Judaism b'klal and Chassidus b'frat.
>And there was *nothing* in the material that Keller quoted to indicate
>that it was encouraging anyone to pray *to* the Rebbe in that sense.
>People went to the L Rebbe with their problems while he was alive,
>both so that he should pray for them, and because chasidim believe
that
>the blessings from above are channelled through a tzadik.
Again you ignored what he said specifically:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"More recently, a full-page ad featured in The New York Times advised
readers: 'The Rebbe, no longer bound by physical limitations, is
accessible to all of us, everywhere. Anyone, however great or humble,
can turn to him with their innermost thoughts and deepest prayers.
There are no barriers. There is no need to make pilgrimage or stand
on line to receive his blessing.' (3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. The advertisement, entitled 'The Third of Tammuz is Not the
Rebbe's Yahrzeit', sponsored by Shofar Association of America Inc,
820 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, appeared in the Times on July 8, '97.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That is praying to the Rebbe.
>>It is not 'universal' among Chasidim to pray to pictures of their
>>Rebbes for help.
>Of course not, and Keller quoted nothing that even remotely indicated
>that people should pray to a picture, ChV. Pictures are used to
>strengthen hiskashrus, a different thing entirely from asking the
>Rebbe for help with ones problems. The Rebbe wrote that one way to
>strenghten hiskashrus is to conjure up the Rebbe's image in ones mind;
>that those who were ever in yechidus with the Rebbe should picture
>themselves back in that situation, etc. Photos can help with this.
>It has nothing to do with prayer, and I would agree that a photo that
>is prayed to should be destroyed, and even a photo that isn't prayed
>to but that someone puts in front of him while he prays, should be
>hidden away becase of mar'it ha'ayin.
Zev, I already posted one example of praying to a picture from Beis
Moshiach. There are MANY MORE there. You are distorting what exists.
Zev Sero
On 22 May 1998 18:48:36 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
>>then they'll be in for a surprise, but it doesn't change the fact that
>>all they said in the ad was that we must work to *bring* Moshiach, and
>>*that* is what Keller attacked. They did *not* say to do mitzvot to
>>bring the Rebbe, they said to bring the geulah, and that is a goal
>>that all O Jews are bound to support. And those who believe that the
>>geula
>I think the same logic applies to those Jewish Christians who also
>keep mitzvos.
If they keep mitzvot, and don't believe that Jesus is a god, and the
only difference between them and mainstream Jews is that they think
he's Moshiach (i.e. they've reverted to the first generation of pre-
Pauline Xians), then they're O Jews, even if a bit strange, and the
O community would have no grounds on which to exclude them. That's
the psak that I've heard in the name of R Bleich, as well as my LOR,
well before 1994, when there was no thought that such a belief would
ever become prevalent in Lubavitch, so there's no question of either
Rabbi being biased.
Moshe Shulman
Zev Sero
On 25 May 1998 21:49:46 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
>>the psak that I've heard in the name of R Bleich, as well as my LOR,
>>well before 1994, when there was no thought that such a belief would
>>ever become prevalent in Lubavitch, so there's no question of either
>>Rabbi being biased.
>
>Well it appears that Rabbi Keller would disagree.
Then he should make his disagreement explicit, and bring sources for it.
A mere distaste for Xianity is not sufficient.